HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2003/03/03~~IJi
r_i~-Ti.
cm c~
CHUTA VISTA ~~I~L/vvi
Department of Planning and Building
Date: February 24, 2003
To: Chairperson and Members of the Resource Conservation Commission
From: Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager ~, ,
Subject: Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment - Interstate 805/Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange Project
The above-noted Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) is being forwarded to you for
your review and comment. The Draft IS/EA was circulated fora 30-day public review period
beginning on February 7, 2003. The public review period for the iS/EA will end on March 10, 2003.
The Draft IS/EA has been scheduled for discussion at the March 3, 2003 RCC meeting. If you
should have any questions regarding this document, please contact me at 409-5992. Thank you for
your time and efforts in this matter.
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
February 7, 2003
~:
CITY OF C~-RICA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910-2631
and
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11
2829 Juan Street
San Diego, California 92186-5406
General Information About This Document
What's in this document?
This document is a proposed Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, which examines the
potential environmental impacts of alternatives for the proposed project located in San Diego
County, California. The document describes why the project is being proposed, alternative
methods for constructing the project, the existing environment that could be affected by the
project, and potential impacts from each of the alternatives.
What should you do?
• Please read this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment
• We welcome your comments. If you have any concerns regarding the proposed project,
please attend the Public Hearing/Information Meeting on February 24, 2003 and/or send your
written comments to Caltrans by the deadline. Submit comments via regular mail to Caltrans,
Attn: Jason A. Reynolds, Environmental Branch A, Chief, 2829 Juan Street, MS 46, P.O.
Box 85406, San Diego, CA 92186-5406; submit comments via email to
Jason.A.Reynolds@dot. ca.gov
• Submit comments by the deadline: March 10, 2003
What happens after this?
After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, Caltrans and the City of
Chula Vista may (1) give environmental approval to the proposed project, (2) undertake
additional environmental studies, or (3) abandon the project. If the project were given
environmental approval and funding were appropriated, the City of Chula Vista could design and
construct all or part of the project.
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document may be made available in Braille, large
print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To request a copy in one of these alternate formats,
please call or write to Caltrans, Attn: Jason Reynolds, Environmental Branch A, Chief, 2829
Juan Street, MS 46, P.O. Box 85406, San Diego, CA 92186-5406; Phone: (619) 688-0102
(Voice), or use the California Relay Service TTY number, 1-800-735-2929.
INTERSTATE 805/ EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
11-SD-805; K.P. 5.9/ 81. (P.M. 3.7/ 5.0)
INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(EA 156580 and 234000)
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
California Department of Transportation (Department)
Pursuant to: 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) National Environmental Policy Act
Division 13, Public Resources Code California Environmental Quality Act
" 1GLh~L%~f ' ~~~~ ~x
Marilyn Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
_ --~
c~ ~~~
Charles "Muggs" Stoll
Deputy District Director, Environmental Division
District 11
California Department of Transportation
r
Gary H b
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Region Nine
Date
l~~/~~° ~
Date
o z~a3/o 3
Date
ABSTRACT. The projeet involves modifying existing freeway ramps, lanes, overcrossing and adjacent surface streets at the I-
805/Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Pazk Drive interchanges. Two design alternatives and the no action
alternative are evaluated in the Draft IS/EA. Potential beneficial effects associated with the project include reduced traffic
congestion and increased levels of service and safety
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SCH No.
11-SD-805
K.P 5,9/8.1 (P.M. 3.7/5.0)
IS-00-49
EA 156580 and EA 234000
Prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 Public Resources Code).
Project Description Summary
The proposed project consists of modifying and improving the existing diamond interchange at I-805 and
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, adding a second lane to the southbound I-805 off-ramp at Main
Street/Auto Park Drive, and adding auxiliary lanes to portions of the north- and southbound mainline
freeway between East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive. The
proposed project also includes a number of noise abatement barriers along the I-805 corridor and East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway based on the results of the project Acoustical Assessment and a
"feasible and reasonable' analysis completed as part of the project design process.
Determination
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed Interstate 805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
Interchange project by the City of Chula Vista. Based on that analysis, the City has determined that the
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: (1) no
significant impacts from the proposed project were identified for the issues of land use and planning,
population and housing, social and economic, air quality, transportation/circulation, energy and mineral
resources, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, local service thresholds, utilities and service
systems, cultural resources, and recreation; and (2) potentially significant impacts identified for the issues
of geology/topography, hydrology/water quality, biological resources, noise, aesthetics and
paleontological resources would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through identified
design and mitigation measures.
MARILYN PONSEGGI
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
CHARLES "MUGGS" STOLL
Deputy District Director, Environmental Division
District 11
Califorrua Department of Transportation
Interstate 805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange
Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Paee
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ .........1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... .........1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ........................................................................ ......... 6
2.1 General Project Objectives ............................................................................................ .........6
2.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................ .........7
2.3 Existing and Projected Transportation and Safety Issues ........................................ .........8
2.3.1 Transportation/Circulation ............................................................................... .........8
2.3.2 Safety .................................................................................................................... .......10
2.4 Compatibility with Transit Facilities ........................................................................... .......11
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ........................ .......12
3.1 Alternative 1: East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment ...................... .......12
3.1.1 East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway -Freeway Overcrossing ............. .......13
3.1.2 North and Southbound I-805 Off-Ramps to
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway .................................................... .......14
3.1.3 North and Southbound I-805 On-Ramps from
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway .................................................... .......14
3.1.4 Olympic Parkway -East of I-805 ...................................................................... .......14
3.1.5 East Orange Avenue -West of I-805 ................................................................ .......15
3.1.6 Southbound I-805 Off-Ramp to Main Street/Auto Park Drive ................... ........16
3.1.7 Mainline I-S05 Freeway ..................................................................................... ........16
3.2 Alternative 2: Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment ... ........17
3.3 Altemative 3: No Project ............................................................................................. ........18
3.4 Alternatives Withdrawn from Consideration ........................................................... ........18
3.5 Related Projects ............................................................................................................. ........19
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................... ........21
5.0 ENV IRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................ ........22
5.1 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................ ........23
5.2 Population and Housing .............................................................................................. ........26
5.3 Social and Economic ..................................................................................................... ........27
5.4 Geology/Topography .................................................................................................. ........33
5.5 Hydrology/Water Quality .......................................................................................... ........41
5.6 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... ........47
5.7 Transportation/Circulation ......................................................................................... ........50
5.8 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... ........54
5.9 Energy and Mineral Resources ................................................................................... ........57
5.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ ........59
5.11 Noise ............................................................................................................................... ........62
5.12 Public Services ............................................................................................................... ........71
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Title
Paee
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (cont.)
5.13 Local Service Thresholds .................................................................................................. ... 72
5.14 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... ...74
5.15 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ ...76
5.16 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. ...81
5.17 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................................ ...83
5.18 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... ...84
6.0 SUMMARY CEQA EVALUATION ........................................................................................... ...85
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ ... 85
6.2 Evaluation of Project Impacts Under CEQA .................................................................. ...85
CEQA Environmental Evaluation Checklist .................................................................. ...86
6.2.1 Impacts Mitigated Below a Level of Significance ............................................... ...94
6.2.2 Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant ................................................ .105
6.3 Mandatory CEQA Findings of Significance ................................................................... .108
6.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected/Determination ...................................... .110
7.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................................................ .111
7.1 Permits ................................................................................................................................ .111
7.2 Public and Agency Review ............................................................................................... .111
7.3 Comments on the Draft Environmental Document ...................................................... .111
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/REVIEWERS ......................................................................................... .112
9.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. ..113
APPENDIX A CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
APPENDIX B Biological Reconnaissance Memo
APPENDIX C NEPA Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Record
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows
Number Title Page
1 Regional Location Map ....................................................................................................... ..........6
2 Project Location Map ........................................................................................................... ..........6
3a-c Alternative 1 Proposed Project Facilities and Study Area Boundary ........................... ........12
4 Alternative 2 Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment ............ ........18
5 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................ ........22
6 Project Study Area Depicted on the Imperial Beach 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangle.. ........22
7 Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Map ......................................................................... ........24
8a-c Proposed Noise Barrier Locations ..................................................................................... ........66
9a-c Selected Barrier Locations for Alternative Berm Noise Abatement .............................. ........66
10 Typical Masonry Noise Wall Cross Section ..................................................................... ........ 66
11 Typical Earth Berm Cross Section ...................................................................................... ........ 66
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Paee
S-1 Summary of Potentially Substantial Adverse Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ..... ...........4
1 Summary of Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes and LOS .......................................... ...........9
2 Summary of Projected Year 2025 Intersection LOS ........................................................ .........10
3 Summary of 1999-2001 Accident Data for the I-805/East Orange Avenue/
Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive Interchanges ...................... .........11
4 Noise Abatement Criteria for Various Land Use/Activity Categories ....................... .........63
5 Receptor Noise Levels and Noise Barrier Information .................................................. .........67
6 Summary of NADR Feasible/Reasonable Assessments and Construction
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... ......... 69
7 Visual Character Unit Summary ....................................................................................... ......... 76
8 Viewer Summary ................................................................................................................ .........77
iii
SUMMARY
The project consists of implementing a number of improvements to the existing configuration of
Interstate 805 (I-805) and associated interchanges at East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main
Street/Auto Park Drive in the City of Chula Vista, California. Potential environmental effects from the
project alternatives are evaluated in this document pursuant to applicable criteria of both the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An
Environmental Assessment (EA} has been prepared for the project under NEPA, based on a supported
analysis that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would not be required. This EA will be
considered as part of the project approval process, resulting in either adoption of a Finding of No
Significant Impacts (FONSI) or the preparation of an EIS. Similarly, an IS has been prepared under
CEQA, resulting in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Technical reports have been prepared for
the issues of traffic circulation, noise, air quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, geotechnical constraints
and hazardous materials. These documents are summarized as appropriate in this IS/EA, with the
environmental and technical reports available for review at the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department (276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910-2596); the Department District 11 office
(2829 Juan Street, San Diego, California 92186-5406); and the South Chula Vista Public Library {389 East
Orange Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91911). Based on the described environmental analysis, it has
been determined that, with the proposed design and mitigation measures, the project is not expected to
result in any substantial adverse impacts on the environment.
The project study area extends approximately 2.2 kilometers (1.3 miles) along I-805 between Palomar
Street on the north and Main Street/Auto Park Drive on the south {K.P. 5.9 to 8.1 [P.M. 3.7 to 5.0]).
Specific proposed improvements include widening the existing overcrossing and adding/modifying
ramp lanes at the existing diamond interchange at I-805 and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway,
widening adjacent segments of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway east and west of the freeway
interchange, adding a second lane to the southbound I-805 off-ramp at Main Street/Auto Park Drive, and
adding auxiliary lanes to portions of the north- and southbound mainline freeway both north and south
of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway.
A number of additional roadway projects have been either constructed, proposed or planned in the study
area vicinity. These projects all have been or will be processed independently of the proposed I-805/East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway project and include the following:
1
I-805/Telegr~h Capon Road Interchange Improvements -This project includes a number of
modifications (e.g., lane/ramp additions and widening) to I-805 and associated on- off-ramps at
Telegraph Canyon Road in the City of Chula Vista (approximately 1.6 kilometers [1 mile] north of the
project study area).
Olvmuic Parkway Widening~Oleander to Brandywine Avenues -This project involved widening the
existing roadway (adjacent to the study area on the east) from 2 to 6 lanes to accommodate projected
traffic volumes through the year 2020.
• Construction of Olvmuic Parkway Brandywine Avenue to Hunte Parkway -The eastern segment of
Olympic Parkway (beginning approximately 488 meters [1,600 feet] east of the study area) is
intended to accommodate projected traffic volumes through the year 2020.
• I-805/East Palomar Street Interchange -The construction of a freeway interchange at I-805/East
Palomar Street (adjacent to the study area on the north) is a potential long-term project to
accommodate projected traffic circulation.
• I-805 Ramp Meters -Ramp meters have been proposed for on-ramps at Bonita Road (approximately
4.25 kilometers [2.69 miles] north of the study area, East H. Street (approximately 3.3 kilometers [2.05
miles] north of the study area), Telegraph Canyon Road (approximately 1.7 kilometers [1.05 miles]
north of the study area), and Main Street/Auto Park Drive (within or adjacent to the study area).
East HStreet/Telegranh Canyon Road Widening -Both of these surface streets have been proposed
for widening east of I-805 to accommodate projected traffic volumes.
Altematives considered in this analysis include: the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment
(Altemative 1); the Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment Alternative (Alternative
2); and the No Project Alternative (Alternative 3). Altematives 1 and 2 are identical, with the exception
that for Alternative 2, the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway overcrossing would be widened on
both (i.e., north and south) sides of the bridge, and Olympic Parkway east of the freeway would be
realigned approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) to the south. Total estimated costs for Alternatives 1 and 2
(current dollars, escalated costs in parentheses) are $20.9 million ($21.6 million) and $21.5 million ($22.1
million), respectively. Additional alternatives were considered to: (1) provide more extensive auxiliary
lanes in the project study area and (2) meet the project objectives by use of mass transit facilities. Both of
these alternatives were rejected due to potential bridge construction and traffic movement conflicts
2
(auxiliary lane alternative), and the inability to accommodate projected traffic at acceptable levels of
service (mass transit alternative).
Potential environmental impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 that are substantially adverse
include the issues of geology/topography, hydrology/water quality, biological resources, noise,
aesthetics and paleontological resources, as summarized below and in Table S-1. These potential impacts
would be addressed through the proposed mitigation or abatement (noise) measures, with a summary of
these measures also shown in Table S-1.
GeologyJTovoeranhv -Proposed grading, excavation and construction of manufactured slopes would
generate potential impacts associated with short- and long-term erosion/sedimentation.
HvdrologyJWater Ouality - The disposal of extracted groundwater, use of construction-related
hazardous materials and long-term maintenance of proposed facilities could result in water quality
impacts associated with: erosion/sedimentation and/or release of contaminated water (groundwater
disposal); accidental discharges during activities such as paving operations, material use and storage
(e.g., fuels) and vehicle operation/maintenance (construction-related hazardous materials); and discharge
of contaminants such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides (maintenance).
Biological Resources -The presence of mature eucalyptus trees within the project study area could
generate potential impacts to birds if nest sites on site are occupied and project construction is proposed
during the applicable breeding seasons.
Noise -Existing and project-related noise ]evels at numerous residential sites along I-805, East Orange
Avenue west of I-805 and Olympic Parkway east of I-805 would exceed applicable noise criteria.
Aesthetics - Project grading and construction would result in a number of visual effects (e.g.,
construction of walls and removal of mature trees) to local visual/view quality and community character.
Paleontological Resources -Project excavation and grading in previously undisturbed portions of the
Quaternary Lindavista and Tertiary San Diego formations could result in impacts to sensitive
paleontological resources.
Permit requirements associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would entail conformance with existing
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water,
Dewatering Waste Discharge and Municipal permits.
3
0
.~ ~ d
~ °' o ^ 3 d
~ ~ Q ~ y
G V
G'C}
r, ~~ ~ ~'O ~ ~ m
Cc
D
~
~
~ P. ~
~`
N.++_~'Y G
N
W '~ N O
J
F
~
t.. `~~ca
o ~ G
~
~ `~ v
[
O
y
~a~
G d
d o
.o
y
_ G
_
O
rr' Z °' W ,o
r o y '~ G W ~
.°vy ti
N
°[' p o n
J 3 6' m~
6
Q ~ y
a
i c
J ~
(
7 ~ N d ~ C. ~ .D P Or
C
~~ A
~ O ~ A
.
'
6
:6~
~' R ~ O ~ G ~~
G :% y
O ~ my~ y~ d 'm d m
Y
N H S
~~ O o -'
G O
tt1
~'
~
0 O~ N G". N N F 9 7 ~/ U
~ Q ~ % ~ % ~ a v ~ ° ~ 3 ~ ~ 0 0
~ F ~a~~ Fpm ~o~
R
°' ~ ~~
m
a ~ _
~ m
v,
~ W ~ ~ ~ ~
Q F~ d 'CS ~ G ~,
V
~,
H U O~ F
O
Z F ~ ~~.N P•p o d ~y
Q ~-
G U
o ~ ~ 3
P,
_
4N^ H gi p a'"i
Q
~G v
~
O
W
1 R~
O
UJ~~-+~
~P d~
bd z
F
~ N
~
d
d
v,
Q
r ~„
W
Q
W
d d
U
W
r
.,-
H ~ ~
Z
~ I
0
O
v
y
6
O
i
3
O a
O ~
S
Y~ .~
VO
Q H
- ~ N
r• v
3 S
6 d ~ c d
v ~a v o „
d r ~ w ~ A
~ ^ ~ u
~o ~' ~0 0
W9 .. ~ ~ O
'd tNVS UJ N :M. .v
v
~.~ ~'a A
O
7
A ~~
4 7 Y ~ A
O O+ ~C `" 0 r
rG ~ ~ L .~~, v w
m~y U_
y~ Y O ~. p y
4
C o ~ o ~ ° o ~ c, o.
w 7%v~ ~ aC,'o~
G ~' ~~ 0 7 m Z
G~. ~. m o "~ °,:
G ~ ~ d N
t6 ~' Y_ ~
~ ~ m H ~ oWa
-~'~ A ~ v % U Q^ 3
,~, 3 P `'
rZ.
f ~ N
'z m -
~ ~
N ~ N
d y
N
~ N Uy
O v p+
N Q1 N
.d, N O
tb ~
~ v
A
~ ~
H A V
d m C Lv ~ v.
A A ~" p d
3 p u •~
a ~ Q d ~~
~ J ~ N N O
.G H ~ A ~ N
,~' 'CS m Q J-~ Vy R
V" O ~ o P+.p
O d~
1 ~r ~+ V y 7 G
Y cGye ~ 6 O t6 ~`!' N
p c m ~ ~ ~ ~
N
G
m
O G ~i
o i ~+
~ ~ ~
6' O
d y on
.~ ~ ~
A •OGO d,
C o 0
y~, ~ ~ o
H H
W '~ ;; u
W ~ ~
H a
d ~ ~ O
'~-
I
d
Y
N ~
a w
N ^'
O '~'
~ d
O `n
G o
C(J N
o
X N
O! J
a Y
d v
N D
~ ~ ~+
`~ H
~~
~G
0
.. '~
r~J) N r
B O
T
N .-w
N ~ R
~~
'+ o
~G~
~~ ~ G
~ m
~ ~ d
W y. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ '~ N ~
H '~ O ~~ ~
W o- ~,' ~ ~ '`~
[-+ ~ ~ O
F Nrr
~ Y ~ F O
V ~ m O ?''~
A ~i O oD
°:
H ~~'
p ~n~P ~~
o ,. d
F 0 ~ ~ O
R
N O y~ O ,Y ~ O
q d w $,N ~
F
As noted above, the evaluation of project-related environmental impacts was conducted under applicable
guidelines of both CEQA and NEPA. While the body of the report encompasses elements of both state
and federal guidelines (e.g., the evaluation of project alternatives in Section 5.0), the terms significant or
significance are not used to qualify impact levels due to the fact that CEQA and NEPA vary somewhat on
the definition and required use of these terms. Under NEPA, for example, these terms are used to
determine the level (i.e., type) of environmental review document, rather than to describe and evaluate
the level of individual impacts. CEQA, on the other hand, requires that all environmental evaluations
include a determination of impact significance. Based on these inherent differences and the noted CEQA
requirement, a separate CEQA analysis is provided in Section 6.0 of this document, pursuant to
applicable state and Ciry of Chula Vista criteria.
The conclusions of the CEQA analysis were similar to those described in the NEPA analysis, with
potentially significant impacts identified for the issues of geology/topography, hydrology/water quality,
biological resources, noise, aesthetics and paleontological resources. The nature and extent of these
impacts are the same as those described above for Alternatives 1 and 2, with CEQA mitigation for these
impacts the same as those described in Table S-1.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The project consists of implementing a number of improvements to the existing configuration of I-805
and associated interchanges at East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive
in the City of Chula Vista (Figures 1 and 2). Potential environmental effects from the project alternatives
are evaluated in this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA), pursuant to applicable
requirements of CEQA and NEPA. An EA has been prepared for the project under NEPA, based on a
supported analysis that impact levels would not be sufficient to require an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). This EA will be considered as part of the approval process for the project, resulting in
either adoption of a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) or the preparation of an EIS. Similarly, an
IS has been prepared under CEQA, with the results of this document being a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND). Technical reports have been prepared for the issues of traffic circulation, noise, air
quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, geotechnical constraints and hazardous materials. These
documents are summarized as appropriate in this IS/EA, with all project reports available for review at
the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department (276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California
91910-2596); the Department District 11 office (2829 Juan Street, San Diego, California 92186-5406); and
the South Chula Vista Public Library (389 East Orange Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91911). Based on
5
the described environmental analysis, it has been determined that, with the proposed design and
mitigation measures, the project is not expected to result in any substantial adverse impacts on the
environment.
As discussed in applicable sections of this document (e.g., Section 5.6, Air Quality), the project is included
in approved regional transportation plans such as the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP, SANDAG 2000a) and Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP, SANDAG 2000b). Funding allocations identified for the project in the RTIP (per Amendment No.
3, dated 2002) encompass a number of different funding sources, including federal Demonstration
(DEMO) Funds, City Funds, TransNet -Land -H Funds, federal STP-RIP (Type II) Funds, and RSTP
Funds. In addition, City Developer Impact Funds (DIFs) will be used for appropriate facilities (e.g.,
construction of certain noise abatement barriers), with the combined funding sources adequate to fully
fund the project as proposed.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
2.1 GENERAL PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary project objective is to accommodate projected traffic volumes and provide acceptable levels
of service and safety within the identified study area through the year 2025. Traffic volumes within the
study area are projected to increase substantially over approximately the next 25 years, due primarily to
on-going and future development in the eastern portion of the City. Current and proposed residential
development projects in eastern Chula Vista include the Sunbow, Eastlake and Otay Ranch residential
sites. In addition, project facilities are intended to accommodate "special event" traffic generated by the
Coors Amphitheatre facility located southeast of the project study area. Specifically, traffic from events at
the Coors Amphitheatre is regularly routed along portions of Olympic Parkway to access I-805 from the
east. The increase in traffic volumes and generation of "special event" traffic from the noted projects has
and will continue to adversely affect transportation service and safety levels within the project study
area. That is, substantial capacity/congestion and related traffic safety impacts are projected by the year
2025 within the study area for the I-805 freeway and associated East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges (Rick Engineering Company 2002a). The project objective
associated with traffic safety accident rates is applicable to the I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges. An evaluation of accident rates at these
6
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
ORANGE I SAN DIEGO
COUNTY , COUNTY ••~
--~ ~
/ -
L
----- ----------------- ----------
---------
SAN
ONOFRE FALLBROOK ~
s
ae WARNER
SPRINGS
~e (ahs
XeNhaw
15 ~
OCEANSIDE VISTA .~ r~xe
~y xmRifid
~J
CAflLSBAD
ESCONDIDO sNAeraw
J Reservoir
S~
6 jy[ ]B
H ges
JULIAN
ENCINRAS
n
~ flANONA
a~ eke
cayNaa~~
LVI YI[Mt
~ POWAY R"er.air
DEL NAR se
EI Cap Ran
Rese
is
SANTEE m
LA JOLLA
~ e
PACIFIC EL
CAJON ~
BEACH ~
LA NESA
~
g
tg ~ Reservoir
'~' SAN
-d a. DIEG gweeavaier JAMUL h Ra,M,
~Reservav ~
AMA ~
C~
PROJECT DuLZURA
...
.
STUDY AREA
ws
,y a
ra
`•'" IMPERIAL s
~ BEACH
NITED S~ATE~•~.~
S ~•
•~'~ECA
AN U
YSIDRO . ~ • ~' • MEXICO
.~•
TIJUANA
0
a
Z
ROSARRO
NOT TO SCALE
Regional Location Map
ISBA - INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
N E l I X Figure 1
~~
`S
I P°
FS
t ~ ~`,~45 ... .m I
ig i- ',: ~
., •.
.:...:.. .... . r .........
;.
'•.....
rr ..............
>.•~•'
r' z;
>':~_.
~~ ...-.
.'!fir ~3a~,Q~ •,
AZA~~ S~ ~
P
6II$Z~~~ ~f N~ ER ~ N
!,. ,~ !C' 9G Fp'
'9
R gTUDY
ppEA~
P
CA$T~F
~pAR~
HS
9 ~ l
m .-+
~~~
~ ~ ~'
r~
S c
~~
~~a
L n
pU7d
tfY s
t--~(
~S
~-
o ':
a
MAIN
OR
h~
\~ ~~
...
" M
ocation
prajeC~A ~TERCI3A
YMPICYARK Fig
Nottc gcale p~NGEAVENUEtOL
INTERSTATE $~S~p,ST
IS~A
interchanges for the period of 1997 through 2001 determined that rates at the southbound off-ramp
segments exceeded corresponding statewide averages during certain reporting periods (refer to Section
2.3.2).
Based on the above conditions, the project is considered necessary to meet the stated objectives related to
traffic and safety concerns, and the City of Chula Vista has initiated the project engineering and
environmental review process. As part of the traffic and design studies conducted for this process, it has
been determined that proposed facilities will accommodate projected traffic volumes and result in
acceptable service and safety levels in the project study area through the year 2025.
A secondary project objective involves the inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the design for
Alternatives 1 and 2. These facilities (described in Section 3.0) would interface with similar existing and
planned facilities in the study area and vicinity, providing more extensive and accessible opportunities
for local and regional pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Within the project study area, I-805 was constructed in 1968 and consists of 8 lanes (4 in each direction)
separated by a median divider. The main freeway lanes are 3.7 meters (12 feet) wide, with a 3-meter (10-
foot) wide paved outside shoulder in most areas. The existing median is 14 meters (46 feet) wide, and
includes 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide paved inside shoulders. The existing inside shoulders are not the current
Department standard of 3 meters (10 feet) for such facilities, although this non-standard condition is not
proposed to be addressed as part of the project. I-805 serves as a major regional and international
transportation route between the USA/Mexican border and the I-805/I-5 merge near Sorrento Valley,
and is identified on both the National Highway System and Department of Defense Priority Network
lists. Pursuant to the 1999 Cnltrnns District 11 1-805 Trnnsportntion Concept Report (TCR), the ultimate (year
2020) configuration for I-805 in the project study area is eight through lanes (with shoulders and medians
as described), the same as the existing configuration. While the referenced TCR does not identify high-
occupancy vehicle (HOB lanes for the portion of I-805 within (or adjacent to) the study area, the
evaluation of HOV lanes has been recommended. Based on correspondence between the Department
and FHWA (Department 2002a), as well as existing/proposed freeway cross section diagrams provided
in the Project Report (Rick Engineering Company 2002a), the existing median was assessed as adequate to
accommodate HOV lanes with or without implementation of Altematives 1 or 2.
7
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway extends both east and west of I-805, with the roadway segment
east of the freeway designated as Olympic Parkway and the portion of the road west of the freeway
called East Orange Avenue. Within the project study area, East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is
currently a 4-Lane Major Street west of I-805 and east of the freeway to Oleander Avenue (the eastern
study area boundary). East of Oleander, Olympic Parkway is classified as a future 6-Lane Prime Arterial
in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element, while west of I-805 Orange Avenue will
remain a 4-Lane Major Street. As noted, Orange Avenue changes names to Olympic Parkway east of
I-805, with Olympic Parkway planned to continue east and serve the City's Eastern Territories. The
section of Olympic Parkway between Oleander and Brandywine avenues has recently been widened to 6
lanes, while construction to widen the portion of this roadway east of Brandywine Avenue to 6 lanes is
nearly complete (refer to Section 3.5 for additional description).
2.3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY ISSUES
2.3.1 Transportation/Circulation
Level of service (LOS) is a term used to describe operating conditions with respect to vehicle speed, travel
time, maneuverability, comfort and safety. The determination of LOS for individual roadway segments is
based on the number of lanes and traffic volumes (number of vehicles per day or hour), with designations
ranging from A (little or no restriction on vehicular movements) to F (stop and go conditions with
considerable delay). For purposes of this analysis (and based on City and Department guidelines), an
acceptable level of service is defined as LOS E or better for freeway facilities, and LOS C or better for
surface streets outside the Department right-of-way (ROW, with up to two hours per day at LOS D
allowable under this definition of acceptable LOS in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Circulation
Element).
Projected traffic volumes and LOS designations for applicable roadway segments in the years 2000 and
2025 are shown in Table 1. As seen from these data, average daily traffic (ADT) for identified roadway
segments within the project study area is projected to increase by variable levels over approximately the
next 25 years. The majority of this projected increase in traffic volumes is associated with current and
projected development (primarily residential) in the City of Chula Vista Eastern Territories.
8
Table 1
SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS
E
MENT YEAR 1999/2000 YEAR 2025
ROADWAY S
G ADT LOS ADT LOST LOSZ
I-805 -Palomar St. to E. Oran e Ave./OI m is Pkw 150,0003 C 171,000 D E
I-805 - E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy.
to Main St./Auto Park Dr. 138,0003 C 161,000 D E
E. Oran e Ave. West of I-805 24,0004 B 29,130 C D
Ol m is Pkw .East of I-805 40,0004 C 62,000 D5 F
Main St. Auto Park Dr. West of I-805 23,0004 B 32,000 Ds E
Main St./Auto Park Dr. East of I-805 26,0004 B 45,000 DS F
Assumes implementation of the project.
2Projected without implementation of the project.
3Year 2000.
4Year 1999.
sTwo hours or less per day at LOS D expected, with the remainder at LOS C.
Source: Urban Systems Associates ([USA] 1996, 2000, 2002), Caltrans (2000), Rick Engineering Company
(2002b).
As shown in Table 1, implementation of the project would accommodate projected year 2025 traffic
volumes and provide acceptable LOS (per the above definitions) for all freeway segments (LOS E or
better), as well as both East Orange Avenue and Main Street/Auto Park Drive west of I-805 (LOS C or
better). Main Street/Auto Park Drive both east and west of the freeway and Olympic Parkway are
projected at LOS D in year 2025, although these segments are expected to operate at LOS D for two hours
or less per day (i.e., during peak hour traffic). Accordingly, these segments would also meet the stated
Ciry LOS criteria.
A summary of projected LOS designations for the year 2025 at applicable intersections in the project
study area is provided in Table 2. As discussed above for roadway segments, traffic volumes at the noted
intersections are expected to increase as a result of current and planned development. Projected LOS
would meet identified Department and City criteria for the a.m. peak at al] noted intersections, and for
the p.m. peak at the I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway north-and southbound ramps. The
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway intersections with Melrose and Oleander avenues are projected
at LOS D, although (as noted above for roadway segments) these intersections are expected to operate at
LOS D for two hours or less per day (i.e., during peak hour traffic), and would therefore meet the stated
City LOS criteria.
9
Table 2
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED YEAR 2025 INTERSECTION LOST
INTERSECTION LOST LOSz
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
E. Oran e Ave./Melrose Ave. D3 D3 F F
E. Oran e Ave./Ol m is Pkw ./I-805 SB Rams D D F F
E. Oran e Ave./Ol m is Pkw ./I-805 NB Rams D D F F
Ol m is Pkw ./Oleander Ave. D3 D3 F F
~ASSUmes implementation ok the project.
zProjected without implementation of the project.
3Two hours or less per day at LOS D expected, with the remainder at LOS C.
Source: USA (1997), Rick Engineering Company (2002b).
2.3.2 Safe
A summary of accident data for the most current reporting period (1999 through 2001) at the I-805/East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges is shown in Table 3.
As seen from these data, the incidence of fatality, fatality plus injury and total accidents per million
vehicle miles at the noted intersections was below the corresponding statewide averages for similar
facilities. It should be noted, however, that statewide accident averages have been exceeded at portions
of these interchange segments in the recent past, with the number and level of such occurrences varying
for individual reporting periods. Specifically, such incidents include the following: (1) during the
reporting period of 1998 through 2000, total accidents at the I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway southbound off-ramp exceeded the corresponding statewide average, and fatality plus injury
accidents at the I-805/Main Street/Auto Park Drive southbound off-ramp exceeded the corresponding
statewide average; and (2) during the reporting period of 1997 through 1999, the I-805/East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway southbound off-ramp exceeded the corresponding statewide averages for
both fatality plus injury and total accidents, and the I-805/Main Street/Auto Park Drive southbound off-
ramp exceeded the corresponding statewide average for fatality plus injury accidents (Caltrans 2002b;
Rick Engineering Company 2002a, 2001). Based on these data, the potential exists for one or more of the
existing interchange segments within the project study area to exceed corresponding statewide averages
in the future.
The majority of accidents described above for interchanges in the study area were broadside or rear-end
type collisions, and were caused by excessive speed and/or failure to yield to oncoming vehicles due to
inadequate ramp capacity (Rick Engineering Company 2002a). That is, motorists were excessively
aggressive in attempts to merge as a result of "bottleneck" conditions on the under-capacity ramps. With
10
the implementation of the project features, it is anticipated that accident rates at the I-805/East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges would be reduced, and
would be less likely to exceed corresponding statewide averages for similar facilities through the year
2025.
Table 3
SUMMARY OF 1999-2001 ACCIDENT DATA FOR THE I-805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE,!
OLYMPIC PARKWAY AND MAIN STREET/AUTO PARK DRIVE INTERCHANGES
STATEWIDE
NUMBER ACTUAL AVERAGE
SEGMENT OF ACCIDENT/MVMt ACCIDENT/MVMr•4
ACCIDENTS
Fz F + 13 Total FZ F + I3 Total
I-805/E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy. 5 0.000 0.23 0.38 0.002 0.32 0.80
Northbound On-Ram
I-805/E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy. 2 0.000 0.00 0.54 0.005 0.61 1.50
Northbound Off-Ram
I-805/E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy. 2 0.000 0.00 0.38 0.002 0.32 0.80
Southbound On-Ram
1-805/E. Orange Ave./Olympic Pkwy. 15 0.000 0.49 1.22 0.005 0.61 1.50
Southbound Off-Ram
I-805/Main St./Auto Park Dr.
10
0.000
0.41
1.01
0.005
0.61
1.50
Southbound Off-Ramp _
'Million vehicle miles.
ZFatality accidents.
3Fatality plus injury accidents.
4For similar facilities.
Source: Rick Engineering Company (2002a).
2.4 COMPATIBILITY WITH TRANSIT FACILITIES
Existing and proposed transit facilities in the study area and vicinity include local and express bus routes
and related structures (e.g., turnouts) along streets, including East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
west of Brandywine Avenue (refer to Section 3.4 for additional discussion of transit facilities). No light
rail transit (LRT) lines or related facilities are present or proposed within the study area and immediate
vicinity (City of Chula Vista 1995, Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB] 1993, 2001). While
the proposed project does not include any specific transit-related facilities (bus lanes, turnouts, etc.),
proposed improvements would accommodate existing and proposed transit service, and the project is
considered compatible with local and regional mass transit facilities.
11
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
Based on preliminary design, engineering, cost and environmental considerations identified in the I-
805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR, Rick
Engineering Company 2002a, 2001) and related analyses, two design alternatives have been identified for
the I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway project, as described below in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. The
selection of a final design for the I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway project will not be made
until all applicable alternatives have been fully evaluated in the CEQA/NEPA environmental process
(which includes an assessment of comments received during public review).
3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: EAST ORANGE AVENUE,/OLYMPIC PARKWAY ALIGNMENT
Alternative 1 consists of modifying and improving the existing diamond interchange at I-805 and East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, adding a second lane to the southbound I-805 off-ramp at Main
Street/Auto Park Drive, and adding auxiliary lanes to portions of the north- and southbound mainline
freeway both north and south of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (Figures 3a through 3c). The
project would utilize both local and federal funds, and is thus subject to applicable City, Department and
federal criteria for all technical and environmental analyses. All proposed roadway facilities and related
construction activities would be located within or immediately adjacent to existing Department rights-of-
way. Accordingly, this alternative would not directly affect any existing homes, businesses or other
structures (i.e., no removal of structures), with related effects consisting of ROW acquisitions for, and
construction of, retaining walls and noise abatement barriers (as described in Section 5.11), as well as
removal of freeway landscaping and minor modifications to an existing sidewalk in one location.
Proposed retaining wall and noise abatement barrier locations are shown on Figures 3a through 3c, with
approximate ROW acquisition requirements described below for applicable facilities. The noted ROW
acquisitions represent the maximum areas that would be required to accommodate the associated
facilities as described. Additional discussion of proposed noise abatement barriers and related analyses
conducted in the project Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002, as amended) and Noise Abatement
Decision Report (NADR, Rick Engineering Company, 2003) is provided in Section 5.11.
The construction period for implementation of this altemative would be approximately 18 months, and
would involve standard construction equipment, materials and methods. Unless otherwise noted, all
proposed road and freeway lanes would be 3.6 meters (11.81 feet) wide. The Alternative 1 design
includes minimum angles of 60 degrees between surface streets and the associated freeway ramps,
pursuant to Department design standards.
12
~~~+ I Irt 'j I* II Q£ 3 ~ ~Id Ol H dw ~~ .~ ~ ~,. ~.1„G
~' 1 I I' i I~ ' II I i li~ II Illllll II
Q I ~~ ~ ~ i ~/ I I~ I II ~. ~ ~ ~
„~ ~' I'L ' s•~ I' iihl llb
3 8
9~ ~'I I~ ~ I I ~ z y,~ II
4~ I ~ I I g
J ~ o _
I. ~$ ~~ -~.61~ I I n~~ll a hll~ yf~, ~ ~ _, yyti
~~~ sJ _~ I a~ ~ w al hill l~l III N
i~ofllr I i,a61 li~~~1~I ~ Ijl I~ u:.p' ' I
y ~IIII~~,I~/
'y-y t
~ i~-y"""~ i Iw I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I IIII ~ ~;
,+.~, ~ ,:,, ' ~~ ~~ ~ II a ~ ,~ ~I, ~~~~ I ,;,~ A
---~~ ~.
~~ ~'~s~~ (., II, ~I~ ~IIII~ ~,,II~11 ~I~II,I I
Y
~l rI I~~ III ~~I I;~ ~~ ~,~~ ' I~r ~. ~. ~ I,~ - z
I;
. IIS ~ I ~I I I II I P I I II I' ~i~ I,
e~ / ~ r 1, I III i~ ~ I I iIII~ ~ ~I' ~'
Ir+ -f~ J~ IIII I I ' t ~.
!III ~~7 ~I. III ~~~~~! '' I - 5~
hI ~ ~~ ~' ~, ~ s ~ II jl I ~ yS
..I i,~ ~, ,~ ~~
I~ I ~ ~Ii10I I 'hl la ~~`
~' ~1~ i ~I i~~I~~~~I ~~ ~~1 tr ~,' ~~ II~~~;V~lll
' ~ vf~'~ ' I 1111 I ,. i i ~ 1 .
mow- .~ dl- ~ III ~~ ~ it I
° 1 ~i ~ li/ ~ A '
F ~ ~ ~ . + ~ ~ j ~ y "~~ '
e I~ ~
~hil J
.~ ~ ~~li I I' '~
., /,' ~ '~ ,'a f II! ", jI~I{ I)I Iii IS' I\` #h
~ ' I I ~ ~ ~ I I 1 li IIII III ~. - y 9~:,
` ' I f V ]I fi i ~ 11 ~~ ~ ~ ~II~III~lll lilt i 1 11 ~'~
i5 A~ '~.„ ~~ I ~IIII~III~~I~~III ~ 1~ Itl
4: 1 4• ' ~ 11 ~ ~ - nl l~l~lpl~i h~j,
~"'j {{ I ~i h ~ ~1'I lil~ll~~ll ~~ 1~ 'y'
~~;.i /k~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ IJllil~~l'11111 ~' yl~ ~,
a ~~ it
I i l i j ~ ~~ 1~ ~ n
j 4I~I ~ I , 1 ~
'~~ / I i JJ ~I1 YII iilill~llll~llilll~ '1 IM1I
I~ I,
t. ,~ ~ I~ 'lit I III '~1 ~ y
i II
~~~ ~ ~ . r I ;I~,illl~ III I~~ 71 1~
~~ ~ ', ~~ ~ I ~ I; R '~ d II II I~~I I ~~~ III ' - ~ I I ' I
~~~ II ~~I,~I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ li I 'i i I I ~I~il ~~~1~ # I ~~ i~P~',
I I Q II I ~
I ~'.' ~I II ~~III~I ~ ~~¢~I I I~~~~l ~ Ia`11
o 1 ~ ' ~~ ~ -
~~ I ,t III ,'nrl ~ ~II~I~ ~I~I 'I~,. ~~~
~ 1 I o ~~ I ~ ~li ~ 1 1~ ~,1
~ I I I I~~~I~i I I ~~~ ~ II j ~~i ~~~s~ li~i~';~ I f ~ ~`
~~ ~~ i~~~li'll ~ ~ I l ~~~Ii i ii~III {
~ 1031tldO~L~ -'~ ~~ i~l~l~ ~ ~ ~I I a ~ ~II~ h ~ ~~f,~
' ', Ih1 ~~ 1 I ~i ill ~ 11 II IIII. ~~ _11 11
I 1 I /` I Ir II III ' F. ~~._
~l ~ ~ I I i~ ~ I.. I Il y~. III PIS Itll1'I I~
~' I
s-~- ~ ~ it I q
.. ~ i I I
I ~ ~9 1 ~ ~i
I 'I ~ li lil lii
~IIf II III ~~ ~
~ ~ ~~. 11
II
~1 I / ~ ~~~~ 1~,~
~~ I ~ /
I ~i II
" ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ I I ~
i ~ q
I ~I~!I~i~~
I,1~ ~~
~
'
~ ~I1~
r ~ ,,
'
~
~
~
103Wk9b'W1:1~10~
J d ~~
I
~ ~ ~
~I I ~
III I
'~ q
I
II
11
~~I
I ~ I ((~ iI~ III
I I 9., I~IIIIi III
1ti . I
,
1 ~.
aP' ~, ~~ +~
~
q.
'` l
v I
i Ilil
I
~ 1~1~1~ I
IIII i Fi~~l "Ii
I
ti ~~~
II
~
'
~~
~ ~~ ~ ~,•- ~ e .
' ,
~I
~,~ ~ ~ ~
' ~
1 ~ ,,
, i I
'
I~
~
I~
,
~I~,~~~, ~
~
y ~ ~
I I
~
e ~,
~,
~~
~~`
~
~ ~ 5
~ Ilr~
'
~~
~
~~ k
i~~ Iy
x
~1
~1
'III
~~'~~~ ~I~~II'II
~9 I I~ '~.~~~~
I I
~~~~~ ,,
ti,~
l 's
~~ ~~~~
~
v
' II ~~a'I ~~4.~~
Y-/ ~ ~I ~
~ 4" _ ~I II
61 s'li~ ~~~I~~II, ~~:~~~~~
$~I~ ~ ,~I~ I
~I~~~~i,l II
II~~JII~ 1
1 ~~' ~~41, ~y.
',~ ~°
~~~ ~ ,
~ I I 4 ~ II I I I ~~ C ~II II~I~II I~ ~~~ ~ i I~o
'~ ` ~ '' ~ q ~ ~~~,~~' 111 ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 ~~~~!I~~I~~~~li~l ~ „~' s~...
p`l, _ ~-l „„ III I I I i~'i III i' '
1 ~L+• ~ I 1 III I,Io'I 1>•I,~I' I ~ ~y I I ~ I,~I~IIIIII I I Dill ~ <
I 1 t ` I Idll~l i III 'Id I ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ I~~~I~IIII~r1 '~ s I ~ ~ I~u
II I ~
~~ IIIII~ I I 1 ~ I II I ~lil I II ~ 1
~,~jl ~~II ~ ' y 'II~~I II ' I ~ e . ~~-16., Iz ~
_, _ ~ I
L ' ~/SIHII_'M~Vd ~•
F 1_» ~f a ~ .- ..
~.} ....~ •~. ~r>r ~' I I ST~n ~ ~ ~ r
n III ~ I ~ ~ - ~ t j,
~~ I I p ~~I~'~lll~ I~ ~ ~ ~i~l~~~~l I dl I
~~ ~ ~ II II141II~ ~ I I~~II~~~~ I I II ~I I I I ~ f
t
. ~~C I ~. G. ~11~L' (IIII h I ~ I ~Iiili 1141 V 'f 4. V o,li lr ~ z'I,
,G ~
I
=I' III X111 ~~ ~ ~ i~ ill I ~l : ~ I ~
d ii III: ~ I Ill: /~ III~~, t~„ ~~~~~III ~ ' II III' ' ~I ~VII~~~~~ 'I'I~ ~ I i~ ~ .i~ll_
~~
~~
.a
c
'o~
m
R
W
O
~ ~
d
E¢.,
•~
~~
d
~...
0
a
L
~~+
!I' r -~~~l~lii "~ ~s aan~i~ of H~ltlw I ~OiIII~I;III "~ i
n !!, T I rl I ~I ~ ~ ~ T ~,. ~ Il~llli ~I ~ ~'~ ~~
~~ ~ I I
. ~-,~ I ~,,~ I ,'!I ~; ~ ~ ~ III , ~ ~,I~illi~ I~~;II, ~I ~~,
IiI~ I. 11 I I~ ~!ill~,~l ' ,„
~ ~. to I ~ - ~ ~ ~ II 1I I III II ~. ~~ ;~ 1.i
' l II
~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ ~~ ~ II 1' II I~ ' 1 'II;~I~~ :~
~:' I I I II ''III'' ll 8
II~ ~1~ j~ IIII ~' I I I ~~J uil, 9. ~ ~
IE ,q~l 'ii ~' 8 I II iI 1111, 4 a i~ II
'~ , III~IIIII II~~ ~~ I r I Iil li I", I 99~ i I !~, ~ y`' ~'~
I rl fl I i lull ' I • N.S
YI I IIII I/IIII o~hill I I~ I I { I _i ~ ,..
I I ~ I V 1 ~1~ I y •,+ ~
I ~all~ ~.i~~lu~ ~~I~~'~,N~lla ~II'Ilt I i~,.lll ~ .ff~
~~ I 'In I~~i II ~ ~~ III I~I II I ~ i'' IIII ~ I~ a~~~G'(
666 ~y ~I~ Ilu IIII li iil: ~ I II i 1 " ~.
€: I III II I I I I I I li Vli ~rl ,, ~ 1 .: #
2~;"- I ~li Ililll lila'p. II -il ~ ''S ' I l
v, ~Ilil IlllTj~l Irll I {I~III~ I~ lihl~ulil
/.. Iljll iil III I I I I II ~ x l~ ,
.. 01~~ ~IIII~ IIN ' 11 II I' II 1 i' „ni ~~
~~ 111111 '' S4 ~ III ~ III ~ I' i .+.i
~~ ~~ I~IIi Iii ~ II~ li'~I~ill~ I~~ I ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ',L
wa~ ~ I~lll Ill~i II '; i lil I~ III ` ` I', 1
'4;~ Ili ~' ~ ' ~ 9'~~ ,~ i ~ ~', l ~ ~ ~ .~
1;1 ~ I ~'~ I I~ I~ ~ ~'~ II~~~~s~~,
.I i,ll,li '
~I 1 ~~ ~I ~ ~ ~~ a
I .I 7
''~ I~ I l' I,11~ I i, III Il' ~ f - ~V ~,
~% ~~_ ! Ilip, ~ I' i ? II ~rr ~ ~-I 1 it I~ r
~. ~ ~ l' 1~ g ~l l l ~' 1 I I I l.~I l~ e ~~
o• ~ III j ~, :i I ~ l III ' \ l -
,k~ ~i ~~I I II~~ p 4 ~ 1 ~ ~ '' .Jy1,X~ ~ :.,
Y~r~~ ~~~ &' I i, ~,~ I I ~LII~~ ~ I~II~ ~4;. k~~ ~•j \ ~ r,.~pp ~ W ~li•e~ ~;~ E
1. r7~ I ~ ~~ I ,u ~ '-~ II LI~~ ~ `~ ~ ~ aB~~Rh ~Li ~ ~ T. ~~0~~ .'~''~~
I l~'~~ III i II ~~ , 1 ~ r.-- ", ~~~,, a
1° III I ~~ I"trr 1~ ~~ I' . ~y; t VI„I~
Jllj l~ppll 117 - ~ ~ r11 ~I l.lll I~ ~ l` 11. ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~m~~
IIII£ 1 II ~ ~ ' ~ I~' ~I~ ~ I~I~~ 1 s, d, 1, ~ ~ •~ -
w e i I I I ~~ip + ' •,...
yy I~
~ N~Y ~ IIII I ~ i ~ `IIII I ~ I ;~~~, ° I
v'~ +,~u 'I,I I•II I~ ~~II' ~~ 111111 I I - -
y I
I ,~
ill ~ ~ I ~`' I~ ti I I lliil~ll - ~3~•~
a j~ -\ .I /; i I I i I I I~, VIII ! ~ ~ ~~cr ~~;' Y . .
I
"1 Nl ~~ `,r I ,a ~ ~ III ; ,-• _ Y- "~~ ~ a ~ s~& ~ ,
I~ti /11 yl Il, I Ilu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ey'f'" '~d '~;
a _
~ ~v
•~ ~ IIII ~ ~ 1~ ~ I I' ` ~~ o' `~.~~ui
:,
~h ~- ii-,.i. i
id I
-,
e
~~
~.
IP
~I
r I I t if ~ I ~. ti ~t r I II~~i ~_
,1 f~ I~~;,~ "'"--' "t I ~~;' .,.',I IVY all II~ ~IIli 1. ~ i! I.~' 1' f, 14~t ^I~~'Ia ,IIII \,'~t
~ ~ I PI 4 1 _ ~~~ ~I I ~~ I I /~ I I 'I +~Q ~~ ~~~~ II ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~I ~.
u I L- I ~l - A III ~ I 1, ~J, ~'; ! ; 1r „~
~~!,~ t, a I d r ~ ~ ~ II ~II'I~ 1. r r. SAiTINV~IO~DGl 1~/R.Y
~ I`~i, o~~ E ~ I I~ ~ I l~l~ ~ ~I~I y~ ~• ~.I~.r /•• ~~ ~ `V$h~I _-
I
' I I ~i ,
~~
1 I l i 4 ~1,WYW
l ~ V p
0' '~~~~ -- 4~.~ _ ~~~ 1~ ~~ .ill I ~'- ~ I ~`t'. I~ I
o / V 'III III I ~ s ~ /`_
pp !, A o~ I III,{ ~ JI 3' I
14~ < 01 ~ ~ ~ ~I 'jl ~ III ~ r 1~ f ¢~ r I a i
f~C(J~j"( C y \ ~~ ~ I ~' a ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ' a g
I
3 _ 'IIII a ~~i~Il' V ~~ c~~
~~ ~ ~' ~~ I fIIII 1 ~~ ~ ~/~
~ i. ~ I ~ ll, I ~li l~l~ ~ ''ll~l ~ ~n I
• I i
~b~ ~ I 11~~ I ~
9 9 yi I
•~. d' Ifl I~;I~ II~~ ~ u ,/ 1~
E ~
I . "'
. `~i III • ~ @
~s` '~.I ~ IIJ ~ o
~~} ~ L7 ~q i ~~~ ~~ I~ Ill . I' ~l- ' ,'
Sys ~ ~ ~I~ 1~i111 ~ MI" y'`,
oaf ,r~. I I ~ ~~ I I~ 3 ~ ~ '. f I IIhI I ~ ' ~'~/>' ~ m
~~~ ~ - ~ "~J. ~I ~~ l ~ ~ 7rlyll ' ~ ~I r
~ l~ 31tl1S ~~ ICI I I Jj 118 ~ ~ i Il _ ~ ~' / ~ E
/,
ul~ ~ ~A~I/ali 114 '1' 111 1 -i I', U~~j~ fy~~ ~ m
~~
y 9IIi ~ ,~ l~ l '1 I ~ a z
IIII il;, ~~ ~Il li P I;;l~' II '~ ~1~: ~~~~:y ~- ~~~~"
,~ ~~II~ ~~~ ~ ,1~ alp, l~ I~ ,; .¢ I ~,,~~~ ~i-11
~° ~ ~ ~i „ ~~~, I ~~ it i~ `III I! 9~~,ss~
L ~ I U .'
,,
a ~
~~ I III I I III ~ ''` Idlil
~ ~ ' dII I I 1 II
~ ~r--"' I I ~ I , II 17 1 ~~ .IIII '.. ~`.
y all _ III ii I ~
~4 ~~, Illll'71 ~I 11 ~ 1111 '~ l ,_ "~ , •~
3
'w1 III I I~I I I gill I I `.Q II',
11 III ~ ~ I S~~~~
~'~~~~~~I ~~ ~~ d ~~ ~~ AI
Illti ~ i~ "~ ' ~ ~ ~ I ~I ~ ~. ~ ~ H ~= 3~V ° : I~
'41~ i i j l I Il~ ~ l it l ', ~~'
Ii~~l I~~I ~~" ~ I I I~I ll iI ~I ~ ~'~. ~ ~
~. ~i~r.. ~ J I r. ~ +I ~ ~ I ii l it ~ .. ,If. ~I f .
. ~ 4. _._.r s e£ 3ilfl'JId O1 H~1tlW ICI 1. s.
~~
c~
'~
c
O~
m
eo
~~
~ ~
7
~.
-d O
C ~
O
N ~
_d
F
•R
LL
i
G. ~
O
r
L
r~+
r~
W ~I
~ d
Rf ~
MM aLL
W
~ ~ ~ ~~
a
~ ~n ~- ~~ ~I ~,} ~~~
~3
~, 'j~ " ~~ "k ~~ ~ ~ I. ' 14 i~ fl ! r~i w
ti I.
~~ ~ ~~ ~ a I° ;~°~ t+ 11 $
Ito li ~ , 11 ;1, ~ ~ I, e°' n
~ ,i It^ 1 o,,i QQ~
3 .9
~~ ~: I .~ ,z ~. ~ ih l ~ t III ,1; ~~
y
~~ ~y II f ~~/' t
~. -'~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~I~'
`~ ~ ' ~ ',. r..~^ ~ylpSdd ~ . ~~.,,
e, ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1
~ i %~
,r• ; ~a3 g 1 ~ 1
6
d ~ " ;~ 4' 1 ~~ 1 ~'~ z
~ ,. ~ ~ It~gq~,
tiffs I ~ i
r, ~~ 1~; w I
f~.
~ ,
•, ~ ~~
~'~ ,
~~~ '~ „~ p - t .~
<< ~ i~~ 4t~~~ ~
'. ~~ t ~ tt k "dM} I, u~ ~l'~
~ ~ ~
:` ~ ~ n\ ~ 't l', ~'` k 'y
•, y, '.
,._, ~~.',. a
~~~~ - 'It ~ F~~,
~~~~ ~ k ~~ ~~~ ~ 11 ~ 'yx ~
~~ ~` ~ '
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ rk°~ ~~}
I `~
t
I ~~ ,~~
~, 1 ~.~ ,i, .I
~' "`~ I
yyy i 1 n t~ s" I '!~•
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~
1 ~ ~1 ~.' ~ i ,1 ~ i~~j11,1~
'~ ijh, n I, ~ ~ ~ ~ ti, 141~i'y"~ _,~..
N ~~~~~rY ~^ I~Illy i.'~~y
n 1, ~ ~ ,
h, ~~ ~ ti ;C' ~ ~ ' ~ ~rl
~ ~; ,~a~1 '~ ~~~ 11 I 1S
-r, ~ 1 p T ~~'i,
~~ ~ i;~ Vt11 ~,~, ~ ~ ~,
i 1
i ~ i
~ ~~uV~ ~v
~ ~ ~ k,
~~ -7 ~~ `@~s1 ~
~t ~ I ~ '. N ~ ~~ 4
1 ~ I II ~, ~ i ~ ~ ~ I~ ~I~
~ Sys M1•
In
~~ I~i ~ ~ x ~ r ~ l n ~~ ~ ~ ,~
n~a 1, ,~ .I
~~ t4 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ;~
' ~~ ' ~ ~ ~
t
I I I, w, 1411 , ~~~~ ~ l i '~ ~ ,,•~`
is ' ~~1 ~~q ' u w~ ~ i;` '~a t ~1 _~ r ~~ ~,~~
~~ ~ 1 1~' `~' ~ I~ ~..:~ ~
_~ ~ w
d~~. ~ ~ ~~ ~`I I I. pl ~ ~1
1 -' ~ g 1:~~~i t l '~~~ ~j 1 i ~c~~
s SN ~ I 1 ~ 1~1 ~,~a ~ ~ ', ~ tm l~~r i 1 I ~ ~~~~~~1} I I ~~~ ~,'
I~~t i _ 7 ~ ~ ~1~~ ~ I ~~~~~~~~ ~ II I ~ 1~
1 s~ ~ 1 e it I I t`
1 1 1 ~~1_, i i I~~~~~ i,~ Q I ,~1 ~~~~~~~ ll,-r ,•` ,
~ _ ~ I I Vl~ i rl rl I
~ I I ~I l ~ ~ ~~~~~~ 11 I ~ ~
~ ~ .vM *~ ll I
~~ ~~~ i. r I 16 p ~~~ \~ PA~Si~i~ ~ j,.
.I. ir,~' T rl1~,I'~ ~ 1i1~~. 3~n91dO1H'J1V ~~ ~;~ ~,,
I
1 i ~~ i ~ 11i~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ill ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ I I ~I I' o I ~ I ~ ~~ ~ \ I w ~,
i1 11 IC~.
~~~~~~II~~I ~~{ I ~~~i1~1 ~~~ y l t~.
''141 ~ 14 ,, 1P~~d~~~ +~l~i ~~ ~ i~ 1'
i it ill, i,i ' ~I~ ~~ '~ ~, ~ I ' ~
'~.~iV~~l. II~,, ~V I ~e~ , 1 1
s
1
i
~I~ ~~3 _.._ _~.IIIII 1
~d
"~ cW7
N o
~ o
;~ d
LL.
'a
Np~
La. ~
O
t
d
L
M
~ ~
~ ~
c ~
m
o Z
a
~~iiill
x
• 1
of
~Q~L
Project grading would be confined within existing freeway and surface street ROW boundaries in most
areas, although such activities would also encompass a number of small ROW acquisitions (as previously
noted and described below for individual project elements). Project grading would be balanced, with no
excess material import or export anticipated, and maximum manufactured slope ratios of 1:1.5 (vertical to
horizontal), Construction-related equipment/vehicle access and staging would be confined within the
described study area corridor, with disturbance to areas outside the existing ROW limited to
grading/construction within the noted ROW acquisition areas and construction of noise abatement
barriers along applicable property boundaries (refer to Section 5.11). Construction staging would be
restricted to areas that are not immediately adjacent to existing residential properties. The construction
contract(s) specifications will include a requirement that proposed staging area locations be reviewed and
approved by the Department and the City prior to project implementation. Specifically, construction
contracts issued by the Department routinely contain requirements that become part of the legally
binding terms when the contract is approved. Such requirements may include efforts related to (for
example) erosion control, material disposal or equipment staging, and are enforced as part of the overall
contract by Department (or other applicable agency) construction inspectors.
The total estimated cost (current dollars, escalated costs in parenthesis) for Alternative 1 is approximately
$20.9 million ($21.6 million), including approximately $16.1 million ($16.6 million) in capital costs, $4.47
million ($4.57 million) in engineering costs, and $326,500 ($334,000) in ROW support. The described cost
estimates do not include Department engineering, environmental or ROW oversight contributions.
3.1.1 East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway -Freeway Overcross
The existing east- and westbound lanes on the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway overcrossing each
include one through lane and one dedicated left-turn pocket onto the associated I-805 on-ramp (i.e., the
northbound on-ramp for eastbound East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway traffic, and the southbound
on-ramp for westbound East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway traffic). This configuration would be
expanded to include two through lanes and two dedicated left-turn lanes each (i.e., to the noted on-
ramps) for east- and westbound traffic. Under this alternative, widening of the East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway overcrossing would occur on the north side of the bridge. The bridge design
also includes designated bike routes within areas of Department ROW. Bike routes would be identified
by signs along the roadway, with separate lanes or striping for bicycle use. These routes would connect
with existing and/or proposed bike lanes/routes on adjacent portions of East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway east and west of the freeway (as described below in Sections 3.14 and 3.15).
13
3.1.2 North and Southbound I-805 Off-Ramps to East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
Both the north- and southbound off-ramps currently include two lanes to accommodate east- and
westbound movements onto East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway. The northbound ramp would be
modified to provide one dedicated left-turn lane, one dedicated right-turn lane and one triple option (left,
right or through) lane. The northbound off-ramp widening would extend approximately 457 meters
(1,500 feet) south of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway before merging with the proposed
northbound auxiliary lane (see Section 3.1.7). The modified southbound off-ramp would include one
dedicated left-turn lane, one dedicated right-turn lane and one optional (left-turn or through) lane. The
southbound off-ramp widening would extend approximately 436 meters (1,430 feet) north of East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway before merging with the proposed southbound auxiliary lane (see Section
3.17). All associated ramp/surface street intersections would incorporate Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliant curb cuts to accommodate access by (e.g.) wheelchairs.
3.1.3 North and Southbound I-805 On-Ram~from East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
Both of these ramps currently include two lanes at East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway which taper
to one lane at the freeway merge. This configuration would be modified for both ramps to provide three
lanes at the surface street intersection, including one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. A California
Highway Patrol (CHP) turnout and ramp meters would also be constructed at both on-ramps. Proposed
widening would extend approximately 137 meters (450 feet) south of East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway along the southbound on-ramp, and would then taper to merge with the proposed auxiliary
lane (see Section 3.1.7). The northbound on-ramp widening would extend approximately 396 meters
(1,300 feet) north of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway before tapering to merge with the proposed
northbound auxiliary lane (see Section 3.17). All associated ramp/surface street intersections would
incorporate (or retain existing) ADA compliant curb cuts.
3.1.4 Olvmuic Parkway -East of I-805
The existing westbound configuration of one through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane would be
modified to create two through lanes and one dedicated right-tum lane for the northbound I-805 on-
ramp. These improvements would extend to the Oleander Avenue intersection and connect with the
recently widened section of Olympic Parkway extending east from Oleander Avenue. A sidewalk would
be constructed on the north side of Olympic Parkway, allowing full pedestrian traffic on both sides of the
proposed roadway. The right-turn lane would be 3.6 meters (11.81 feet) wide, with a 1.5-meter (5-foot)
14
wide paved shoulder. A 2.4-meter (8-foot) high retaining wall would be constructed along the north side
of Olympic Parkway east of the freeway, and would extend approximately 217 meters (712 feet) from
approximately 56 meters (184 feet) east of Oleander Avenue to the northbound on-ramp (refer to Figure
3b). Construction of this wall and the adjacent right-turn lane would require ROW acquisitions within 7
adjacent residential lots. Based on current figures, the total ROW acquisition required for the described
wall (and adjacent noise walls) would be approximately 1,125 square meters (12,150 square feet).
Additional ROW acquisitions would be required along the south side of Olympic Parkway in this area,
including approximately 79 square meters (84S square feet) fora 2.44-meter (8-foot) high combination
retaining/noise wall extending 48.3 meters (158.5 feet) west from Oleander Avenue, and a 7.6-square
meter (81.8-square foot) area for sidewalk modifications at the southeast corner of Olympic Parkway and
Oleander Avenue. A raised median would also be constructed east of the freeway between the east- and
westbound lanes.
The existing eastbound roadway east of I-SO5 includes one through lane, one left-tum lane at Oleander
Avenue and one optional through and right-turn lane. This alternative would include two through lanes,
one optional through/right-turn lane (as described above), and one dedicated left-tum pocket onto
Oleander Avenue. All proposed lanes would be 3.6 meters (11.81 feet) wide, with a 1.5-meter (5-foot)
wide paved shoulder adjacent to the optional lane. Left-turn lanes would not be provided along
Oleander Avenue (i.e., to turn onto Olympic Parkway), as traffic conditions (i.e., volumes) do not warrant
such lanes (refer to Section 2.3.1). The existing Olympic Parkway/Oleander intersection curb cuts are
ADA compliant and would be retained.
The Alternative 1 design includes a Class III bike route along the noted section of Olympic Parkway west
of Oleander Avenue (i.e., between Oleander Avenue and the freeway overcrossing), including posted
signs and striping (or other pavement markings) to delineate lanes for bicycle use. This bike route would
connect with an existing Class II bike lane on Olympic Parkway east of Oleander Avenue:
3.1.5 East Orange Avenue -West of I-805
The existing westbound configuration includes two through lanes. The westbound lanes would be
realigned to geometrically line up with the widened overcrossing and to accommodate proposed lane
modifications on the adjacent southbound I-805 off-ramp (as described above).
15
The eastbound lanes in this area currently include one through lane and one optional through and right-
turn lane (i.e., onto the southbound I-805 on-ramp). This alternative would provide two through lanes
and one dedicated right-turn to the ramp. A raised median would also be modified west of the ramp
intersection between the east- and westbound lanes. The eastbound right turn lane to the southbound I-
805 on-ramp would require the construction of a 78-meter (256-foot) long and 2-meter (6.6-foot) high
retaining wall. A 78-meter (256-foot) long ROW acquisition would be required adjacent to four existing
residential properties on the south side of East Orange Avenue to accommodate the noted wall. The
related ROW acquisition area is approximately 131 square meters (1,406 square feet). The proposed lane
modifications along East Orange Avenue under this alternative extend up to the intersection with
Melrose Avenue, but do not include this intersection (Figure 3b). Specifically, modifications to the
intersection (or areas further west) are not required to accommodate the proposed lane modifications.
Alternative 1 includes a Class II bike lane along East Orange Avenue west of I-805 that will connect with
the existing Class II bike lane west of Melrose Avenue, as well as with the proposed Class III bike route
proposed on the freeway overcrossing (as described in Section 3.1.1).
3.1.6 Southbound I-805 Off-Ram~to Main Street/Auto Park Drive
This ramp is currently a single exit ramp that transitions to three turn lanes at the Main Street/Auto Park
Drive intersection. Alternative 1 would provide atwo-lane exit ramp. The addition of a second lane
would entail modifications to the off-ramp lanes, with the new lane to merge with the existing ramp lanes
and taper into the three existing turn lanes at Main Street/Auto Park Drive. The proposed auxiliary lane
at this off-ramp (see Section 3.1.7) would merge with one of the existing ramp lanes. All ramp/surface
street intersections would incorporate ADA-compliant curb cuts.
3.1.7 Mainline I-805 Freeway
Alternative 1 would entail adding 3.6-meter wide auxiliary lane segments to the freeway both north and
south of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway interchange. The proposed auxiliary lane segments
would require excavation and grading within portions of the freeway ROW, and would include
construction of a 3-meter (10-foot) wide paved shoulder. Specific proposed facilities for auxiliary lane
segments are summarized below.
• Northbound Auxiliary Lane, North of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange -This
lane would begin approximately 396 meters (1,300 feet) north of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
16
Parkway Interchange, and continue north for approximately 300 meters (985 feet) north before
merging with the existing freeway.
• Southbound Auxiliary Lane, North of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange -This
lane would begin approximately 1,036 meters (3,400 feet) north of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway Interchange (i.e., at Palomar Street) and would extend approximately 600 meters (1,970 feet)
south to connect with the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway southbound off-ramp.
• Northbound Auxiliary Lane, South of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange -This
lane would begin approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet) south of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway interchange, and continue south for approximately 390 meters (1,280 feet). The proposed
auxiliary lane would connect the Main Street/Auto Park Drive on-ramp and the East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway off-ramp, and would require a 34-meter (110-foot) long, 3-meter (10-foot)
high retaining wall along the adjacent freeway embankment.
• Southbound Auxiliary Lane, South of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange -This
lane would begin approximately 457 meters (1,500 feet) south of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway interchange and continue south for approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet). This auxiliary
lane would connect a proposed lane at the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway on-ramp with an
existing lane at the Main Street/Auto Park Drive off-ramp.
3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: MODIFIED EAST ORANGE AVENUE,/OLYMPIC PARKWAY ALIGNMENT
This alternative is identical to Alternative 1, with the exception that the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway overcrossing would be widened on both (i.e., north and south) sides, and Olympic Parkway east
of the freeway would be realigned approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) to the south (Figure 4). The
realignment of Olympic Parkway to the south would require a 52-meter (170-foot) long and 3-meter (10-
foot) high retaining wall beginning approximately 25 meters (82 feet) east of the freeway. This widening
on the south side would also require ROW acquisitions approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) wide for a
length of 115 meters (380 feet). This ROW acquisition would include approximately 425 square meters
(4,560 square feet), with the exact area to be determined during final design. Grading specifications for
this alternative (including cut and fill numbers and slope gradients) would be essentially the same as
those described above for Alternative 1. Project activities related to material export and disposal,
construction access and staging, and disturbance to off-site areas would also be the same as those
described above for Alternative 1.
17
The total estimated cost (current dollars, escalated costs in parenthesis) for the Alternative 2 is
approximately $21.5 million ($22.1 million), including approximately $16.6 million ($17.1 million) in
capital costs, $4.47 million ($4.57 million) in engineering costs, and $356,200 ($364,400) in ROW support.
The described cost estimates do not include Department engineering, environmental or ROW oversight
contributions.
3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: NO PROJECT
Under this alternative, none of the described roadway modifications would occur, and the noted portions
of I-805 and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway would remain in their current condition. Both I-805
and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway within the project study area are expected to exhibit
unacceptable LOS (as defined in Section 2.3.1) in the year 2025 under the No Project Alternative (refer to
Tables 1 and 2).
3.4 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION
As part of the project PSR and environmental process, two additional alternatives were evaluated,
including: (1) an extension of the proposed auxiliary lane along southbound I-805 between the East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges (in addition to the
other auxiliary lane segments described for Alternatives 1 and 2); and (2) the use of mass transit facilities
to accommodate projected traffic in lieu of or in combination with Alternatives 1 or 2. The modified
auxiliary lane alternative proposed to extend the described auxiliary lane north from the Main
Street/Auto Park Drive southbound off-ramp to the north side of the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway interchange. This alternative was rejected when it was determined that the described design
and related traffic movements would be unacceptable. Specifically, the effects of conflicting traffic
movements (or weaving) were evaluated between vehicles merging onto the freeway from the East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway on-ramp/auxiliary lane, and vehicles exiting the freeway onto the
Main Street/Auto Park Drive off-ramp.
The use of mass transit facilities (including bus and rail service) to replace part or the entire project
facilities was also rejected as an alternative after evaluation of existing and planned transit development
in the study area vicinity. Existing transit facilities consist primarily of local bus service along numerous
roadways, including East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway west of Brandywine Avenue, Brandywine
Avenue south of Olympic Parkway, Sequoia Street between Brandywine and Oleander avenues,
Oleander Avenue north of Sequoia Street, Melrose Avenue south and (partially) north of East Orange
18
V~v ~ V - .. = it ~I Ji
~ ~ _
\ ~ ~ '.1 ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ I
`\` ~`w
,.
>, i'
~, , ~ ~ \ \' %I L ~ I_ ,I ~ ~fl III ~i',~ ~ ~~,~~
~,
% ~ ~, -- - ~ a I~
f ~ b~~ " \ i
~ v ~ ~ J ~- -
w, ~ AV p 1' v
Iv, ~ A A 4 ~ p ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~i
~ ',~„ ,,~\ ~, ~ \ ~~ ~ _ ~ i~ t~}¢_ _ ~
II ~ I \~~ A~ ~ 1 ~: ~ _ - _ ~ i
C MN
1 ~ u~~ \ ~ - - r a
i ~ ~I 1 ~ -- I ~ ~ ~ ~ in ~ `~bS
i i, i
_ ~ ~ ~4 ~ ~ =~ ~~ ~ .a
~ , 4- ~
-`i ~ ail - ;• _
i ~
ti ~
i ~ ~'
~,
- ~ ~_
1 _
1
~..
~. ,~
,' ~
i
~,
,~~ ~
i
°~
I
i
\ \\ i
~ ~ ~
- -- \ I
___ - \II -
_ ~ ~~• ~ _ -
- _ \ ,,
\'\ - _
n. r .
r~ ,$~ _
_~ ~ - ~ ,~ ~1 I ~~_~ ~ _ _ ~. - ,
_ ~ ~ 'JI
-. ._ - ~ , ~
_. ov ~--
Y
_ ~,~. v _ ~ c T n i
„'1r T ^Z ~ ~ r' ~ ~ ~~~_ ~ _ _ _ Y
_ _
y ~ ~I r h ~ f ~ ~, ~ '1! _
~V ~
I ~'
- ____ _- -_~m _ _ __ _ _ __
_ - 0 \~ ; ~
- _. 1 I I \
I ~ ~ ~il,
~ i
\', ~ \ I i
'*! ~ ~ ~ I p
~~ ~~
- ~ ~ ~ __ - ~ M ~ ~ ~~
of it
~ ~.
lid ~~ i
I ~~ k 1. ~~~,I
- _ ' ~ ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w~
~ I __ ~ - _r ~_' ~' ~. ~YJ ~ ~ ' ~ ,~ I~.
i
`~ Z ~ 111 ~ p i r~ a, .9
~ ~ ,, y i i
,' ~ ~ _
_ ~~ _
t+ W a
C C7 N
O_
C LL
a~
m a
~ ~
c
a
d
C
~_
N
a
c `~
r p
a~
W
Avenue, and Rienstra Street west of Melrose Avenue (refer to Figure 2). These bus routes provide service
6 or 7 days per week, with an average 30-minute service frequency (MTDB 1993, 2001). Additional
existing facilities in the study area vicinity include an LRT line and several stations along the I-5 corridor,
approximately 5.1 kilometers (3.2 miles) to-the west.
Planned transit facilities identified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan (1995) and the MTDB South
Bay Public Transportation Plan (1993) include expansion of existing bus and LRT facilities in the area.
Specifically identified improvements include: (1) the extension of express bus service on East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway both west and east of I-805, as well as local bus service on Main Street/Auto
Park Drive (east of I-805) and Brandywine Avenue (south of Telegraph Canyon Road); (2) express bus
service on H Street (east and west of I-805); and (3) LRT service (including stations) along portions of
Telegraph Canyon Road, State Route (SR) 125 and SR 905 to form an LRT "loop° that encloses the project
study area (City of Chula Vista 1995; MTDB 1993, 2001).
The use of additional bus service in the project vicinity is not considered a viable project alternative due
to the extensive nature of existing and planned facilities. Even with the construction of planned bus
facilities and service expansions within the study area, long-term traffic concerns identified in Section 2.3
would continue to persist. The use of existing and planned busy service would not meet the stated
project objectives and is therefore not considered a viable project alternative. Existing and planned LRT
facilities within the project study area and vicinity are also extensive. The potential use of an expanded
LRT alignment was rejected as a viable project alternative due to the reduced benefit gained by the
system and the potential impacts to existing homes. Construction of an LRT line would not substantially
reduce existing congestion within the study area. Additionally, construction of additional LRT facilities
would result in extensive projected costs and potential displacement of multiple homes.
3.5 RELATED PROJECTS
A number of additional roadway projects have been either constructed, proposed or planned In the study
area vicinity (refer to Figures 2 and 3). These projects all have been or will be processed independently of
the I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway project and include the following:
• I-805/Telegraoh Canyon Road Interchange Improvements -This project included a number of
modifications (e.g., lane/ramp additions and widening) to I-805 and associated on- off-ramps at
Telegraph Canyon Road in the City of Chula Vista (approximately 1.6 kilometers [1 mile] north of the
project study area). These improvements were intended to improve local circulation and traffic
19
safety, and accommodate projected traffic volumes through the year 2020. This project has been
constructed.
• Olympic Parkwa~Widening~Oleander to Brandywine Avenues -The widening of this roadway
segment (adjacent to the study area on the east) from 2 to 6 lanes was intended to accommodate
projected traffic volumes through the year 2020 and meet the objectives of the City of Chula Vista
General Plan Circulation Element. This project has been constructed.
• Construction of Olympic Parkway Brandywine Avenue to Hunte Parkway -The eastern segment of
Olympic Parkway (located approximately 488 meters [1,600 feet] east of the study area) will
encompass asix-lane Prime Arterial, and is intended to accommodate projected traffic volumes
through the year 2020. This project has been approved, with final construction elements (e.g.,
installation of landscaping) expected to be completed in February or March of 2003.
• I-SOS/East Palomar Street Interchange -The City of Chula Vista has identified the construction of a
freeway interchange at I-805/Palomar Street (adjacent to the study area on the north) as a potential
long-term project to accommodate traffic circulation. This project has not been evaluated for
engineering or environmental concerns.
• I-805 Ramp Meters -Ramp meters have been proposed by the Department and the City of Chula
Vista for on-ramps at Bonita Road (approximately 4.25 kilometers [2.69 miles] north of the study area,
East H. Street (approximately 3.3 kilometers [2.05 miles] north of the study area), Telegraph Canyon
Road (approximately 1.7 kilometers [1.05 miles] north of the study area), and Main Street/Auto Park
Drive (within or adjacent to the study area). A PSR was completed for this project in February 2001,
with the PR and environmental analysis currently being prepared.
• East HStreet/Telegraph Canyon Road Widening -Both of these surface streets have been proposed
for widening by up to approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) along the north side of the existing road
alignments to accommodate projected traffic volumes. The proposed widening of Telegraph Canyon
Road would extend approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet) east from the existing northbound I-805 on-
ramp, while the East H Street widening would extend approximately 677 meters (2,220 feet) east from
the 1-805 ROW. Public review under CEQA for both projects ended in July 2002, with the CEQA
document adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on September 17, 2002.
20
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Existing conditions in the study area and vicinity are summarized below, with additional discussion
provided as appropriate for individual issues in Section 5.0.
The project study area is located within the City of Chula Vista, in the extreme southwestern corner of
San Diego County (refer to Figure 1). The project site and adjacent areas encompass predominantly high
density urban (mostly residential) development (Figure 5), although substantial open space is present to
the east and south in Poggi Canyon (and adjacent upland areas) and the Otay River Valley, respectively.
Existing residential development was built primarily in the 1970s and 1980s, with more recent
neighborhoods to the east constructed within the last 5 to 10 years. Local communities reflect generally
middle income levels, with mixed ethnic backgrounds and well-maintained homes, streets and
supporting facilities (e.g., schools, parks and neighborhood commercial sites). Existing pedestrian
facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks along most surface streets and
intersections, with existing bicycle lanes and/or routes located on the freeway overcrossing and along
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway both east and west of I-805. Specifically, the areas east of
Oleander Avenue include existing bike lanes extending several miles further to the east (i.e., on Olympic
Parkway). The existing East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway freeway overcrossing includes
designated (i.e., signed) bike routes, while East Orange Avenue west of Melrose Avenue includes bike
lanes and routes extending several miles to the west.
Topography within the project study area is terraced, with the exception of manufactured slopes along
the I-805 corridor. On-site elevations range from approximately 42.7 to 91.4 meters (140 to 300 feet) above
mean sea level (Figure 6). Mapped topsoils in the study corridor and adjacent areas include loamy
deposits of the Gaviota, Huerhuero, Olivenhain, Reiff and Salinas Soil Series (U.S. Soil Conservation
Service [SCS] 1973). Most or all of these soils have been mixed during urban development, with no
agricultural activities or potential present. Drainage within the project study area and vicinity is mostly
to the west and south into Poggi Canyon Creek, and ultimately the Otay River and San Diego Bay. Poggi
Canyon Creek and the Otay River are not included on the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) list of Section 303(d) impaired waters (per the federal Clean Water Act, RWQCB 2002).
The southernmost portion of San Diego Bay (which includes drainage from the project site) is designated
as a low priority area for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) criteria on the referenced 303(d) list, based
on coliform counts. Portions of San Diego Bay further north are listed as high priority TMDL areas based
on toxic effects and degraded benthic communities.
21
No mapped floodplains or coastal designations occur within the study area and vicinity, with local water
quality likely impaired due to urban contaminant generation (although specific data are not available).
No documented current or previous use, storage or discharge of hazardous materials has occurred within
the study area or immediate vicinity. No known historic or prehistoric archaeological sites are present
within the study area, although the project alignment is underlain by several geologic formations which
exhibit potential for important paleontological resources.
Vegetation within the project study area consists of non-native landscaping associated with I-805, surface
streets and urban development, with no native habitat, wetlands, Waters of the U.S. or federally and/or
state listed species present. Visual resources are limited based on the predominantly developed urban
nature of the study area and vicinity, with most views encompassing urban hardscape and/or roadway
corridors.
The local climate is Mediterranean, with warm dry summers and mild winters. Most precipitation occurs
during the winter months, with the project area and vicinity averaging approximately 25 centimeters (10
inches) per year. Local air quality is generally good, although the study area and vicinity exhibit non-
attainment of certain federal (ozone) and state (ozone and particulates) standards.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
As noted in Section 1.0, project-related technical studies have been prepared for the issues of traffic
circulation, noise, air quality, aesthetics, cultural resources, geotechnical constraints and hazardous
materials. These studies are summarized below in applicable sections and incorporated by reference into
the following analysis. All project-related technical reports are available for review at the City of Chula
Vista Planning and Building Department (276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California), the Department
District 11 Office (2829 Juan Street, San Diego, California), and the South Chula Vista Library (389 East
Orange Avenue, Chula Vista, California).
The following section provides an evaluation of potential project impacts and associated mitigation
measures (where applicable). The questions incorporated into the text are derived partly from FHWA
and Department NEPA guidelines, and partly from the City of Chula Vista CEQA Environmental
Evaluation Checklist. The CEQA checklist and a summary of associated CEQA impacts and mitigation
measures are provided in Section 6.0 of this document.
22
LEGEND
SF Single Family Residential ;,
MF Multi-Family Residential
SCH School
COM Commercial
IND Industrial ,
OS Open Space
DOS Disturbed Open Space*
WT Water,Tank t.
PK Park
FS Fire Station
CH Church _
'Undeveloped areas that have been
previously disturbed.
SCH
ua~,.,
.,,;, +_~
Flj
~ ry. ~1 AP'~• `
e
r
a, ~, i
'~ °'a ~. SF
'' ~'~„
D5 -• o sa,
a-
~, li
MF.-~E;P~
~i: ~iP .~
t'°"` ~5
SF 'r~,~
~~" ~. 4l. .L ..,.J
~'
~ ~t
"'"'fi`r' yr{. ~~- SCH
~_.;
~; ~., ;
,... i
OSIDOS
~i....
+ h `.
G GRs.JOt~
pROJ6~TSTWDY
AREA
~ +..._..
s~~_^i _ ~OSIDO
$[ wy.,
t
F{ r "_~~~ j~ ~ SF ~~Cli/DOS .. ~ ~ ~ . r~'r~ ~ ~~'t~gF~ DOS IND
' CJR.tAI$4~ f { 'O.. ~i~ r~T ~ f~ ~ i ~ ~ ; ~ r: ~ ~ C,? ~ 1.F µ
~ ~ ~`
,_; ~;',~~1 ~~~ '"x~~,~"" ,S , MF>, ~+`trt* Ti?aa~'."5'("j.; AUTO PARK DRIVE
N G ~ ~ ~ IMF` ~ _u ~ ,A.
MAIN STREET ° ~ CiOMtks, ~"'+~.,.~..~. i ~ ~ i~~~ L.
~ z ~„ 'YeN Ct"r.'
33R%I ., ,. J~~. ~. DOS m ~ i COM i
M. __-__
NOj t0 SC~18 ,~r --rk~---~.°';x~;: ._.t ..1 ..,._fi_._.,
Reproduced wUh perniWlon pranr<d by THOMAS BROS. MAPS® Thar map 4 wpyrighred by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®
ft U wiawJul m copy w rtproduc< aU or any part thertgf, whetherJor personal ux ar Wade, wlrhourpermimion.
`,
Existing Land Use
IS/EA -INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
HELIX Figures
~reJrrHS ~o \i ~ - ~ _ ~~ a._.. ~
`
y~
s ~ ~
~ ~
Y
~
~- ~~ ~
/I
P
L II
Y Cook ~-
r~l -
_
fi ~
~ ~ I _,
~
~
I .
I ~ ~~
pn:
III ' r `w I \ v
E
I~
8 ,
Ir
1
~ ~
c P / A ~ II I r/~ l ,. ~.
( m I
N I 1 ~A ~I
I /=+x ~ I
_/ __ l5/rrl i.'
\ L
~ I(r - II
/ ~
l~ .Q
~ ,. ~it• II
r ~,~ / I ~/
5
I
I - I ~
r II
11 ~
~
~
p-S
~ ~~'] ~v ~~l 1 i
I ,
II i
~~ !1111 7 / l~~ \
~. ,
~ l?IO~~=
~ I ~; .^
I
~ r 332 0
f /0
~~
__ ~ f"._ r-_ I
Iy~1\ 1
06 I.
~
~ I
r
/ I '
.P $ 'I~
w ,
/i_" 4
~i~5
~iA'~
'
`~
I !
I .
"
y~4~4 PROJECT STUDY ~~ ''%i/~ I
"
,
,
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- 1 ec ~ i • AREA I
.~',/
~
x
11 ~~ ~I
~
v I ~
~
,
1
I
y~{. ~
~ - /r
/ ~ ~
J
/ ~
~- ~. ~a
I A~ ~ ~~
~,i
r p 1 / I' ~ I '1
~ I~
I
J ,
~I
R~ I
~
VP caeol ra ,
i
xrnsn.
\\\\ a ~ I ~%
~ pP
I
OLypjiP ~~ g S i ~--
~
~~ o /
~ \
~ I ~/ 0 ~ / ///;
v
A ~ ' I
rE8 x2'UE 8~ I I
I ti I ~ - 426 ~G .
mow.' i i,.
~~ ~
dr
~
iii ~
V
~1 I '~.~ ~ rr~ ~ /x_400
--•(( ~~~~ /~ T (11 ~ 4 -
~ // ~ G~'~S~F'
~
~
~,, ~a~
"
T 0~
'
- .
~ ~ ,..",.,
..
~~~ r, BEAS
,~ ~
~ ~~L xz9 I~~~~- -- ~
~~ 1/ ~
~
I 1
1 ~~ ~ ~I ~; ~
I ~A_
~~ ~ b E'
~._
~ +
r 1
0 I$J ~~
_
1
~
1
~
~
r ~pb''J
r err. ~I
~~ Imo' ~ I I o
11
~2 ~
BI~°
~i ~, ~1
1~-
~/
~1 ~
/
Par I Pi
, =
P
r
I ~
-
I. --
° ~ ~
1 ~.
~MA/N STREET , ~ I ;'AUTO PARK DRIVE ;+~. _ L
6O a 0 alq /ly~~ o
.tea ~ a
~ - Y ~_,
~ 1 Ill ° .il \I
~,
~Y n GravelX ~ I
r~ '. °_
11 _ =ir SAN DIEGO - IIAr3
~= 1F3' "If \{ 1 f TRFf.6
SC ~ °
~ u (. _ I`
1r \. O // ~l ~ 11
'
~
~
ta
I~ 1
^i ~-~ ~l ~ J 1
J
/ ~~ i =Gy s~
b
~-
za:
v
'~-Cf~l'
I° n r ~
-,
ii
'
~
~
I 1i ~'' fr gps \
~
~
y ~11
,~ ~7
, ~
~ a-I 'rV \1:
~
f. .
a
i--
' v
11 r~ -
.r a\ z~
7C- ~ 1`'~
~
°li~~~~~- nn
-~ r
l
-o
ra~'~J~ " ~~7. ~
~~~ v
~\~
~ r
.
~
~
~~~
~~
~ V wV(
~~~~~- 1v
~11
~~~ \
L~ E~\
, I
I
I :
~ ~
I ~
I
~ RI
I
~~w
~
I _
o d
7
••. .. r (1 ~
,'\ I ~ ~Q\
~ '~~ i i ~ ~
.. ~ ~ V 111 1
A2 ~ ~ I
t
qqq -.
~ \ 1~1~ ~~~ I I ~
Ftr ~` r
~ ~ II V A ~~
I I d\\\\ ~ -
)
]I
IM~~ - AAA ~~i"
l\
4
~ l
~^~'~
VV~ s tip- ~)
~~ ~~,.
. i ~
Project Study Area Depicted on the
Imperial Beach 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangle
IS/EA -INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
nE~~A Figure6
The discussions of potential impacts include Alternative 1 (East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway
Alignment), Altemative 2 (Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment), and
Alternatve 3 (No Project). A CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is provided
as Attachment A of this document, with the MMRP including appropriate mitigation measures and
associated implementation schedules and responsibilities.
5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Item a - Would theproposed project conflict with local general plan designation or zoning?
Planned land use designations (as mapped in the City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1995) within the
project study area include the I-805 freeway corridor, low-medium density residential, medium-high
density residential, visitor commercial and open space (Figure 7). The low-medium residential
designation is associated with single-family homes, while the medium-high residential and visitor
commercial designations encompass small areas of multi-family housing and strip commercial
(respectively) in the extreme southwestern corner of the study area (near the I-805/Main Street/Auto
Park Drive interchange). The open space designation includes previously disturbed and landscaped
freeway medians and slopes, as well as disturbed open space (i.e., previously disturbed and undeveloped
areas) within a transmission line corridor near the northern end of the study area. Existing and planned
land use categories within the study area and vicinity are depicted in Figures 5 and 7, respectively. As
seen by comparing these maps, some differences occur within the project study area due to the fact that
planned land use designates authorized general plan uses, while existing land use reflects current on-the-
ground conditions. On-site zoning designations include predominantly Rl (single-family residential),
with minor areas of CVP (visitor commercial) and R3P12 (apartment residential) in the southwestem
corner of the study area.
Project construction under either Alternatives 1 or 2 would be located primarily within the existing
freeway and surface street ROW boundaries. As noted above in Section 3.0, however, the project design
includes a number of minor ROW acquisitions for roadway facilities and retaining walls. These proposed
acquisition areas encompass residential land use and zoning designations, and would require
amendments to these designations to reflect the proposed uses. Based on the narrow width of proposed
ROW acquisitions, and the fact that these actions would not directly affect any existing structures, other
development or sensitive environmental resources (as described below in applicable sections), the project
would not result in substantially adverse effects related to general plan and zoning designations.
23
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would also require the construction of a number of noise
abatement barriers, pursuant to the "feasible and reasonable" (NADR) analysis (refer to Section 5.11).
Portions of these potential noise barriers would be located on existing private property (residential lots),
and would thus require acquisition of ROW or easements from affected property owners. Potential noise
barriers are considered consistent with the nature and scale of existing residential development and
would be designed and treated to enhance this consistency (e.g., through landscaping efforts, see Section
5.15). It should also be noted that the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (Chapter 19.16) specifically
exempts residential lots with back or side yards on "streets or thoroughfares' (where access is from
another street or thoroughfare) from wall height restrictions. Based on these conditions, no associated
substantial conflicts with (or impacts to) existing land use or zoning designations are anticipated.
Olympic Parkway east of I-805 is identified as a planned 6-Lane Prime Arterial in the City of Chula Vista
General Plan Circulation Element (City of Chula Vista 1995). As discussed above in Section 3.0, the
portion of this roadway within City jurisdiction (i.e., outside of the Department ROW) would include six
lanes under either Alternatives 1 or 2, and is in conformance with the noted General Plan designation.
The portion of this roadway within the Department ROW will include only minor refinements to the 6-
lane design to accommodate turning movements to and from the freeway ramps.
Under the No Project Alternative, no ROW acquisitions or easements outside the existing
freeway/roadway corridors would be required, and no impacts would occur to planned land use or
zoning designations. This alternative would not provide an acceptable LOS for projected year 2025
traffic, and would thus not meet the stated general plan objectives for Olympic Parkway within the
project site or the project purpose and need. Potential mitigation for related impacts would be limited to
roadway improvements similar to those identified for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item b -Would theproposed project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including the Coastal Zone Management Plan)?
The project study area is not identified as environmentally sensitive in the City of Chula Vista General
Plan or any other known federal, state or local planning documents, and is not within the Coastal Zone.
The study area is within the City of Chula Vista Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Subarea Plan, although it is identified as a "take authorized area." This designation is based on the fact
that the project study area and vicinity (including all proposed development areas under Alternatives 1
and 2) have been previously developed or disturbed in association with existing freeway and urban
24
LEGEND
Residential Low-Medium
Residential Medium
Residential Medium-High
t t Commercial Retail
Commercial Visitor
`~`~~~~ Research and Limited Manufacturing
JJd.°:a Public and Ouasi Public
Q Open Space
:':~`,,y' Parks and Recreation
-r.. I
d 1.
S1 ~'~\
Fry,G ~~ '~-'~'
:~
2 t+ r
~ 1~T
PIRO.iSCT STUDY
AREA
+ +
n
O
'~ ~ f s .~C°rG ~.;,~. ,~' l U4.• h' at ~ C G~ ?
i rMt'..~Fc ~S Y '~.~ O) J. v •~ ~,,., e
rT f ~Z ~ ~ LEITUI U'R ~ f .., J J ~ t
~ %' ~` .tom\rl ~ /~l'3ti f~YK JYJ tt1h~
w '`r' i ,d J
~`~`~ ~ t~ ~ l; MAIN STREET ~ ~ •
p n -
R
y'V^.JV ~,~ ~' ~~ , 1~1~ + 1 L L
~~ •~t
~~ ~ ~ '}
Noi to Scale ___-- _ _ -=---=----===-=- -----_--- ~~` ~ ~ .
,: ~~ ~ .
Repmduced wflRparmGefon granfedby THOMAS BROS.MAP,4®TRfa mop Ucopyrlghred lry THOMAS BROS. dIAPS®~•?•
t„O~ C
!t Lr unlawful to copy or reproduce atl or anypart dwreof. whetMrPor ~erconol ure ar rcea4, wtrAoW permfnrlon. .,;iQ:
..n- .,
•Ti t'3
~' C
G. 4
'• 1,
AUTO PARK DRIVE
Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Map
IS/EA -INTERSTATE 805/EAST ORANGE AVENUE/OLYMPIC PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
B E L I X Figure 7
~~~
j .:y
y
, 4 0
i~
~
USX
T""' ~Y~e`•'. L
:r.;: _
',~9. ~Y
~
~ .,.. •7+
LG,?. r,, zr-
S
:.
` .G o
~4.
d
R C- po
.(y
~ :~
;tee
V4.
i
Yh ~
"~ .acv ~ 1 vU"Aki!"~. i ~
-::: ~
E" I
e ...
f ee
~y~,
~~........
o V
't S•R~:./.•
' "beT+o'a eee
:.:' ~'.~:i _~r~
~O ,
y a e...
a. 'i:: ... .. qtr •~ •
development. As a result of these conditions, none of the project alternatives would conflict with
applicable environmental City of Chula Vista plans or policies and no associated impacts are anticipated.
The project study area does not contain (and is not adjacent to) any publicly owned parks, recreation
areas or wildlife/waterfowl refuges. Specifically, the open space areas shown in the northern portion of
the study area on Figures 5 and 7 include previously graded areas within a transmission line corridor.
The open space designations shown at the East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Main
Street/Auto Park Drive interchanges on Figure 7 are landscaped freeway medians and slopes. The
disturbed open space located north of Olympic Parkway just east of the study area on Figure 5 is a
graded slope, and the linear, disturbed open space areas adjacent to the northwestern and southwestern
portions of the study area on Figure 5 are disturbed and/or lined drainage channels.
Item c -Would the proposed project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
The entire project study area (as well as the proposed ROW acquisition areas and noise barrier locations)
has been previously developed or disturbed, with no known current or recent agricultural activity in the
study area or vicinity. Accordingly, no impacts related to agricultural resources, operations, soils or
farmlands would occur from any of the project altematives.
Item d - Would the proposed project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including slow-income or minority community)?
Freeway and surface street segments identified for improvement under Alternatives 1 and 2 extend
through established communities of predominantly single-family homes. Because of the nature of
proposed facilities, however (i.e., relatively minor alterations to existing freeway and surface street
corridors), no associated substantial adverse impacts related to the physical arrangement of established
communities are anticipated from any of the project alternatives.
25
5.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Item a -Would the proposed project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
None of the project alternatives would involve the construction of new housing or public services that
would generate (or potentially generate) new population. That is, project facilities are included in
regional transportation planning documents (e.g., the San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAL]
2000 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan [RTIP] and the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan,
[RTP], 2000a and 2000b), and are intended to accommodate projected traffic associated with approved
and planned development. The RTIP encompasses the planning period of 2001 to 2004, while the RTP
involves long-term planning between 1995 and 2020. Based on the conditions described in this
paragraph, no impacts related to regional or local population projections are anticipated from
implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to regional or local population projections.
Item b -Would the proposed project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g.,through projectsin an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?
As noted above in Section 5.2a, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not include new housing (or other facilities
that could directly generate population growth), are included in the most current SANDAL RTIP and
RTP, and are not identified as an environmental condition in any local development projects (City of
Chula Vista 2001). Therefore, while Alternatives 1 and 2 include improvements to major infrastructure,
they are intended to accommodate projected traffic from approved or planned development and would
not generate excess capacity that could potentially serve additional (currently unanticipated) traffic, or
remove a constraint to growth. Based on these conditions, no substantial adverse direct or indirect
impacts related to growth inducement are expected from implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would ocCU7, with ri0
associated impacts to growth inducement.
26
Item c -Would the proposed project displace existing housing (especially affordable housing)?
No displacement of existing housing would occur under any of the project alternatives, with associated
impacts not anticipated.
Item d -Would the proposed project affect lifestyles, or neighborhood character or stability?
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would involve improvements to existing roadway structures, such
as adding auxiliary or ramp lanes and constructing retaining walls and noise abatement barriers. Because
these proposed facilities constitute relatively minor additions to the existing freeway and roadway
corridors, no substantial adverse impacts related to lifestyles or neighborhood character/stability are
anticipated. Additional discussion of community character issues is provided below in Section 5.15,
Aesthetics.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to lifestyles or neighborhood character/stability. As noted in Section 2.3, however,
local traffic conditions are expected to deteriorate extensively without the project, with the resulting
congestion likely resulting in adverse effects to local lifestyles and character.
5.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
Item a -Would the proposed project affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit-dependent or other
specific interest groups?
Alternatives 1 and 2 would involve a number of facility modifications within existing freeway and
surface street corridors. Because the proposed facilities would not substantially alter the nature, extent or
width of existing corridors, no perceivable alteration in the location or use of these facilities would occur.
In addition, the project would improve or maintain local pedestrian access opportunities through the
addition or retention of facilities such as sidewalks, intersection signals and crosswalks. As a result, no
adverse impacts to minority, elderly, handicapped, transit-dependent or other specific interest groups are
expected. Additional discussion of potential impacts to minority and low-income populations is
provided below in Item f of this section.
27
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated direct (i.e., construction-related) impacts to minority, elderly, handicapped or other specific
interest groups. It should be noted, however, that traffic congestion expected to occur in the study area
without the project (refer to Section 2.3) could result in adverse impacts to special interest groups through
conditions such as reduced access opportunities.
Item b -Would the proposed project affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the
displacement of businesses or farms?
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not adversely affect any existing or proposed employment,
industry or commerce, and would not involve the displacement of any businesses or farms. This
conclusion is based on the nature and location of proposed facilities (including retaining walls and noise
barriers), which consist of relatively minor modifications within or adjacent to existing road rights-of-
way. Implementation of Alternatives ] or 2 would also result in beneficial impacts to employment and
commerce, by providing temporary (construction) employment opportunities and improving the ability
of the local transportation system to sustain commerce-related traffic.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated direct (i.e., construction-related) impacts to employment, industry or commerce, or existing
businesses or farms. As noted above in Item a of this section, however, traffic congestion anticipated to
occur without the project could adversely affect local business activities through (for example) limitations
on access and the movement of goods and services.
Item c -Would the proposed project affect property values ar the local tax base?
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in generally minor modifications to an existing regional freeway
corridor and adjacent surface streets. Associated direct impacts to local properties would be limited to
ROW acquisitions, construction of retaining walls and/or noise barriers, and removal of some mature
trees and shrubs adjacent to residential properties. These impacts are not considered substantially
adverse due to the minor nature and extent of ROW acquisitions, as well as requirements for wall/barrier
design (e.g., facade treatments and landscaping) under Department and City guidelines, and
recommended replacement of landscaping removed by project activities in applicable areas (see Section
5.15, Aesthetics). Some increase in local property values (and related property tax rates) could occur in
relation to the addition of structures such as sound walls. Any such increases are expected to be minor in
relation to overall values/tax rates, and would not result in substantial adverse impacts to local property
28
owners. Based on the described conditions, implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not be expected
to generate substantial adverse impacts related to a reduction of property values or the local tax base.
Under the No Project Altemative, no roadway construction or modification would occur, with no
associated direct impacts to property values or the local tax base. The anticipated deterioration of local
traffic circulation without the project described in Items a and b, however, could potentially reduce local
property values.
Item d -Would the proposed project affect any medical, educational or scientific community
facilities?
Construction and operation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would be located predominantly within existing
freeway/roadway rights-of-way, and would not impact any medical, educational or scientific community
facilities.
Under the No Project Alternative, no roadway construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to medical, educational or scientific community facilities. As previously discussed,
however, the. deterioration of local traffic circulation anticipated without the project could adversely
affect medical, educational or scientific facilities and services through (for example) access restrictions.
Item a -Would the proposed project support large commercial or residential development?
As noted above in Section 5.2a, Alternatives 1 and 2 are included in the current SANDAG RTIP and RTP.
Therefore, while these alternatives include improvements to major infrastructure, they are intended to
accommodate projected traffic from approved or planned development and would not generate excess
capacity that could potentially serve additional (currently unanticipated) traffic or remove a constraint to
growth. Based on these conditions, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in impacts related to
supporting large commercial or residential developments beyond established projections.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to supporting large commercial or residential developments.
29
Item f -Would the proposed project conflict with Federal Environmental Justice requirements?
Executive Order 12898 (effective February 11, 1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority population and Low-Income Populations, directs federal agencies to "ensure that all programs or
activities' receiving Federal financial assistance that affect human health or the environment do not
directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria, methods or practices that
discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin." The principal goals and policies identified in
the U.S. Department of Transportation 1995 Environmental Justice Strategy include: (1) improve the
environment and public health and safety in the transportation of people and goods, along with the
development and maintenance of transportation systems and services; (2) coordinate transportation
policies and investments with environmental concerns and consideration of economic and social
interests; and (3) consider the interests, issues and contributions of affected communities, disclose
appropriate information, and give communities an opportunity to be involved in decision making.
The project study area consists primarily of an existing freeway corridor, which extends through
established residential (mostly single-family) communities. These communities encompass portions of
four census tract Block Groups within the project study area (i.e., Block Group Nos. 133061, 133062,
133096 and 133121). These Block Groups divide the study area into four quadrants, with No. 133061
including the portion of the study area located south of East Orange Avenue and west of I-805 (southwest
quadrant, refer to Figure 2 for geographic references), No. 133062 including areas north of Olympic
Parkway and east of I-805 (northwest quadrant), No. 133096 including areas north of Olympic Parkway
and east of 1-805 (northeast quadrant) and No. 133121 including areas south of Olympic Parkway and
east of I-805 (southeast quadrant). Following is a summary breakdown of population, ethnicity and
median income (based on an average household size of three persons) data for the four Block Groups,
based on 2000 census data (City of Chula Vista 2002, SANDAG 2002).
Block Groin 133061 (southwest quadrantl -This area includes a total population of 1,868, with
approximately 63 percent representing Hispanic or Latino background, 21 representing Caucasian
background, 10 percent representing Asian background, and smaller percentages (less than five percent)
of individuals with African-American, Native American, Hawaiian or mixed backgrounds. The 1999
median income for this Block Group was $50,000.
Block Group 133062 (northwest quadrantl -This area has a total population of 2,644, with approximately
55 percent representing Hispanic or Latino background, 30 percent representing Caucasian background, 7
percent representing Asian background, 6 percent representing African-American background, and 2
30
percent representing a mixed ethnic background. The 1999 median income for this Block Group was
$45,515.
Block Group 133096 (northeast quadrantl - This area includes a total population of 587, with
approximately 65 percent representing Hispanic or Latino background, 16 percent representing
Caucasian background, 11 percent representing African-American background, 5 percent representing
Asian background, and 3 percent with mixed ethnic background. The 1999 median income for this Block
Group was $64,844.
Block Group 133121 (southeast quadrantl - This area exhibits a total population of 725, with
approximately 48 percent representing Caucasian background, 42 percent representing Hispanic or
Latino background, and 10 percent representing Asian background. The 1999 median income for this
Block Group was $66,250.
Based on the above information, all four Block Groups within the project study area exhibit some ethnic
diversity, with Hispanic/Latino and Caucasian backgrounds comprising the largest population groups
(between 81 and 90 percent combined in al] four areas). Based on available census data and field
reconnaissance, none of the identified ethnic populations comprise readily discernable geographic groups
or clusters, with the study area population considered generally homogeneous. All four Block Groups
exhibited median income levels in 1999 [hat are well above the 2002 federal poverty (or low-income) level
of $15,020 for a family of three (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2002).
Construction of Alternatives 1 or 2 would improve local transportation/circulation and provide
acceptable LOS through the year 2025, and would not result in direct impacts to any existing residential
structures (i.e., removal or relocation of structures) or related development. In addition, project
implementation would not adversely affect local traveling costs, modes of transportation, and access to
transportation or local facilities. Project facilities would be located primarily within or immediately
adjacent to existing freeway or roadway rights-of-way, with minor proposed ROW acquisitions or
easements associated mainly with retaining walls or noise abatement barriers. Construction of these
walls and barriers would result in indirect visual impacts from the structures themselves, as well as from
potential removal of existing mature landscaping (e.g., eucalyptus trees). Removed vegetation would be
replaced as part of project implementation (refer to Section 5.15, Aesthetics), however, and a number of
other measures are also recommended to minimize potential impacts to community character, such as
wall treatments and additional landscaping (see Section 5.15). Based on these conditions, the proposed
retaining walls, noise abatement barriers and landscaping would blend in with the existing community,
31
and no associated substantially adverse impacts are expected. As described in applicable sections of this
document, the project would also not result in adverse indirect impacts to issues including air and water
quality (Sections 5.6 and 5.5), hazards (Section 5.10), public services/utilities (Sections 5.12 through 5.14)
and recreation (Section 5.18).
All other potentially substantial adverse environmental impacts related to the proposed project or
alternatives would be addressed as described in applicable sections of this document.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would contribute to the health, safety and welfare of local residents
by improving traffic circulation and reducing accident rates at applicable freeway interchanges (see
Section 2.3). Project construction would also provide local short-term (construction) employment
opportunities (with all project construction contracts subject to Department fair hiring requirements), and
would reduce noise levels at a number of adjacent residential sites below the current levels (i.e., through
the construction of noise abatement barriers, see Section 5.11). The construction of noise abatement
barriers and associated landscaping/wall treatments would comprise beneficial community impacts by
providing a quieter and aesthetically pleasing local environment.
This Irutial Study/Environmental Assessment will be circulated for public review pursuant to applicable
requirements of CEQA and the NEPA. This process includes targeting affected populations through
efforts such as providing an English and Spanish language notice of IS/EA availability to all property
owners within 500 feet of the project area, holding public hearings/meetings, evaluating all received
comments, and incorporating related additions/modifications to project environmental, design and
engineering efforts, as appropriate,
Based on the above described conditions, implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not directly affect
existing residential development or substantially/disproportionately impact any existing ethnic- or
income-based communities; and would provide beneficial effects related to traffic circulation, safety,
short-term employment, and long-term noise abatement and aesthetics. In addition, both alternatives
incorporate a number of design or mitigation measures (as identified in applicable sections of this
document) to address potential environmental impacts. The project environmental evaluation (including
related project design data and technical reports) will be available for public review, and any resulting
comments will be incorporated as appropriate. Accordingly, no minority or low-income (or other)
populations would be subject to disproportionate adverse effects, and no substantial adverse impacts
related to environmental justice are expected from Alternatives 1 or 2. Due to the nature and limited
32
scope of these alternatives, other project alternatives (e.g., the rejected alternative described in Section 3.4)
would likely result in similar or greater environmental justice impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to environmental justice requirements.
5.4 GEOLOGY/TOPOGRAPHY
A geotechnical investigation of the project study area was prepared by Ninyo & Moore (2000a). This
investigation included literature review, site reconnaissance, geologic mapping, subsurface exploration
and sampling (i.e., drilling and logging of 34 borings), and laboratory analysis. The referenced
geotechnica] study did not identify any soil or geologic conditions that would preclude development of
Alternatives 1 or 2, although a number of recommendations were provided to address potential
geotechnical concems. Specifically, these concerns involve issues such as seismicity, slope stability,
grading/site preparation, expansive material, retaining and noise barrier design, foundation/pavement
design and corrosivity. Pertinent information from the project geotechnical investigation is summarized
in the following analysis, with the complete report available for review at the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the South Chula Vista Library.
Item a -Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unstable
earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures?
Potential impacts identified in the project geotechnical study related to unstable earth conditions
involved potential slope instability and the presence of subsurface materials with corrosive potential.
Slope-related concems are addressed in Item g of this section, with corrosive issues discussed below.
Laboratory tests of materials excavated from the study area documented pH levels ranging from 5.7 to 7.9
(moderately acidic to moderately alkaline), sulfate contents of between 10 and 220 parts per million
(ppm), chloride contents ranging from 35 to 160 ppm, and minimum electrical resistivity levels of
between 475 and 5,660 ohm-cm. These test results indicate that existing subsurface materials within the
study area are corrosive to metal and reinforced concrete, and could potentially result in substantial
deterioration to project facilities over time. The project geotechnical study also notes that imported fill
materials may also exhibit corrosive characteristics.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 will be subject to existing Department, City of Chula Vista and/or
other appropriate design guidelines, including current Cnltrnns Stnndnrd Test Methods (1991); Cnltrnns
33
Highway Design Manual (1995); Caltrans Standard Specifieak'ons (1999); City of Chula Vista Grading
Ordinance; International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (UBC 199;
California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks (Stormwater Quality Task Porce 1993);
Municipal Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP, San Diego Co-Permittees 2002); and the
Greenbook Committee Standard Specification for Public Works Projects (2000). Based on these and other
appropriate existing requirements, the results of the referenced geotechnical study (as well as subsequent
studies such as materials and foundation reports) will be incorporated into the project design. The above-
referenced design guidelines include the following types of measures related to unstable earth conditions
that would be included in the project design:
• Imported fill shall be tested for corrosive properties prior to use;
• Corrosion-resistant concrete and metal, or applicable plastic, shall be used for culverts and other
drainage facilities in appropriate areas (pursuant to the project geotechnical analysis);
• Reinforced concrete foundations within the project alignment shall use Type I cement, with
appropriate cement contents and tMcknesses as described in the project geotechrdcal study; and
• Project grading and excavation shall he monitored by a geotechnical engineer to verify or update
geologic and soil conditions within the study area. Based on this monitoring, additional design
requirements shall be implemented as appropriate.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 will require inclusion of the above-described standards and design
measures as project conditions, and would therefore address potential impacts related to corrosive
materials.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to unstable earth conditions.
Item b -Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving
disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
Native topsoils have been disturbed or removed from virtually the entire project study area (including a]]
areas proposed for development) through previous grading and development. Surficial materials present
within the study area consist predominantly of fill deposits associated with existing freeway, roadway
34
and related features (e.g., slopes). Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would involve the placement of
engineered fill in areas of roadway construction, as well as excavation and/or placement of fill in
manufactured slopes along the freeway. While such activities would technically involve the "disruption,
displacement, compaction and/or overcovering" of surface materials (if not soil per se), they would be
conducted pursuant to applicable engineering and grading standards (as noted above in Item a of this
section), and would therefore not result in associated substantial adverse impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to topsoils.
Item c -Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving changes
in topography or ground surface relief features?
Construction of Alternatives 1 or 2 would entail minor topographic alteration in association with grading
of roadway surfaces and modifications to freeway slopes. As depicted on Figures 3a through 3c, these
proposed modifications would not substantially alter existing topography or ground relief, with no
associated substantial adverse impacts anticipated.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to topographic alteration.
Item d -Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts related to the
destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
Based on the existing developed nature of much of the study area and observations in the referenced
project geotechnical study, no unique geologic or physical features are known or expected to occur on
site. Accordingly, no associated impacts would result from implementation of Altematives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to unique geologic or physical features.
35
Item a -Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts related to any
increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
Construction of Alternatives 1 or 2 would involve excavation and fill deposits along the existing freeway
slopes, with these materials susceptible to short- and long-term erosion effects (particularly in the short-
term period between construction and the establishment of project landscaping). The erosion and
transport of material within and (potentially) downstream of the study area (i.e., if not controlled and
contained within graded areas) could produce a number of related substantially adverse effects,
including damage to manufactured slopes (e.g., rilling, etc.), siltation of downstream drainage facilities,
and degradation of downstream water quality and biological habitats (i.e., through increased turbidity
and transport of other contaminants).
The above-described potential erosion/sedimentation impacts would be addressed through the inclusion
of geotechnical recommendations and guidelines in the project design (with geotechnical studies and
related guidelines applicable to the proposed project referenced above in Item a of this section), as well as
implementation of existing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Specific requirements under NPDES include coverage under the General Construction Activity
Storm Water Permit (NPDES No. CA5000002) from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to
construction. Such permits are required for construction activities that exceed five acres in size, and
include provisions to minimize off-site sediment transport through implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Specific SWPPP requirements include construction-related erosion
and sedimentation measures, as well as monitoring requirements both during and after construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls under SWPPP guidelines require the use of best available technology
(BAT), best conventional pollution control technology (BCT) and/or best management practices (BMPs).
An NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit was issued to the Department for portions
of Districts 1 through 12 (including the project study area) on July 15, 1999 (Order 99-06-DWQ, NPDES
No. CAS000003). The approved permit includes (among other criteria) requirements to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) through (for example) implementation
of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). These requirements are addressed through a number of
Department plans and policies, including the approved 1997 SWMP, the Caltrans Stormwater Plan and
Construction Contractor's Guide and Specifications (1997a) and Caltrans Storm Water Quality
Handbooks (1997b). All of these sources require implementation of the Department NPDES General
36
Construction Permit and provide detailed guidance for such implementation. Specific measures
identified in the noted documents include the following:
• Existing vegetation shall be preserved wherever feasible;
• Construction activities shall not be conducted during the rainy season (November 15 to March 15)
when feasible;
• Construction access points shall be stabilized through measures such as temporary gravelling or
paving;
• Runoff over manufactured slopes shall be avoided through the use of measures such as slope drains,
dikes and/or brow ditches;
• Sediment trapping devices such as gravel bags, hay bales and fiber rolls shall be used to minimize
off-site sediment transport;
• Applicable graded areas (e.g., slopes) shall be temporarily revegetated (e.g., by hydroseeding) and
protected (e.g., by application of duff off or bonded fiber matrix) to provide interim stability prior to
the installation of permanent landscaping;
Permanent landscaping shall be installed as soon as feasible after construction (but no later than one
year after grading) and shall include native or drought-tolerant varieties where feasible; and
• Project erosion control and drainage facilities shall be regularly monitored and maintained to ensure
proper working order. While the timing and frequency of BMP monitoring and maintenance efforts
vary somewhat by nature and location, Department guidelines typically require contractors to
inspect construction erosion/sedimentation BMPs bi-weekly during the winter season, before and
after each storm event, and at 24-hour intervals during extended storms (regardless of the season).
The Department requirements for permanent erosion/sedimentation BMPs include inspections
conducted annually and following major storm events in known problem areas, as well as "periodic'
efforts to remove sediment, debris or other potential obstacles to effective BMP operation.
Responsible parties for such activities will include the project contractor(s) during construction, the
Department for long-term maintenance in portions of the project within the I-805 ROW, and the City
of Chula Vista for areas outside the I-805 ROW.
37
In addition to the measures listed above, the project design includes a number of design features and
permanent BMPs designed to address (among other water quality concerns). long-term erosion and
sedimentation concerns. Specifically, these would include design measures such as installation and long-
term maintenance of project landscaping, use of retaining walls or other applicable long-term slope
stabilization techniques (e.g., pavement or rock armor), and provision of outlet protection/velocity
dissipation at all drainage outlet points (e.g., through installation of riprap aprons). Permanent BMPs to
be used in the study area include vegetation filters such as grass-lined swales or biostrips to remove
sediment (and other contaminants) from site runoff prior to off-site flow. These requirements are
formalized in the following mitigation measure:
Proposed Mitigation Measure
• The project contractor(s) should implement all applicable short- and long-term BMP requirements
related to erosion/sedimentation as identified in existing NPDES, Department and City of Chula
Vista guidelines. Proposed compliance activities (i.e., specific written methods proposed to comply
with the noted requirements) should be submitted to the Department and the City for review and
approval prior to grading to ensure that all requirements would be adequately addressed. Inspection
and maintenance of all erosion control BMPs would be conducted by the project contractor(s) during
construction activities and by the Department and the City (in their respective ROWS) over the long-
term.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to erosion/sedimentation.
Item f -Would the proposed project result in or expose people to potential impacts related to any
changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake?
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not be expected to result in any adverse impacts related to
deposition or erosion of beach sands, river channels, stream or ocean beds, bays, inlets or lakes. This
conclusion is based on a number of considerations, including: (1) the developed nature of the study area
and vicinity (including channelization of major drainage courses such as Poggi Canyon Creek); (2) the
intervening distance between the project study area and applicable streams, beaches, bays and the ocean;
and (3) requirements for erosion control identified in Item e of this section.
38
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts related to deposition or erosion of beach sands, river channels, stream or ocean beds,
bays, inlets or lakes.
Item a -Would the proposed project expose people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
As previously noted, the project geotechnical study (Ninyo & Moore 2000a) did not identify any geologic
or soil conditions that would preclude development of Alternatives 1 or 2, although a number of
potential geologic hazards were noted. Specific identified issues pertinent to this discussion include
seismic hazards, slope stability/design, expansive material, site grading and surficial material
preparation, and retaining wall/noise barrier design.
The project study area is within a seismically active region, although no active or potentially active faults
are known or expected to occur within or adjacent to the site. The principal source for seismic related
hazards within the study area is the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located approximately 6
kilometers (3.7 miles) to the west. The maximum credible earthquake (i.e., the maximum event
considered capable of occurring) identified for the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is a Richter magnitude event
of 7.0, with such an earthquake projected to result in a peak ground acceleration (ground motion) value
of 0.468 (where g equals the acceleration due to gravity) within the project study area (Ninyo & Moore
2000a). The project geotechnical study also noted that the La Nacion Fault is located approximately 430
meters (1,400 feet) east of the study area, but concludes that this fault is not considered a "significant
seismic source" by the Department. On the basis of the described seismic conditions, the project
geotechnical study concludes that the study area is potentially subject to substantial ground motion
effects, but is not expected to experience substantial adverse effects or potential related to ground failure,
landslides, liquefaction, or seismically induced ground settlement. The referenced geotechnical study
concludes that all identified seismic impacts would be addressed through implementation of applicable
Department (or other) standards related to seismic design considerations.
Specifically, the Caltrans Standard Specifications (1999) contain the following types of requirements for
seismic hazards:
All areas proposed for grading and construction shall be cleared and grubbed to remove organic
debris and other unsuitable materials;
39
• Unsuitable soils or other surface deposits shall be removed and replaced with approved non-
expansive fill, or otherwise treated to provide a suitable base (e.g., recompaction);
All fill deposits shall be subject to proper composition, placement (e.g., in distinct layers), compaction
and moisture content criteria;
Appropriate aggregate subbase, aggregate base, asphalt-concrete and concrete materials shall be
employed for roadway and related facilities, per Department standards;
• Al] retaining walls, noise abatement barriers and related features (e.g., foundations, footings, piles
and backfills) shall be designed and constructed pursuant to Department standards; and
• Seismic loading criteria (e.g., concrete reinforcing) shall be implemented for applicable structures
(e.g., bridges and walls) pursuant to Department standards.
Inclusion of these types of measures from the Caltrans Standard Specifications (or other applicable
sources such as the referenced UBC and Greenbook guidelines) in the project design would address
potential seismic impacts, with no additional mitigation required for the issue of seismic hazards.
As identified in the project geotechnical study, proposed roadway/manufactured slope excavation and
construction of retaining walls/noise barriers may encounter existing fill and deposits of the Quaternary
Lindavista and Tertiary San Diego formations. The presence of these materials in areas of proposed
excavation and construction could potentially result in substantial adverse impacts related to slope and
structure (e.g., wall) stability. The geotechnical study identifies a number of measures that would
address these potential impacts, including implementation of applicable Department, City and/or other
industry standards for slope design, erosion control (as noted in Item e of this section), and the previously
described retaining wall/noise barrier design. Specific measures related to slope design include the
erosion control techniques noted in Item e of this section, as well as the use of key structures at the toes of
proposed slopes, and benching at the interface of existing and proposed slopes (per Caltrans Standard
Specifications). Inclusion of these measures into the project design would address slope stability impacts
with no additional associated mitigation required.
The project geotechnical study identifies a number of surficial soils within the study area that may exhibit
expansion (or shrink-swell) potential. Expansion is a phenomenon related to the water holding capacity
of clay minerals, with expansive behavior potentially resulting in substantial adverse effects to facilities
40
such as foundations, pavement or underground utilities. The project geotechnical study identifies a
number of measures to address potential expansion effects, including implementation of the following
measure from the Caltrans Standard Specifications (with City requirements derived from UBC or
Greenbook guidelines containing similar measures).
Materials within areas proposed for grading or construction shall be either (1) removed and replaced
with approved fill; (2) treated on site to eliminate expansion hazards (e.g., through recompaction and
moisture control); or (3) restricted to use in non-structural fills in accordance with applicable
Department, UBC, Greenbook, or geotechnical analysis guidelines (e.g., previously noted).
Inclusion of such requirements in the project design would address all impacts related to expansive soils,
with no additional associated mitigation required.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts (beyond current conditions) related to earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure or similar hazards.
5.5 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Item a -Would the proposed project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Runoff within the study area currently flows south and west to the channelized Poggi Canyon Creek
drainage, which continues southwest to the Otay River and ultimately San Diego Bay. All additions or
modifications to existing drainage facilities within the study area from Alternatives 1 or 2 would conform
with applicable Department and City design standards, with no substantial alterations to current
drainage patterns expected. Project implementation would result in minor changes to existing runoff and
absorption rates due the paving of additional freeway, ramp and surface street lanes, with paved areas
reducing local absorption and increasing runoff by creating impermeable surfaces. No substantial
adverse impacts are anticipated from these changes, however, due to the relatively small area and
associated runoff generation involved. Specifically, Alternatives 1 or 2 would result in approximately 1.2
hectares (3 acres) of additional pavement (i.e., beyond existing paved areas), with only minor additional
runoff generated as a result. The minor increase in runoff generation within the study area is also not
expected to substantially affect the capacity or function of downstream drainage structures.
41
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Item b - Would the proposed project expose people or property to water-related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
Alternatives 1 or 2 would entail excavation and construction activities associated with modifications to
existing roadways and slopes, as well as the addition of retaining walls and noise barriers. No substantial
adverse flood-related impacts are expected from these activities based on the following conditions: (1)
Floodplain mapping conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 199 for the
project study area designates the entire site as Zone X, or "Areas determined to be outside the 500-year
floodplain;" and (2) in the event of on-site flooding, the proposed facilities would not be susceptible to
substantial flood-related hazards and would not substantially affect flood conditions (i.e., through either
a substantial increase in runoff generation or the creation of impediments to flood flows, refer to Items a
and i of this section). The project study area is not subject to impacts associated with tsunamis
(commonly referred to as tidal waves), due to its location approximately 4.S kilometers (3 miles) inland,
and is not in close proximity to any large inland water bodies.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts from water-related hazards.
Item c -Would the proposed project result in the discharge into surface waters or other alterations of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potential water quality impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 include erosion/sedimentation,
accidental discharge of construction-related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, lubricants and concrete
waste), disposal of extracted groundwater (if necessary), roadway maintenance activities and generation
of automobile related contaminants from roadway use (e.g., oil or coolant leaks). The latter effects are not
expected to be substantially adverse, due to the assumed incremental nature of such contaminant
generation (relative to existing conditions) for roadway operations in the study area. Potential erosion
impacts would be addressed through the requirements described above in Item e of Section 5.4.
Based on geotechnical investigations conducted for the project study area, shallow groundwater was not
observed and is generally not expected to occur on site (refer to Item f of this section). The potential
occurrence of shallow aquifers cannot be completely discounted, however, and disposal of groundwater
42
(dewatering) could be required to accommodate construction activities if shallow aquifers are present in
areas to be graded or excavated. Construction dewatering (if required) could potentially result in
substantial adverse water quality effects through (for example) discharge of contaminated groundwater
or erosion/sedimentation from uncontrolled or improper discharge practices. The Caltrans SWMP and
Storm Water Quality Handbooks noted above in Section 5.4 (Item e) identify BMPs to address potential
pollutant generation from non-stormwater sources, including construction dewatering. In addition, the
Caltrans Field Guide to Construction Site Dewntering (2001) identifies specific methods to implement and
manage dewatering operations. Specific BMP measures described in these documents include use of
applicable (depending on site-specific conditions) sediment control measures, testing of groundwater for
contaminants prior to disposal, on-site retention and percolation/evaporation, and discharge to a
sanitary sewer or storm drain system. These measures are described in detail in the referenced
documents (Caltrans 2001, 1997a and 19976, Stormwater Quality Task Force 1993). The project applicant
will be required to obtain an approved NPDES Dewatering Waste Discharge Permit (NPDES No.
CA0108804) from the San Diego RWQCB prior to groundwater extraction/disposal. Such permits are
intended to ensure conformance with applicable RWQCB water quality, anti-degradation and beneficial
use objectives, and typically entail the use of BMPs to meet these requirements. Specific BMP measures
generally encompass a number of physical and chemical parameters (depending on site-specific
conditions), including the use of energy dissipaters or temporary sedimentation basins.
The use of construction-related hazardous materials could potentially result in substantial adverse water
quality effects through accidental discharges associated with activities such as paving operations,
material use and storage, or vehicle operation (e.g., refueling) and maintenance. The approved Caltrans
SWMP, Contractor's Guide and Specifications and Storm Water Quality Handbooks, as well as the
Municipal SUSMP (San Diego Co-Permittees 2002) and California Stormwater BMP Handbooks,
described in Section 5.4 include the following types of non-stormwater BMP requirements for
construction related hazardous material use and storage:
• Sediment catchment and filtering devices (e.g., hay bales, sand bags and filter fabric) shall be placed
around storm drain inlets in areas downstream from paving operations;
Paving slurry and wastes shall be contained, collected and disposed of properly;
• Hazardous material storage shall be minimized on site (i.e., only a few days supply), and shall be
restricted to designated locations;
43
• Hazardous material storage sites shall encompass berms, ditches and/or impervious liners to prevent
off-site discharge in the event of a spill;
• Hazardous material preparation use and disposal shall comply with manufacturer's specifications;
• Fueling and maintenance areas shall be designated for construction equipment, with mobile fueling
(i.e., outside the designated areas) to be avoided whenever feasible. The described fueling and
maintenance areas shall be located away from storm drains or water courses, and shall include
measures to protect and contain hazardous materials (e.g., impervious liners or berms); and
• Appropriate construction employees shall be trained by the project contractor(s) in proper hazardous
material use, handling, storage and disposal techniques prior to commencement of project
construction. Construction employees shall also be trained on appropriate action to take in the event
of a spill, including containment techniques and agency notification.
The Department District 11 SWMP also includes BMP requirements related to long-term maintenance
activities such as roadway cleaning, landscaping chemical applications (e.g., fertilizers or pesticides), and
maintenance (including graffiti removal) of retaining or noise walls. Specific associated requirements
include proper training, implementation of manufacture's application standards, and proper handling
and containment procedures (similar to those described above). Long-term project operation in the City
of Chula Vista ROW along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway would be subject to applicable
requirements of the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES No. CASG108758), including the
SUSMP. This permit is implemented by the San Diego RWQCB under Order No. 2001-01 and identifies
waste discharge requirements for urban storm runoff. These requirements generally entail the use of
BMPs to "[m]itigate (infiltrate, filter or treat" Stormwater runoff based on applicable flow or volume
criteria (as defined in Order 2001-O1). While specific BMPs used to meet these criteria can vary with
individual circumstances, applicable methodology for the project area would likely include methods such
as in-line filtering and/or treatment. As noted in Section 5.4.e, design criteria for Alternatives 1 or 2
include long-term erosion/sedimentation design features and BMPs such as landscaping, slope
stabilization outlet protection/velocity dissipation and use of vegetation filtering devices (e.g., biostrips).
These facilities will be reviewed and approved (with modifications as necessary) by the City of Chula
Vista prior to project implementation to ensure conformance with applicable NPDES criteria.
Based on the requirements associated with existing NPDES dewatering and municipal permit conditions,
and the BMPs included in the project design or described above in the referenced Caltrans SWMP,
44
Contractor's Specifications and Storm Water Quality Handbooks, potential water quality impacts from
Alternatives 1 or 2 associated with dewatering, construction related hazardous materials and facility
operation/maintenance would be addressed. These requirements are formalized in the following
mitigation measures:
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• The project contractor(s) should implement all applicable BMPs related to disposal of extracted
groundwater and construction-related hazardous material use identified in existing NPDES,
Department and City of Chula Vista guidelines. Documentation of proposed compliance with these
existing standards should be submitted to the Department and the City for review and approval prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
The project applicants should implement all applicable vegetation filtering BMPs (e.g., grasslined
swales or biostrips) related to long-term operation and maintenance activities identified in existing
Department guidelines and RWQCB Order 2001-O1. Specifically, such activities may include periodic
removal of sediment or debris. Documentation of proposed and ongoing BMP maintenance efforts
should be kept on file at the Department District 11 and City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department offices.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated water quality impacts beyond existing conditions.
Item d -Would the proposed project change the amount of water in any surface water body?
Alternatives 1 and 2 involve the construction of roadway and related facilities, and would not involve
any impacts to the amount of water in any water body. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would also
not be expected to result in any such impacts to local water bodies.
Item a -Would the proposed project result in any changes to currents, or the course or direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
As described above in Item a of this section, none of the project alternatives would substantially affect
existing drainage patterns. Based on the nature and location of project facilities and the study area,
impacts are also not expected to currents or water movements in any marine or fresh water bodies.
45
Item f -Would the proposed project affect the quantity of gmundwaters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
None of the project alternatives involve direct additions to or withdrawals from groundwater bodies,
with no associated impacts anticipated. As noted above in Item c of this section, however, shallow
groundwater (while not anticipated) could potentially occur on site and, if present, could be encountered
during project grading and excavation. Dewatering associated with the project (if necessary) would not
be expected to substantially impact local groundwater quantities. This conclusion is derived primarily
from the nature of proposed construction activities (i.e., generally shallow grading/excavation), and the
small amount of groundwater potentially requiring removal under such a scenario. In addition, it should
be noted that shallow groundwater was not observed during on-site geotechnical investigations (Ninyo &
Moore 2000a), which included numerous on-site borings to depths of up to 6.6 meters (22 feet). Based on
these conditions, no substantial adverse impacts related to groundwater quantities are anticipated from
implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Ite~e -Would the proposed project alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Potential project-related impacts to groundwater are limited to the withdrawal of minor quantities of
groundwater during construction dewatering. Due to the small quantities of groundwater that would
likely be involved in such activities (see Item f, above), no associated substantial adverse impacts to
groundwater directions or flow rates are expected from Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, no facility construction or modification would occur, with no
associated impacts to groundwater flow or direction.
Item h -Would the proposed project impact groundwater quality?
Potential impacts to groundwater quality from the project alternatives would be similar to those
described above for surface waters in Item c of this section. These potential impacts would be addressed
through implementation of the stated existing regulatory requirements and City and Department
standards, with no additional mitigation required.
46
Item i -Would the proposed project alter the course or flow of floodwaters?
The project alternatives would not involve modifications to any drainage course or floodway channel,
and would not entail construction of any structures that would notably alter or impede floodwater flows.
Accordingly, no associated adverse impacts related to floodwater alterations are anticipated.
Item i -Would the proposed project substantially reduce the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Water use associated with the project alternatives would involve only minor needs such as construction
watering (e.g., for dust control) and landscape irrigation. Based on the small quantities involved with
such uses, no impacts related to the substantial reduction in available water supplies are expected from
implementation of any of the project alternatives.
5,6 AIR QUALITY
An air quality technical investigation was conducted for the project alternatives by Giroux Bi Associates
(2000). The results of this study are summarized below, with the complete report available for review at
the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 17 office and the
South Chula Vista Public Library.
Item a -Would the proposed project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
The project study area is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which includes all of western San Diego
County. The SDAB is anon-attainment area for ozone under both federal and state standards, and for
PMrp (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) under state standards. Emission generation
associated with Alternatives 1 or 2 would be related to vehicular exhaust from traffic within the study
area, particulate matter (dust) from excavation/grading activities, and emissions from construction
vehicles and equipment. Emissions from the No Project Alternative would be limited to traffic related
sources. The referenced air quality analysis includes an assessment of project conformance with
applicable air quality standards and planning documents. Ozone and (to some extent) PM~p are regional
pollutants that are derived from complex chemical reactions between precursor pollutants (e.g., vehicle
emissions) and sunlight. Because this process may involve several hours and occur at substantial
distances from emission generation, there is no effective way to directly correlate such emissions with air
47
quality standards on aproject-specific basis. Accordingly, the assessment of air quality standard
conformance was based on the project relationship to the SANDAG RTIP and RTP (2000a and 2000b), as
well as the 2000/2001 Regional Air Quality Strategy/State Implementation Plan (RAQS/SIP). The RTIP
and RTP incorporate assessments of conformance with applicable emission targets, based on a list of
planned development projects and a number of assumptions regarding emission control programs (e.g.,
transportation control measures [TCMs] such as ridesharing and transit). These plans are components of
the RAQS/SIP, with the latter document comprising the principal vehicle used to assess conformance
with state and federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The referenced air quality analysis
concluded that Alternatives 1 and 2 are in conformance with the current RTIP, RTP and RAQS/SIP
(Giroux & Associates 2002, 2000). The project is also included in the 2000 SANDAG RTIP (page 36) and
the 1996-2020 SANDAG RTP (page 20), with these documents found to be conforming by FHWA/Federal
Transit Authority (FTA) on July 21, 2000 and December 20, 1996, respectively. Project design concept and
scope are also consistent with the project description in the above-referenced RTP, RTIP and related
Federal Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP). Based on the above-described conditions, potential
emission generation from Alternatives 1 and 2 is included in the RTIP, RTP and RAQS/SIP assumptions.
Both alternatives are therefore consistent with applicable air quality planning documents, and would not
result in any associated substantial adverse impacts to air quality standards. The No Project Alternative
would also not result in any substantial adverse impacts to air quality standards, as it would not result in
transportation facilities beyond those identified in the referenced RTIP and RTP documents.
The project air quality investigation also included a microscale impact analysis to evaluate potential
carbon monoxide (CO) generation from project sources. Unlike ozone and PMto, CO emissions can be
directly projected from asite-specific source via computer modeling. Based on CO microscale modeling
conducted for years 2000 and 2020, CO levels associated emissions generated from the project alternatives
would be below all applicable standards and no violations or associated substantial adverse impacts are
expected.
Construction-related vehicle/equipment emissions and dust generation are not projected to result in
violations of applicable air quality standards due to their short-term and mobile nature (i.e., a linear
construction progression within the project site), as well as existing City of Chula Vista and Department
standards. Specifically, these standards include requirements for proper maintenance and operating
efficiency of construction vehicles and equipment, as well as dust control measures such as regular
watering or other dust abatement techniques (e.g., tackifiers), and site sweeping and/or "washdowns" to
minimize the generation of airborne dust particles. Based on these conditions, construction of
48
Alternatives 1 or 2 would be expected to conform with all applicable air quality standards, with no
associated substantial adverse impacts to air quality planning, emissions standards or existing violations.
Despite the above conclusions, the project site is within anon-attainment area for ozone and PMro (as
noted above), and every effort should be made to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. To
this end, it is recommended that additional measures be implemented during project construction to
minimize related vehicle trips and emissions. Specifically, this would include measures such as requiring
the project contractor(s) to encourage and participate in employee ridesharing programs (e.g., through
including such requirements in the contract specifications).
Item b -Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
The CO microscale analysis noted above included an assessment of potential CO "hot spot" impacts to
applicable sensitive receptors. Specifically, modeling to assess potential "hot spot" impacts was
conducted for 16 sensitive receptor sites (all residential properties) within the project study area. As
previously indicated, all projected CO levels from this analysis were within applicable standard
thresholds, with no associated substantial adverse impacts to sensitive receptors identified for any of the
project alternatives. In addition, the assessment of other emissions provided in Item a of this section
concluded that the project alternatives would meet all applicable air quality standards and is included in
applicable planning documents, with associated substantial adverse effects to sensitive receptors
therefore not anticipated.
Item c -Would the proposed project alter movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
Alternatives 1 and 2 would entail a number of freeway, ramp and surface modifications (including
vertical structures such as noise abatement barriers) to accommodate project traffic volumes from existing
and planned development through the year 2025. Implementation of the project alternatives would not
be projected to substantially affect air movements, moisture, temperature or local/regional climate due to
the nature and relatively small scale of activities.
Item d -Would the proposed project create objectionable odors?
Potential odor generation associated with the project alternatives would be limited to construction
and/or vehicular sources such as dust and diesel exhaust. No associated substantial adverse impacts
49
related to odors would be anticipated, due to the nature of potential sources (i.e., relatively weak odors),
the required implementation of dust control measures (see Item a of this section), and the short-term
duration of potential odor sources.
I em a -Would the proposed project create a substantial increase in stationary or non-stationary
sources of air emissions, or result in the deterioration of ambient air quality?
As described above in Items a and b of this section, emissions from the project alternatives would be
limited to non-stationary sources, and would meet all applicable air quality plan and regulatory
standards. Accordingly, no substantial adverse impacts are expected in association with emission
generation or ambient air quality.
5.7 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Traffic studies for the project alternatives were conducted by Urban Systems Associates (USA 1996,1997,
1999, 2002). These studies are summarized below, with the complete reports available for review at the
City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the South
Chula Vista Public Library.
Item a -Would the proposed project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
As described in Section 2.0 of this document, Alternatives ]and 2 would not generate additional vehicle
trips, but are intended to accommodate projected on-site roadway and intersection traffic volumes
through the year 2025 with acceptable level of service (LOS) and safety conditions. Accordingly, while
project implementation would coincide with increased vehicle trips on site, these trips would be
generated by existing or planned off-site development. In addition, the proposed facilities would provide
acceptable LOS within the study area though the year 2025. Based on these considerations,
implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not be expected to result in any substantial adverse impacts
related to increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed roadway improvements would be constructed
and the project study area would remain in its current condition. Based on the projected increase in local
traffic volumes (see Section 2.0), it is projected that the No Project Alternative would result in
unacceptable LOS and safety conditions within the study area by the year 2025. Such conditions would
50
represent substantial adverse impacts to local traffic circulation and congestion, with potential mitigation
of these effects limited to roadway improvements similar to those identified under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item b -Would the proposed project generate safety hazards from design features (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
As described in Section 2.0 of this document, proposed facilities are designed to accommodate projected
traffic and provide acceptable levels of service and safety through the year 2025. As a result, adverse
impacts related to safety hazards from design or use issues are not expected for e Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed and hazards
associated with design and use issues would technically not occur. Because traffic volumes within the
study area are projected to notably increase over existing levels by year 2025, however, it is considered
likely that safety hazards and associated substantial adverse impacts related to existing roadway design
would occur within that timeframe. Potential mitigation of such impacts would be limited to roadway
improvements similar to those identified for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item c -Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Potential impacts related to emergency and local access restrictions for Alternatives 1 and 2 would be
limited to the project construction period. Once completed, project facilities would have no adverse
impacts to emergency access routes or access to local properties. During construction, some access
restrictions could potentially occur in association with excavation, grading and paving activities, as well
as conflicts with general construction vehicle and equipment movements. Project construction would be
subject to existing City of Chula Vista (e.g., Work Area Traffic Control Handbook, APUA 2001) and
Department access and safety standards, including measures for traffic control and maintenance of
applicable access routes.
Specifically, Department standards for traffic control are identified in the Cnltrnns Highway Design Manual
(1995), and include the following types of measures:
• Prior to construction, the project contractor(s) shall prepare and submit traffic control plans for
proposed activities in the study area to the Department Resident Engineers and the City of Chula
Vista Engineering Department; and
51
• Project traffic control plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department Resident Engineers
and the City prior to commencement of construction activities, and shall include measures to
maintain through traffic (e.g., delineation of through lanes or use of pilot vehicles), ensure adequate
safety (e.g., use of signs, barriers, speed limits or flaggers), and maintenance of adequate emergency
and local access (e.g., flaggers to prioritize traffic movements and provision of alternate lanes for local
access, if applicable). Approved traffic control measures shall be included in the project construction
contract specifications and implemented by the construction contractors}.
Based on the implementation of described traffic control standards, no substantial adverse impacts
related to emergency or local access are anticipated from Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed construction activities would occur and
associated impacts to emergency or local access would generally not be expected. As previously noted,
however, projected traffic volumes within the study area by the year 2025 would result in unacceptable
levels of service, with associated potential access impacts related to traffic congestion.
Item d -Would the proposed project result in insufficient parking capacity on or off site?
Alternatives 1 and 2 consist of modifications to existing freeway and surface street segments, with no
associated long-term parking requirements. Short-term (construction) parking needs for these
alternatives would be limited to temporary areas within the construction site, and would not involve any
impacts to on- or off-site parking capacity.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed improvements would be implemented and no
impacts related to short- or long-term parking capacity would occur.
Item a -Would the proposed project result in hazards or bamers for pedestrians 6r bicyclists?
As described above in Item c of this section, potential short-term (construction-related) access restrictions
and safety concerns would be effectively mitigated through implementation of existing City of Chula
Vista and Department traffic control standards. After construction, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
present any hazards or barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Tltis conclusion is based on a number of
considerations, including: (1) pedestrian and bicycle access/safety issues are not applicable to freeway
segments and ramps (with such uses precluded on freeway facilities); (2) the incorporation of sidewalks
and bicycle lanes/routes along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (as described in Section 3.0 of this
52
document); and (3) the installation or upgrade of traffic signals at applicable intersections of East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway. Based on these considerations, no substantial adverse impacts related to
pedestrian or bicycle access and safety are anticipated from Alternatives 1 or 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, proposed roadway improvements would not be implemented and no
direct (i.e., construction) impacts related to pedestrian or bicycle hazards/barriers would occur. As noted
in Section 2.3, however, traffic circulation is projected to deteriorate in the study area without the project,
with such congestion likely resulting in adverse effects to pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Item f - Would the proposed project conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Existing bicycle facilities in the project study area and vicinity include dedicated bicycle lanes and routes
on Olympic Parkway east of I-S05, signed bicycle routes on the I-805 overcrossing bridge, and a
combination of bicycle lanes and routes on East Orange Avenue west of the freeway (refer to Sections
3.1.1, 3.1.4 and 3.1.5). These existing bike lanes and routes are located along roadways and are used as
transportation rather than recreational facilities (City of Chula Vista 1995).
As described in Section 3.4 of this document, existing bus service encompasses a number of surface
streets within and adjacent to the study area, including portions of East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway. Existing bus service is transportation (rather than recreational) in nature, with no associated
structures (bus stops, pull-outs, etc.) located within the study area.
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is identified as a future route for bicycle and transit (local and
express bus) use in the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. Specifically, bicycle facilities are
proposed along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway between Fourth Avenue to the west and
Heritage Road (Paseo Ranchero) to the east, while local bus routes are proposed to extend between
Interstate 5 and the planned State Route 125. Alternatives 1 and 2 include bike lanes/routes along East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (as described in Section 3.0 and Item a of this section) that would
connect with existing bicycle lanes/routes on this roadway. The project facilities would also
accommodate planned bus service on East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, with no bus turnouts (or
other related facilities) proposed within the study area. Based on these conditions, no associated impacts
to alternative transportation are expected from these alternatives.
53
Under the No Project Alternative, existing bicycle facilities and planned bus service would not be
changed, with no associated adverse impacts.
Item a -Would the proposed project result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic?
The project alternatives would not involve conflicts with any existing or proposed rail, waterborne or air
traffic routes or facilities, with no associated impacts anticipated.
Item h -Would the proposed project constitute a "large project" as defined in the Congestion
Management Program?
As described in Section 2.0 and Item a of this section, Alternatives 1 and 2 would not generate any vehicle
trips, but are intended to accommodate projected traffic volumes associated with approved or planned
development. Accordingly, implementation of these alternatives would not be expected to generate any
impacts related to development of a "large project" under the SANDAG Congestion Management
Program guidelines (i.e., an equivalent of 2,400 or more average daily vehicle trips, or 200 or more peak-
hour vehicle trips). Similarly, the No Project Alternative would not generate additional traffic or
associated impacts related to a Congestion Management Program "large project "
5.H BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Item a -Would the proposed project result in impacts to threatened or endangered species, sensitive
species, species of concern, or species that are candidates for listing?
A field reconnaissance of the project study area was conducted by HELIX on March 17, 2000 (Attachment
B). The study area is located in an area of extensive urban development, with native habitat or sensitive
species not observed and not expected to occur within areas of proposed grading and construction
(including retaining walls and noise abatement barriers). As noted in Attachment B, however, the
presence of mature eucalyptus trees within the study area could provide nesting sites for raptors or other
protected bird species. Nesting birds may be impacted, if present, during construction of Alternatives 1
or 2. These potential impacts would be addressed through implementation of the mitigation measure
listed below. Based on the described site conditions, no additional potential impacts to species of concern
or listed, candidate and sensitive species are anticipated from Alternatives 1 or 2.
54
Proposed Mitigation Measure
Prior to the removal or alteration of landscaping during the months of January 15 through July 31, a
qualified biologist should conduct apre-construction survey of such landscaping, as well as those
areas within the construction impact area established by the biologist, to determine if any nesting
raptors or migratory birds are present. In the event that an occupied nest(s) is/are found during the
survey, appropriate construction setbacks should be established as deemed appropriate by a
qualified biologist to ensure the protection of young birds.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed construction activities would occur and no
impacts related to species of concern or listed, candidate and sensitive species would be expected.
Item b - Would the proposed project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)?
No locally designated species are known or expected to occur on site, with associated impacts not
anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item c -Would the proposed project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
As noted above in Item a of this section, no native habitats are present within the study area, with
impacts to locally designated natural communities therefore not expected from implementation of any of
the project alternatives.
Item d -Would the proposed project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian or
vernal pools)?
As noted above in Item a of this section, no native habitats are present within the study area, with
impacts to wetlands therefore not expected from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
55
Item a -Would the proposed project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration comdors?
As previously described, the project study area has been completely developed or disturbed, and is
located in an area of primarily urban development. Accordingly, no impacts related to wildlife dispersal
or migration corridors are anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item f -Would the proposed project result in impacts to regional habitat preservation planning
efforts?
The project study area does not contain any native habitat and is identified as a "take authorized area" in
the City of Chula Vista Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. Accordingly,
the project alternatives would not expected to impact any regional habitat preservation efforts.
Item -Would the proposed project result in impacts to wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks?
The project study area incorporates a previously disturbed or developed urban corridor, with no impacts
to scenic rivers or natural landmarks anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item -Would the proposed project result in impacts to existing habitats or species through the
introduction of new plant or animal species?
As previously described, the project study area has been completely developed or disturbed, does not
contain any native habitats and is located in an area of primarily urban development, with adverse
impacts to invasive species therefore generally not anticipated, Pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 13112,
however, the project design includes a number of measures to address potential impacts from the
introduction of new species. The noted EO requires federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread
of invasive species, which are defined as "(a]ny species ...not native to that ecosystem to cause economic
or environmental harm or harm to human health." Related guidance issued by FH4VA on August 10,
1999 involves using the state noxious weed list to identify invasive plants that must be considered when
conducting a NEPA analysis. Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would involve landscaping of
applicable disturbed areas such as slopes and medians. As described in Section 5.15 (Aesthetics) of this
IS/EA, project landscaping would utilize plant materials that conform with applicable Department and
City guidelines. Department guidelines include plant palettes that use appropriate native species where
feasible, and specifically omit species included on the described state noxious weed list. As a result, none
of these species would be used for project-related landscaping or (if applicable) erosion control efforts
56
(e.g., temporary hydroseeding). The project landscaping plan also includes interim and long-term
monitoring and maintenance efforts per Department and City guidelines. These efforts will specifically
include regular monitoring and weed removal to minimize the occurrence of invasive weed species.
Based on the described conditions, no adverse impacts related to the introduction of new species are
anticipated from the implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the project activities would occur and no impacts to existing
habitats or species would be expected.
5.9 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Item a -Would the proposed project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Direct energy consumption associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would include minor amounts of fuels
and electricity for construction activities, while indirect use would include vehiculaz-related fuel
consumption for on-site traffic after project completion. Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide adequate
capacity for projected traffic volumes (at acceptable LOS) related to currently approved and planned
development, and would meet applicable City and Department guidelines regarding construction
operations, alternative transportation (i.e., bicycle lanes/routes) and transit facilities (i.e., bus service).
Accordingly, no impacts related to adopted energy conservation plans would occur from implementation
of these alternatives.
Energy use associated with the No Project Altemative would be limited to vehicular-related fuel
consumption for on-site traffic. While impacts related to energy consumption would generally not be
expected for this alternative, the fact that unacceptable LOS could occur within the study area (based on
year 2025 traffic projections, see Section 5.7) could potentially impact energy conservation plans within
the study area with respect to provision of bicycle lanes/routes (as described in Section 5.7e) and vehicle
operation efficiency (i.e., due to congestion). Mitigation of such potential impacts would be limited to
improving traffic conditions through similar roadway modifications as described for Altematives 1 and 2.
Item b - Would the proposed project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
Direct use of non-renewable resources from Alternatives 1 and 2 would consist primarily of fuels and
construction materials associated with proposed excavation, grading, paving and related activities. It is
57
not anticipated that use of such materials would occur in a wasteful or inefficient manner, as such misuse
would result in additional costs for the project contractor(s). In addition (as described in Section 5.6a),
recommendations have been provided to reduce the consumption of certain non-renewable resources by
implementing employee ridesharing. Indirect use of non-renewable resources would consist of vehicular
fuel consumption from local traffic, with such use not expected to be wasteful or inefficient due to
proposed design features and provision of acceptable LOS. Based on these considerations, no impacts
related to wasteful or inefficient use of non-renewable resources are anticipated from Alternatives 1 or 2.
Use of non-renewable resources for the No Project Alternative would be limited to vehicular fuel
consumption from local traffic. As noted above in Item a of this section, this could potentially result in
impacts to energy use in association with projected local traffic volumes and LOS within the study area.
Mitigation of such potential impacts would be limited to improving traffic conditions through similar
roadway modifications as described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item c - If the site is designated for mineral resource protection, will the proposed project impact this
protection?
The project study area is not designated for mineral resource protection in the City of Chula Vista
General Plan or any other known source. The site is within an area designated as Mineral Resource Zone
3 (MRZ-3) for aggregate minerals by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG 1983). The
MRZ-3 designation is defined as "areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be
evaluated from available data"
No impacts related to protection of designated mineral resource are anticipated from implementation of
the proposed project and alternatives. This conclusion is based on the lack of protective mineral resource
designations within the study area, the existing developed nature of much of the study area and vicinity,
and the fact that all proposed development areas are designated and zoned for roadway, residential or
commercial use and are therefore unlikely to be authorized for mining activities.
Item -Would the proposed project increase the rate of use of any natural resource?
As noted above in Items a and b of this section, natural resource consumption associated with
Alternatives 1 and 2 would include minor amounts of fuels, building materials and electricity for
construction activities, as well as vehicular-related fuel consumption for on-site traffic after project
completion. No substantial adverse impacts are expected in relation to the rate of natural resource
58
consumption from Alternatives 1 and 2. This conclusion is based on the temporary nature of construction
related consumption, as well as the fact that project facilities are intended to accommodate projected
traffic from currently approved or planned development.
5.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Two Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessments (Ninyo & Moore 1998, 1999) and an aerially deposited
lead testing program (Ninyo & Moore 2000b) have been conducted within the project study area. These
studies are summarized below as applicable, with the complete reports available for review at the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the South Chula
Vista Public Library.
Item a - Would the proposed project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including but not limited to petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
As described above in Section 5.5, hazardous material use associated with Altematives 1 and 2 would be
limited predominantly to construction-related substances such as fuels and lubricants, as well as
maintenance-related activities such as pest control or graffiti removal. Potential impacts related to such
hazardous material use would be addressed through implementation of applicable existing NPDES,
Department and City standards, as described in the project environmental conditions listed on Section
S.Sc.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed construction activities would occur, with no
associated construction related hazardous material impacts. Potential impacts related to maintenance
activities would be similar to those described above for Alternatives 1 and 2 (e.g., due to the presence of
existing landscaping).
Item b -Would the proposed project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is identified as a potential emergency evacuation route in the
City of Chula Vista General Plan Safety Element. Implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
adversely affect this designation or the potential use of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway as an
evacuation route. These alternatives would, in fact, improve the capability of this roadway to serve in
this role within the study area by widening portions of the roadway.
59
As discussed in Section 5.7c, temporary effects to emergency access could potentially occur during
construction for Alternatives 1 and 2, although these impacts are not considered substantially adverse
due to their short-term nature and existing requirements for traffic control during construction (including
maintenance of emergency access).
Under the No Project Alternative, retention of the existing roadways in the project study area could
potentially impact the ability of this corridor to effectively serve as an emergency evacuation route. That
is, portions of the existing roadway network would exhibit unacceptable LOS with projected year 2025
traffic volumes. Potential mitigation of this impact would include roadway improvements similar to
those described for Alternatives 1 and 2, or use of alternative routes for emergency evacuation.
Item c -Would the proposed project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Alternatives 1 and 2 include a number of freeway, ramp and surface street modifications within the study
area to accommodate projected traffic and improve safety conditions. Specific design features related to
improved safety include lane/ramp widening, traffic signals, ramp meters, sidewalks, bike lanes and
dedicated left- or right-tum lanes in applicable locations. Based on these proposed design features, no
substantial adverse health hazards would be associated with facility operation under Alternatives 1 or 2.
Potential construction related health hazards associated with the use of hazardous materials would be
addressed the design measures identified above in Section S.Sc. As a result of the described
considerations, implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate any substantial adverse
impacts related to health hazards.
Under the No Project Alternative, retention of the existing roadways in the project study azea could
potentially result in substantial adverse health hazard (i.e., traffic safety) impacts associated with
projected local traffic volumes and unacceptable LOS. Potential mitigation of these impacts would
include roadway improvements similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item d -Would the proposed project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
The above-referenced Initial Site Assessments (ISAs) included visual inspection of the project study area,
review of historic air photos and a literature search of applicable regulatory agency databases for known
hazardous material sites within approximately 305 meters (1,000 feet) of the project area. Based on this
investigation, no evidence of current or previous use, storage or discharge of hazardous materials was
60
observed within or adjacent to the site, although 13 recorded hazardous material sites were documented
within 305 meters (1,000 feet). These sites were documented on numerous agency databases, and include
uses such as underground storage tanks (USTs), vehicle repair shops, maintenance yards, service stations
and a dry cleaners. While a number of these facilities have documented releases of hazardous materials
or other violations, al] are assessed a low probability to affect the project study area due to: (1) their
location hydrogeologically downgradient from the study area; (2) intervening distance from the study
area (i.e., approximately 60 to 305 meters [200 to 1,000 feet]); and (3) their current regulatory status (i.e.,
most noted sites have been remediated and are listed as "case closed" on agency lists, Ninyo & Moore
1999). Based on this assessment, no impacts related to health hazards from existing known hazardous
material sites are anticipated as a result of implementing Alternatives 1 or 2.
The project ISAs also cite previous Department testing results for aerially deposited lead (ADL) at various
I-805 interchange bridges (including the I-805/Main Street/Auto Park Drive interchange). While
detected lead levels at the I-805 interchanges in southern San Diego County were consistent with
naturally occurring concentrations, the ISAs recommend testing for ADL in the project study area to
ensure that anomalous concentrations are not present. Based on this recommendation, atesting program
for ADL was conducted (pursuant to Department protocol) within the project study area during January
and February 2000. A total of 120 soil samples from 41 locations were tested for lead content during this
investigation. The results of this testing indicated that overall lead content for soils within areas
proposed for construction are below hazardous levels, and no special handling of on-site soils will be
required for project implementation (Ninyo & Moore 2000b). Based on these conclusions and the results
of the described ISAs, no substantial adverse impacts related to existing hazardous materials or related
health hazards would result from project implementation. Accordingly, associated project environmental
conditions are not required.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed construction activities would occur, with no
associated impacts from existing hazardous material sources
Item a -Would the proposed project increase fire hazards in areas with flammable brush, grass or
trees?
The project study area extends through a developed urban (primarily residential) corridor. Existing and
proposed vegetation within and adjacent to the study area consists predominantly of irrigated non-native
landscaping varieties with a low fire potential. Based on these conditions, no impacts related to increased
fire hazards from brush, grass or trees are expected from any of the project alternatives.
61
5.11 NOISE
An Acoustical Assessment was conducted for the project alternatives by HELIX Environmental Planning,
Inc. (2002, as amended). This study is summarized below as applicable, with the complete report
available' for review at the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department
District 11 office and the South Chula Vista Public Library.
Item a -Would the proposed project cause increases in existing noise levels?
The project acoustical report incorporates noise standards for applicable areas under Department and
City of Chula Vista jurisdiction, as provided in: (1) the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772); (2) the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1100 and Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (1998); (3) the
Caltrans Street and Highway Code -Section 216; (4) the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS);
and (5) the City of Chula Vista Noise Control Ordinance (City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter
19.68.010). These standards identify appropriate procedures for noise evaluations in the associated
jurisdictions. Specifically, al] sensitive noise receptors within the study area were evaluated under
federal criteria, with those sites where I-805 is not the principal noise source (i.e., along East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway) also assessed under City criteria (with both standards described below).
The FHWA (23 CFR 772) and Department (Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol and TeNS) provide direction
on traffic noise prediction, impact assessment and noise abatement criteria (NAC). These standards are
based on the Ley noise descriptor, which is generally defined as the average A-weighted sound level
containing an equivalent amount of sound energy as the varying levels of traffic noise over a set time
period. The A-weighted scale measures noise levels corresponding to the human hearing frequency
response and is included in all sound levels identified below and in the project Acoustical Assessment.
The FHWA/Department NAC identify a peak hour Ley of 67 dBA as the maximum acceptable exterior
noise level for land use categories including residential, recreation, hotels/motels and parks. A summary
of the NAC for various land use and activity categories is provided in Table 4. The FHWA and
Department require the consideration of noise abatement measures for Type 1 projects when the NAC
(i.e., 67 dBA for residential use) are "approached or exceeded:' The definition of approach is given as at
least one dBA less than the NAC, which would be 66 dBA for residential use (refer to Table 4). Type 1
projects are defined in the Traffic Analysis Noise Protocol (Caltrans 1998) as "A proposed Federal or Federal
aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new locatimt, or the physical alteration of an existing
highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increases the number of through
traffic lanes." Department criteria also identify a traffic noise impact if a "substantial noise increase'
62
occurs, with a substantial increase defined as an increase of 12 dBA over the existing noisiest hourly
average level.
Table 4
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA FOR VARIOUS LAND USEJACTIVITY CATEGORIES
(hourly A-weighted sound levels in dBA)
CATEGORY Leq(h) Lro(h) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important pubic need and
A 57 (Exterior) 60 (Exterior) where the preservation of those qualities is essential if
the area is to continue to serve its intended ur ose.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
B 67 (Exterior) 70 (Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools,
churches, libraries, and hos itals.
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included
C 72 (Exterior) 75 (Exterior) in Cate ones A or B above.
D -- -- Undevelo ed lands.
E 52 (Interior) 55 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hos itals and auditoriums.
The City of Chula Vista noise standards are based on the Day-Night Equivalent Level (La„). La„ is the
equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, and accounts for increased noise sensitivity
during nighttime hours (i.e., 10:00 p.m, to 7:00 a.m.) by adding 10 dBA to the average sound levels during
that period. The City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, through policies set forth in the
City Noise Ordinance, identifies a maximum exterior noise level exposure of 65 La„ at residential
properties. Accordingly, project-related noise levels that exceed 65 La„ at residential sites outside of the
Department ROW would be considered substantially adverse and would require noise abatement.
Noise measurements were conducted as part of the project acoustical assessment to characterize existing
noise conditions at a total of 30 locations within the study area, including 28 locations along the I-805
corridor and 2 locations along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (outside the area where I-805 is
the predominant noise source; refer to Figures 3a through 3c in the project Acoustical Assessment,
HELIX, as amended 2002). These measurement locations are associated with 64 residential receptor sites
within the study area. No other sensitive receptor sites (i.e., other than the noted residential uses) would
be potentially subject to noise impacts from Alternatives 1 and 2. Noise measurements along the I-805
corridor included continuous 1- to 2-day measurements at 3 locations and short-term (10-minute)
measurements at 25 sites, while the 2 measurements along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway were
short-term (15-minute) efforts. The purpose of these measurements was to determine typical noise levels
63
associated with the adjacent roadways. Existing noise levels included 27 measured noise levels and 67
calculated noise levels. These noise levels are identified in Table 7 of the project Acoustical Assessment
(HELIX 2002, as amended) and described in more detail in the associated text. The three long-term
measurement sites along the I-805 corridor were selected to minimize obstructions between the
measurement locations and the freeway (i.e., fences or walls), with peak hour Ley at these sites ranging
from 74 to 76 dBA. Short-term measurement sites along the freeway were selected to represent frequent
human use or acoustical equivalence areas (i.e., areas with a similar noise environment), with measured
noise levels at these locations correlated with long-term monitoring data to determine peak hour Ley.
Based on this procedure, correlated peak hour Ley at the described short-term measurement sites ranged
from approximately 53 to 76 dBA, with specific noise levels for all measured sites provided in the project
Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002, as amended). The measured short-term Ley at both sites along East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway was 62 dBA, with La„ at these sites calculated at 65 dBA (based on
existing traffic volumes and the observed traffic mix).
The prediction of future noise levels at sensitive receiver locations was based on a comparison of
projected level of service (LOS) C traffic volumes and the associated Alternative 1 and 2 improvements.
Specifically, future "worst case" conditions were determined on the basis of LOS C traffic volumes, which
assumes 1,850 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane (i.e., 7,400 vph northbound and 7,400 vph southbound).
The "worst case" assumption for these conditions is based on the associated vph and vehicle speed
conditions. That is, a higher LOS (better, for example LOS B) would entail a substantial decrease in vph
(and associated noised noise level[s]), while a lower LOS would substantially reduce vehicle speeds (and
noise generation). The peak hour Ley levels for the described "worst case' build scenario (i.e., LOS C
volumes and proposed improvements) were calculated using the Department SOUND 32 noise model for
all sensitive receivers within the project study area, while Ld„ and the associated noise level increases
were also calculated under a similar scenario for noise sensitive receivers along applicable portions of
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway (i.e., where East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway traffic is the
predominant noise source). The following results from these calculations apply to both Alternatives 1
and 2.
Based on FHWA and Department criteria, receptor sites that currently approach or exceed federal noise
standards (i.e., exhibit a peak hour Ley of 66 dBA or more) represent existing noise impacts rather than
project-derived noise impacts. That is, noise levels at such receptors will exceed federal criteria whether
or not the project is implemented. It is FHWA and Department policy, however, to address existing noise
conditions as part of the project design. As a result of this policy and measured/calculated noise levels
identified in the project Acoustical Assessment, it was determined that numerous residential properties
64
within the study area exhibit noise levels exceeding federal noise standards, with site-specific modeled
noise levels and other applicable information provided in Table 5 and the project Acoustical Assessment
(HELIX 2002, as amended). Sixteen noise abatement barriers were identified in the project Acoustical
Assessment to address existing and predicted noise conditions within the study area in accordance with
federal noise standards. The Acoustical Assessment evaluated barrier heights ranging from 1.8 meters (6
feet) to 4.27 meters (14 feet) for all applicable locations, with the barriers proposed as noise abatement
structures representing the smallest structures capable of achieving a minimum of 5 dBA insertion loss
(i.e., noise reduction). These described noise barriers are shown on Figures Sa through 8c and specifically
include barrier numbers B1,B1A, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B12, B13, B14, B15 and B16.
CEOA Analysis - Cit~Noise Criteria
The City noise criteria specifically apply to project-generated noise rather than existing noise. Based on
an evaluation of the project using City noise criteria, two of the previously identified noise abatement
barriers (i.e., BS and B12) along Olympic Parkway east of I-805 are associated with residences that would
be subject to noise levels of 65 dBA Ldp as a result of adjacent proposed roadway improvements and
associated traffic level increases. These sites would exceed applicable City noise criteria as a result of
project-related noise; impacts at these locations are considered substantially adverse. The proposed
barriers associated with these impacts (BS and B12) are shown on Figure 8b.
The Project Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR, Rick Engineering Company, 2003) evaluated the
feasibility and reasonableness of the 16 identified noise abatement barriers. Feasibility criteria used in
this evaluation are based on technical engineering considerations (such as topographic or access
restrictions). The determination of reasonableness involves a number of objective and subjective features,
such as costs (including costs associated with purchasing temporary and/or permanent easements),
environmental issues and community response (as described below). A summary of the preliminary
feasible and reasonable conclusions identified in the project NADR are provided in Table 6. As shown on
this table, the NADR also provides recommendations of whether the identified barriers should be built,
with these recommendations based primarily on community response and cost considerations (assuming
all barriers are feasible, as shown in Table 6). The cost considerations involve a comparison between
calculated "reasonable' costs and actual costs, while the community response data were generated by
soliciting comments from affected property owners. For cost considerations, anumber of barriers
exceeded the calculated "reasonable' cost for reasons including the cost of acquiring temporary
(construction) and/or permanent easements. All of these barriers are recommended for construction in
65
the project NADR, however, based on the assumption that local finds from City Developer Impact Fees
(DIF funds) will be used to make up the cost difference.
Affected property owners were surveyed to determine the number of residents in favor of, or opposed to,
construction of the proposed noise abatement barriers. The Department protocol for community
response states that a minimum of 50 percent of the affected property owners should be in favor of a
given barrier to justify construction. Based on these criteria, the project NADR recommends that two of
the identified barriers (B7 and B14) not be constructed due to homeowner opposition. Specific opposition
noted in the project NADR includes issues such as obstruction of views and/or breezes, loss of backyard
area and financial burdens related to construction and/or maintenance. Barriers B7 and B14 (as well as
the 14 barriers recommended for construction) are evaluated for environmental issues throughout this
IS/EA, however, due to the fact that the NADR recommendation is preliminary and could potentially
change as a result of the public review process.
The project Acoustical Assessment also identified alternative noise abatement for three proposed noise
barriers (B2, B6 and B9) to include the use of earthen berms or berm/wall combinations instead of
masonry block walls (with walls depicted on Figures Sa through 8c). The alternative berm and
berm/wall barrier locations are shown on Figures 9a through 9c, with additional discussion provided
below.
As noted above, all 16 barriers have been evaluated for environmental concerns in this IS/EA. The
locations and dimensions of noise barriers identified on the basis of the project Acoustical Assessment
and NADR are shown on Figures Sa through Sc and 9a through 9c. Specifically, Figures 8a through Sc
depict the use of masonry noise walls at all locations, while Figures 9a through 9c identify the use of
berms and berm/wall combination structures for barriers B2, B6 and B9. The decision to use berm and
berm/wall barriers at the three noted locations was based on potential visual and maintenance cost
concerns associated with masonry walls (refer to Section 5.15). Typical masonry wall and berm cross-
sections are shown on Figures 10 and 11.
66
4Q aanoi~ of Hoivw
~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `yyt~ ~"~ ~I I i 11 l y °;~ ~ ~/y
1~ ~~t' ~~ ~ 1 1'rk II I > a
1/\ IN
~ j ! k+ r lql ~; III ~~ _J~! u
~" ', ~r 7/'II ~~~!' i{,i IIII I '11 ''r {l-!
I- i~ ~lt~y {~ ~ 111 III ~1_{
I {
hTj~i~ I II.1 ~
a I~~ vl r~ In,
u~a [~ /~ I II! I ~ ' ~ \ \ ;III... Ir
~~ I~ %; ~~,~I': , ' f~~;f ~, ~ ,~~ ;1116 ~~ .-.II
f( {{ a
~ /IIi ' 1 ~ r`v' I ~ Illkl ILq i II it j....
J ~ l'~1. II ~ ~I{I{I..1~11 II; ,` mom'-_ t;t
.V ~~ ' I }~~ it ~~ Y~~~\Y ~~~-: V it ~~ 1 J\ ~ \..-
I ,1Y~ i ~' 1 ' ~p Im 1 I III y I~ j y ~~'l i `" / IC7`~~,.~
1 ;.}I '~Il~ I~ Iii ~ iy'yat '1 k0\ 1 lO Vllll ~_~
/ y r r/ - 1 UI I I ~~! I V q~ ~ x ' ! ~ N
~ / ,` , ,F K I„W
1 - rl ~ I ; n( ~+ ++
I !l 1~r 1,`I i I + i la ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ nl ~ \ \\ N
~ , 1 ~I I I1111' 1~ 41 I n/ .~7 ~`~ , ~ v~ ~
~ ~~. 1 ,I~ 1 t '~~_
'~,. 3 M I k' ~~ 1 IJ~ 1 {It rJ s-. C
/ M I I I' I ~ „w'"~ ~
',jt St u' I~I II ( +r N
~ Y~ 1 ~1 ,'1 I ! ,; I I ~ ' Q
I- /, ~ ~} i\I I III j;V T, 1111111111 1 1 ? ; F ~ ~
/~z0 i '. ~\l 4l a, , r y ;~ I MINI p L ~s,y~Y ~I = Z
n,0 ~l ~l~ n ~ ~,yl~ !'~'~ I ~ I ~'~ ~ ~ tt ~ ~~II~1 ~ ""` ~Ui '° t N ~
i~
o~ t I/ I ~ u 1 1 i1 VV (~ fC
/, ~ ~ t Y r'~ 11 r I/il I I.'1'", AI'~1 ~ i '1 ~\~ m m
~/i OAS ~ ! '; •IIVI f I ti' ~~ f `,III' i I~.w ,~. i
1 y J. i ~ •
~pJ/~,. ~~ II +~~ p 4 ~ I I III HI!\~' ~_I~It
~'~ k x ~~f I IIII` ~ 11 ~I'11 ~I'~II~~ a 1 1 ~ ~I ~ ~ N
~( a ~ ~I ~; d'~ I IIf 111111 '~ ~ ~1 Z T
~7 ) A ~ `. I IY IIII ~~~ I
-i_ ~:~°~ ~-~;~'2 ! ~ li 1 I ib` ~~ ~!II~II1i1' i ~1 ~ ~ IT~ W `.' ~ ~
~ ~ y `11 ~ I (~j m
\Y ~ ~ YII =; III t ~'1~11'11 0 1 ~ ~ •
a `~\ - ~~~ I'li ~ ~! k~ f~l~~IUhl~li 11~~1 (~ ' '~ W ~
! ~~1ti I~' I I~I~ 9 N'11'IIIIvI ~s.~ t orak J c~ ~
~'.,'x vk _,a ~.~ ~ III ICI ~' I~} ~ 1 ~~IIIIII~'1 '1 I %~#~ •
1 IF
I ~ ~' ~.'~ ' ~IIi~~'~ ' ~ A ~i~ 111~111i1',ih'1~~~ '~` ~ 1
N, ~
.ry i! U Pl /l~i~l ~ y ~ ~ I ~ 1' I';~ illl~\ ~;'il \ 1. 1 tF F
~`~)aI I In~(III~~~ji };~h. 1 ~~1q~i 11'v.11 ~.,_ ~ /,~ ~Y
' J ~ ~! R J 1 li~i ~ t} JI 1 I ~' 1 I i 11 1 link I I\1,\I N` 14 d~ 1.
IO ZVd01 _ ;~' ^~ }~yl'l~ 1J~ ~S 7 ~ ~~"_\`, `1u\`\ ~1r~ ~ ~~,`' ~'-.
II .k ^^II ll
~, j,,! tl,I k I ~I, I , !I Id1~i,I~,~~ ~~ ~ _Y ~
_.~...-. l1 L. to ~/ ~~~' 1:11 ' ~ VII l i',) }
„II 1 rl 'I ~I,illllll I \
Ir 4 f ~ .r I , f9 ~II ~1 I~! I 4 ~ '{I I ~ '~I li \`~ \ ~ ~ 4
JI P `'r t~~'''~l; I i l I /{~ I!'I ~~ I 1\11'4'`\ 4 / 1 (j.
I 'p ~. m~'~I,(t 1 1111 1 1 ~ ~~~I A q 1Ii F~~ilnlllA ~ t ~ ~p" _
1 y Yj l~%}~~~~~( i li 1 a 111 ~ II'~ Y I~ "i~l \ ~1' ~ I \,
' 1~~~'ll'II t I 1i1 ,1 ~ ~ ~ ,II 1AIAAVA ~. ~~~
10 3NI `
lthV21f101 /~ - • f . 1, it ~~ Nt ~ 11 ' I III 111\`\~ _ 1 l ' ~ ~
-~.`'"""' ?~ `~f ~l}Il~I~~il7~h I ~ ~ `111111 ~ 1~1\ ` T'.~-~ -~1
~I 1r ly t t ~ / !'/ll~t `;I I ~A a jI I111I 1\\\11 ~ ~ 1 y ~1
I_:." ,J' ~ ~ ~~}~jlllt //I ' I I~ w~} A{ ili'Ihh I'` \11\\ l\',~~\ . !.7 `\~..
%I ~/It t1 II k Ili ~I ~IIi IIII\II\ \ \4~1 e' '-III 11.
~~~k...p\\ t~~r ,1y' .]I/(t 11/~ l~ll 'I IIIN~I ~ ,I I ~~Id ~ 1j1 if l(~~\\\~~~ \ll r 1 1 ~: ~<+ ~\a:
~ q V 1 /' , !/ } I II' dd II II 1 I \\t "\ 1 1\ 1 ~ (l ~
,~ > PP I I I 11! 1 II 1 I I Ij \V, IA
1 / ~I ~ ° rr~~~~}l llt ~ IIII tII ~II~ ~'' 1 ~ I ~~
t'~ ~ itk I ~ d !~ll7rliSll~~j III ll. ~ I 1I ~n) @ ~ t 1~.. ~ '~.,.
.,, ~.~ y N I ~ 11 10(}';,rylt~ I Ii1111 III J ! .ter VIII;IIII I ~ F11~\~n)` ~ ~
J~~.,. JP m, o Ili~~l~+ ~' IIiI III III ~I '~ IIII Ii Il~lll~ ~t 11111 ,)ff~ \f~ r, ,.
1 / "< I ~I y
W+O ."" ~~ 11~ ~ II I1I r ~ ~ :IIII 1 11~
1 ItN tP"l ~ T I I 1I II^I1 I~ I ~ i~ il~Yj ' 1~ 1 lil t y ~ ~
h ~~ I I ~ 11 ~ ~' ~ I
1 ,~''lv` c~ }d~'J~I ~ 1 I I VIII ~ h_ IIi~I II'~. II ~ ~ ~\ ` ~I ~J 1
~ ~ ~ 1 ~~l ~lll IIIiI11 a IIII rylli 1 ~ ~ " ;
~~~~~ ~ ll~~ }~~ I }~ II III ~I I~''l ~ ~ ~- '+~ II II ~~I '~ -~'t~ >
1 X~a j I ~ I I, (I~` tt {{ { i Jill ~''., ~ i'~t ~ l- -~'~, '" ""s " ,~ ~t~. it~:1
_ ~ • ~. ~ I s d ~~ ` i'yi~ I a :F ~ 3AIHO H~Vd Oll1V Y .d-
p-r~~ 1331f1S NNW ~ , I tl ~ ~ ° ~': I 1 u m
F"^I' ~'"~ ~ N'°~ ~ k / ~ k { ark' a t~ ~ ?i'~ \ E c°~I
..~~ 1 A ~. ,µ~.~ a T .y ( I s' ° 1+ i, -rte ,' f ~ ~ O II
,I} III e y
11 L ~ r: _"ee.._ ~-`~P Ih a t' T~ 1~ ~' ~ +~ ' M I, Y a ~ t
,~- '"ci. r .I j~ -~~ _... , ull 111 4 -t' , ~ ~~11u~ I ru , ±1 ''1. ~ - - 1'>', x '.' @ ~ N c
m~
m
v
rn
A
z
N~~
o~~
x m
~ ~~
J yH~j
Lr-I
a~ ~
•i 3
wW, R~.
W
N
Z°~
~ O
~ ~
Q. W
O ~
aQ
O
H
H
W
F~
[}1]
C
..
x
W
N
c~
OR
_ <
:~ .
~ ~
O~
J
L C
~$ 3lifl°Jld O1 HO1VW # G~
~~~~i'Ili ilil II i"I Vu ~:',~I. ~~ ~!f\. iilitl'1 '1 1 ~`~„~ .i
/'~' ~' a' ty I~ ~ ,~ it I Jtl I I ~~ 1 , I '~, ~ ... n m c
/T ~ !/ I ilij'lyyi al I~ ~..as ~ ~1 !~V ~ "~I"' '~ ~V <
~ ~` ~ r t l ~II I ' t I ~~ I ~ I ~ ~ l7l : , I N ~;.~y F
U~U ~ / ~1V~ 1 II Ij I I'I. i~ ~° I~~'" ,\ 1 ~~1 t" ~ "~ r ~ (
1 \ F
~s ~'~J~ ' ~ ~~~ I'' ~ I ' ,i~E ' I ..
r`~ ~"'~ I ' I ~, I I i i I ~ ~ ~ ~ , •~~ / n _ t
I r~ r 5 \
I
I I u I I ~
i. / ~~ I I ~ Ii I I I
/ " ~ I ICI I ~ r
i l r dJ - ! ~ 1 i 1111 pin I ~ ~ II a' I ~~ ~y " _n~ ~ ~ r".
/ r ~' ~ I III~I III I~i I ~ ~I ~ I~ 1 I ~ 1 a!ml I I e l Y'Yr /"' f~~ O 4
~'~ fI I } ' I N.~~~ 1 ° ~{ ~ ~ r~
lii !i 5 -mot '1 / I~ I r '~ ~I'.!I II III I ~ \"~~ V "'" t iK~ ~"~ ~ /' ,sr;f~ \"r a
~ r' r i l 1 l l li l~ I V I I I t \ A R ~,yw 9 \ < ti~ :~ ~~,
~ I:~ - I i I ~I~I I r ,I II t Ib
~~ l~ . !~ rlll i ,`,.,II~~, ~/'~l ~' ~ ~ t 1 ~ i~,~ 9 y "I 'I i I i I ~ ~\ \ "1~ r VV ,~ F>.NEy~~' ~ \V` Vy ~ '~ .\ ~~'
~ FP XI I ,~ ~ ~' ~ " Iln A` Ad x i]~~ al ~ FY~-~ ~ rte"1 ~' ~. A,.
,O f ~'----~~'~ x r~l tl nr I. ', ~ 1 ~~ ~ ( ~ I~~I~ ~A A~ ~ ~ ~ „ 11.... ~ ~ III.
iI~ ~ r I 1 ~ ~i ~~I: ( ,. P N 1 I rv ! o
I;~N 51r~ .~-~~ /,.1 'I ~~ ~ } I,,.~,j ~k ' I~ 2 ~ \ ~Y~f, 4 ~ C~~ ~rv - ',_ ~,,,nN.e t''.
',` Z:~(,~,/~ ~ Tr r } / r " r r ', ' ,- ~ ~ i ~ I I I I,, I I ~ ~. \ `\ V-- ~f ~v /~ rt~ N~ ~P1CPM"" AY - -_
~U i., r, I ~ / 1 t i J ' I I ' ~~ ~ e~ , Ol. y .~
4Y~~.)~ } 1
~' `'\" I ,$ll li ~' III ~i ~I I ~' ~ , - m~ ,.: n
~ ~ ~4 I III ~ I I.Ir I ~ ~xn _m~d~ \I~.. ~6
I I I,, I 5 ~ I I
~q L~. ~ a ''I I I I' ~ -
.~ 1 ~ ,, N; . .,, a'` -fin ~'x~.~ ~
/ 11 ~ ,il, ~ .r \U2q
( ft~,; '"~ ri ~/ Yryd / _. ~I iti r!i" } n I -.~ ,e-t` § /' ~ ~ ,~}-e P,° N t/~' 1t,>
r 3 / r 'I~ s J ' " " a " / r 1 ~, ~ 764 \ ~'
LIY1~, ~'~ ,r ~ /I3 ~V' V ~.~~s ~n ~~~ s $j ' , I \ ~ i p l~ ,;~gt\01 rvl~~ I~ ~~R
r ~~ 1 CA ~ I III~,2 Y ~F- 11 Y
r,~"r" x~~OD A\I~1 ,,i~~ ~ G~P~I~ ~$~ .~' / ~i I,I19 ~1 if`~I i"/ Iy~j~1 ~1'~ ll "s ~f/1_~ ODD `,,I ~l U~~~4 ~ i I~I I I ~'',~ tl~ ~_-
~' I i~
4 ~ b 'l I I ~ y I~I 1 v ~r 1. ~ ~ ~ ~' -
(' ~ '' I!! j I 1 r ~ a' I I
/ ./ m ~S ~ ~, 11 ',~ r r~ $ I ~• i r l .II ~ V ~ ~r r/ l~/ a /1 ~:: ~ ~
t ~rrlti~" rx' _ I'I~ 'v~ I I ''I I}= r/ ~~N ~ /. 1 1.=1
i /i ! r tt l r /r , } fa , ~il`1 III I ~~ ~ r ~ ~~// ~ ~ i....
~I ,l-,< ,~ ~ ~ It1\t~I \ •, / ~'I1 i I ' I~ i ~' I ~ /, r ~' ,i' rv ~ . ~~' S'~/. y,
G /' I 7,~ Va ~' r ~ ~ Y i ~ Il/ r .~ r l r ,~,
f' r r ~ -/ I i / '~ r'~~ a.~l 'i ~ II~'I F o l l ~ .~.I,,,
xN~~~ ~
Y /
~U I l
~ ~, r~~' ~~I I 'I'~ r I ~ rfi v
~~ ~^ r \ , I~ fl 1
hVA~ ~ ,/~~~~~~ ~~ I~I I it ~ l ~~ ~ 1 ~~
j~ ~ \, ~ ~~ r t l I I~ ~ / y •i/(Iy ~I a
~\ x. ~.,, ~ ( \ .~YT-~ ~ ~r. x 1 r~ ~ ,~ ~' ~ `~~ ~.II~'' i. ~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i T °t t~®°B"
~>\J76~ ~iS!~l ~,I '_S M r ` /, I ~j ~~` ~~ g - ~'N m Im ~'~~ .. / ~ / n~ ~ ~
` Mme.
' ~ "\ ~~ YI ~ / I t
}~~~~ SLATE C,4. ~ ~ I .~' ~ I~ t ' tll ~li ~ a. ~ ..
Z a\ i ~~ M ~J II E I i~'-.I ~ ~ I I r l C
.~~ ~~% ~%~ III !'' x~2 ~:!I ~ ~I..,
~ L
d ~ r ~ ~
,; a ~..5 ~~~II ~ ~"I~ L,, ~ q~J~ d ~
\ ~~~ ~ I
,~ ~ r , I ii`/'y 1
~ \8~ ~ ~ ' / ~,' I ~ n I ~ II 1 < x'~,. y bip t.,... _ N 7
~ .-* \'.
~1,' ~v ~ . ~ JI~ ! ~ ~ I 1 > > r ~O :~' Z Z
\ II i I II ~ ~ ~ ~'S
v ~ I ~ 11}~ '~ a r If~1r . , ~ ~~ ~~
I i t 1 i lr
~,,
4,I' ~ ~ '11 ','I s ~ I ~ ~~ Iii ~, ~~~ ~ N
I ~ -' III I I w ~ I~ 4 ~ T,
~,, ~-, v~ 1ti iI; , J ~ ~ n>/,~~ ,~~ III;. , ~ ~ J ~~ ~ _.f... ~ ~ ~ m
I ~ I \`
~ ~I I1 ~ ~ ' I III ~ ~ i r•.~ r{ ' i ~ I: I >~ ,~~~ W ~
I ~' J M i
I~ ( f IFY III 1 III ~ ~ V
k~ ill ~I i i~ L I I i * r ~~ Y'., 'C
I( ~ f m O
yt '~~ I i I. r\ ~d';i ~J ~ A IIII I~ ~Y\! I° ,r } E a
i! ' I i ~iI 1 ~v~~~ r e
Ie$ 3Hfi°Jid Ol H~lt/W ~'
Yz
~~
a ~'
.~
i i~
I--I
...~
s
I ,,
e,
i `~
~~
~l r
+~
1.
'~
f
~~"
~
~~ r" "i 11 _ I
1 tll ~ l ~ ~ r~
,! i .' 1 ~ 1. 1 ='z
~-~ 1 ~ 1 .I; `r. i
G ~:r,.
~~~. II 'I;
N
I .t
4 I
~
~;I
1
t ;~
v ~ :
,.,
.~
;~
4 •' 1 I. .~y ~~
i ~
y
~~I
t ~. ~
r ,
1 ~
~
i~ ~~ ~ I • ~
`.
.... W ~
at I
r 1
I
1 I
L,
~°
I
~ .
"~
.
e I
~ I
,. i W
.~ ~1 I
I ', ~ ~
~~
U
i.
ii'
"1
~~ I ~
~
W
J
,a~
.,. i v Ir'.. ~
III°~
i ~ ~' 4
' 1
~
1 ~ J
~ I a .
d ~ ~
~
~ ( ~
~ i
r~
I '
i ~
i y
i I
I ~
1
"
c
~~ r ~
{ I I I ~ '
~ I A
~k
~ i I 1 ~
T 1 ~
I
I y ~ '
I
i _
a ~_ ~
1
~ 1
i I -.. 1,
'. 1
~~ti
~ I v,
,
t~ ~
~Y I '1
~
{i t 'tY
,I', I
~~~i
~
r+
t ~ rr ^r . ~ ~ ..
qs aan~i~ of H~ldw
N
U m
mo
E c°~
o n
o t
N U
c
A
U
0
0
U
H
2
Y
U
N
a
0
a
d
..
a~
a~
L
C~
G
Y
Q~
.~
L
.~
IY1
L~
L
Z
L
.~
~..
(0
m
N 1
~ ~ ~
NM
rn ~ ~
o~~'
~xm
~ ~~
J H
d ~"
•M~
W ~i
d a
N U
~O ~
Z ~,
~ o
O ~
Q. w
O ~
a¢
w
c7
0
H
0
W
H
H
z
..
/\
,/
W
I "~ , 9 ~ ~.I-~- 9~ ~J I I ~` ~ i i ~I I I ~UIIII!ihi19V!IUq I ;'
9 321f1°Jld Ol H~1VW
------ ~ ~~ ~ TI "' ~I I~~~il, ~ ~ ------
II iL I:,~ i ;,: I
I
~~4T
e.~._-r.. -. ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ o / ~ ~ a
fi VIII ~
1 iI
~~
1 ~ ~ ~ ,~ I ~I Ii ~ IB ~I I
`~~ I d'~ i g~ ~ ~~~
t Yd'I I ~
1 , , a a~~i I , ~~ ,I
~~ I ~ ~-~-~ {~~IIII~IIW ! ~ l I~~~s ~~~~, ~II~I~ rij I,
~`I ~I i ~ ~Iill~li l~ l ul ~ Ill r 19- _~
~~`~ ~~ ~ ~ ; ~~~~~~ ~~ 11, ~ ~ I ICI I~~ ~ 1~i~ I~~ ~i
~1 ~` it
~'~ ~I~~ ~ ~ ~ i ' ~I ~) I ~;,a~` I~
{ 1 ~~ i ~ ~ I; II ~ a'.
g
I u
I I
I ~ 1 ~ ~~~ ~~ l~ I
~ ~~~I` ~ i ~` ~i ~~ ~
1D'tl Il
~ I ~ ~~ i ~
1,~,~dl ;~ I 11~ ~~ I ~~
'I W ~`~ I _ ~ ~'~
-~.} ±
~~ ~
i
n 0 `+ I~ II ~l i
1 z i ' ~I i
T~' ..,~ ' ~ ~ .,
i
q IIII r
J n
+, I I I
~ I 1 u ° r
i
K~, yfY ~ n ~~ I ~ hil~~~~~ ~~ ~ I',
~ '~~
~;
~~; V ~ ~ i~Y~~~~~~ ~ ~~
AI ~ I~~ ~ i \ ~ ~ ~~~IIII~II~II~ .~ 1j 1~~
~~~ IV ~ I ~ J ~ ~~~~I~~I ~ ~ ~~ ~i 1
I /
b ~ ~ I
~~IIIIIIIIIIIII ~ !411
a- m) a 1~ i R I tl~il!IIIII~~Ip1 „' ~ ~ryrl,
I I II I IL I~ IiIIIl1i~~llll it R 1~ :
~ I ~ ~ ~~1i~~1~~~~~~~~ 1 s ~,I
~~ ' ~ .1 ~ ~~'~~11~'1~ ' 1 V,
ail I, I ~i ~~~~~~~ I~~~~' s '. ~~ 11•,
`~ i ~I1' ~I ~ 11 I ~- f
t
i I~ ~~ j i I I i~i i ~li~
~i y i y i~ ~ _~ F I I I I~~1~ l~ - i~ ~,
- Ilan 1111 ~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ III i~~~~lii P i1
i i I i 1~ ~ a il~li~ 1 I I ~f~ ~'.
x ~I 17 i- I I i~i1i "~ ~ ~
;i I I ~ I ~ ~1~1 ~~~~ ~~ 1..
1D 7~'dd0~'~` i ~ ~ I~ IiI i 1~1~ al I>, i,
I. ,i~~' ~~111 J ~ yIN4
` 1 ~' I w ,i ki ~ Iq ~I X11 J~~,~9
i~l i ~ . ~ ~ 1~ i, ~~ ~ ~ I ~~1 Ilea it ~I~i~~~~~1~ e I _. U1 ~l
i i 1 I A i V
~ Iv
~~+.`_'~ ® ~~~~11 ~~I,i~i I~ ~ II~ ~ ~~~~ ~~Il li ~~ i~~~1~~1 n ~ 1 ~!11.
~. ~ ~~, R ~ i f i i tl l~ \ V I I I h I I i ~~{{{{{{ ~.
c~ i"I% ~r ~ VIII I I~e ~ ~iIIN n ~A; J II~
~~- ~,n11~ildll, ~glir~ „~~
1D 3I~lVWB~~~ x ~ ~~i~~l ~i ~ IIII ~ ~III~~iI ~~ s'. "s~ S1 ~,
! I I ~ e ~ ~... V'
,~_ ~ ! ~~/~~i ~ ~~~III~I ~ ~ ~ ~~ i~~ll i III ~~ i i ~ W ~i~ i
.,
g ~~'i'~~1~i~~''bI I Ir~~IV ~ ~ ~1~II~11 ~I III ~. ' _ ~~ 4~'~
1
a' ~ ~, TI~M#i~ IIII R 14ilfl~k I~ I ~in "~
_ ~ I ~i I ~ '~ b Y b IIIAY {.,~i
V
l IN I I III I ~~II~I~II I 11 it Y i
I I
,~ I I I .;, ry Il~jl~h~ ~ I I~ !IIIIIIIII' I i P ~ Ij f4 1.
I ~ I ~ !I I ~r ~ , ~ ~IIIIIIII~~~~ '~ ~~i'li~ ~~ ~ i ~{
y I
G~',~I ~ ~~ '~~~(jl ~~~~~<~ ~ I~ ~I~~~~~ill~ll l lit ,~ 41 I IILM
~, ~ 1 I i i ll u' I ~' I IIII II ~ i. ~-~" ,
_`~ ~p7+ .! ~ al ~~ P~~hi1n'~II119~11 I ~II~11i1 ~ ~ z~~i~Ilhhl I _I.
OTPY .t---1 ' ~ s 1111 I I'r~Il~~i VIII Ii~ ~~ •. I II~~I~IUII l l ~ J i ~ Ili
~1 ~ I~III~~IIiu~Id IiIIII e Illlllhhlll ~~ t.
~ ~il~ II I~~ ml~l I IIII I~~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~~ ~ ~ y~I~l~lk~~i ~~ ~~~ bd III ~ ~
li~~ t~ r o ~; o ~i~il~~ii i i~i I 1 li ~ ~ ~'~ I I~I~I~II~'il 1 ~, IIII ~ p k I
~" ~ 1 ~ I ~ III II ~~ l ~ \ '^-c t
ao ~. l ~ +a
~ I
,r
,~
ra -_-- - ~ I Ir 4 _ ~~I _ s If m -- a - s _
x ~~ a .: ~ m ~ ~ ti
u- tl I b 1 ~ J 6
i
a.~ ° ti ~ I 1 I~ el~i~l~~~~~~1~~ ~ t. ~ ~~ ~ I~~l~~~~~ Ir r~, ~ I a ~ ~I ~o ~~.
° I: ~ i _ ~ I ~11 1 I ~~I~i ~ ~~L~ ~I'~yi ~ ~~1 ~p I _ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ a ~'
I~~~ _ ~ ~ RL ~:r~ i~ r I ~ 7 ~ I I~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~i ~l~~ ~I !, I~ ', I~ e T s III Is
R ~
i
e II I a :• I III ~ ! IIII I I C I ~ y ,~ ~ Y~~
iti-~I II ~ I~ II, II I~eII~ ~ '1V~,xli'~IIIII~~I I f ll ~ I!il~lllll~i I~ ~ ~ I mn ,~ ~ w.~,~_
° ~1~1. I. III ~ III ili~'~U#lil lil 1i # r I ~~ r 1 1 I.
U
~~ o
II
~ U
A"
Z ~ ~
m
can
s
a
c
a
a
~.,
4
a
z
0
.-.
d
r E
m '
x z
E ~ € E
m ~ ~ m
0
z
W v
W ~ N
J of m
v
I
at
N
C m N
m'~~~
o m~mw
E~Eo
C ~ ~ t
u c.~~
~! ~ ~L~
~"~
~`ow m
w ~ ~ rn
£ m ~ c
t O
~«`-
'p L
~Ti ~ E
dy m m
m m m m
c 'a n m
m m
m ~ m E
.E '° o `~
~m~r
m E m "
H m ~ 8
O" O
z~a.~
I~
^
N
O
V
N
Q
to
,~
' W
~.
.~
N ~ .:~ . . . . . . . . .
I
~~ G
z
~ ~ '
~I
'~
I
~ ~„~~. c~
~
~ ~
E N
A F
,
I p~
I P
, W
f ~~ .
\ n
A
I
11 N C
IIIIJ~ r
1 a
e
1 I
1 ^~ ~
~~ P.
~
'~ (~
i~i
1 .
11i
4
~
c
~
111
`
\ ~
\
.~
~
\ aC't
.wtf~4 ~._
~~ IIII ~ \~ I' 4~' _ °~ ~PY_.. ~'~
I I'
III ~ G "z_J. "a/~~~ ~ y- ~, ~ ` _
1 _ ~I ~ ~ ~ `~ , y l 1 l
III G M_ e.. ~'~ S ~ ~_ J~ ~
~ ~B I {S .Yj', I
{ i
i i ~ ~ ~ I~}..,' it
II,,I °. Q ~ 1 I t i1 ~ a.~ ~, ~ ~IIII,,111,~~'~
~~ ~, ' ~i I Ibl~'
'iii s k I ~ 14.~~ fill d~~ -11 f I ~i
~F~ {r 9 )
~i S ~i r. ~^T~'O~4`~'Jy m
~~ i ~~
IIII' ~~~ a ~ ~ ~I~~~~-~-- r
n ~ x z
a ~ ~~ y
I I II I III • • ~; r r' ~ ~ E m @ E
I~~ ~` ~ ~ ` , ~s ?~ e ~ ~' i. ,, m 3 m m
II II',
I ' ~ ~ ~ jib ~ Z
r
N
~ I
'' l I
G /,
~ I '. .~. T~Pd
IIII I i~v J~,
Y ~' ff I I I J. ~ ~ ~
1 II '. rq
~~~ ~r
_I ; ' i _, ~ ~.,_ f
ti I,If I II I ql i
I
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I~ ~ ~ hl I. °° lygo
' ~ ~~.
III I ~~ I I ~ ~~~ ,: ~ ,.
I, I'I ~ N
Ili II' ~ 9
~ ~ I ,'Ifl I~~ I ~,~~f ~ ~ ,
~,
I I ~
., ~ `,,~ III :II ~I ~I ~ f ~' II,~
I y,
II I I
ry s ~Z --~ ~I ~ I ~I ~ ~ ~ ~~ 17
i I IIII i1 I FII Iljll~
~l 11 ILL.~r~ ll III ~ ¢ III I I ~ I• III III ~.
~ f{ I it I i I III ~ ~_ _ ~ m
4 {~r'. ~ _- I mill ~• ~I I I ~ ~ I % ~
I~~~d, II 'III ~ ~.I I I ' IIII I ~ I! ~~ CN>
~~ d'~m@
~ yl ~ll ~+--' ill III II'~~ I ~ ,~~~ ~~~$
' ~Gi i ~ II' I~~~III ~~ 'I ~~m`o
I~ '~~;- III'. a f ~. ~, ~w~it
(~ E~ ' I ~ ~ I My~ ~+~~
I~ ~I ~ _ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ dll~lq'I'~ ~ - ~~ I n € a£
W d
"Vf I mll ~~ ~ IIII 'o i( ~, ~~_£m
111"1 ~, ~ ~ I ~il~~h ,~ ~ °
'~-r-r I I I I a
L~ 'I I I I a~N II ~ I ;I i I~ II IIMIII I II I ;,a~~i I a m~ w
I I I 'I~ i I iljl~iiliilli _ .' ~ ~I o.£..
II~ 'iIIN,6WMl ~ ~ ~ o
~I ~' ! Lr !MATCH TO FIGURE A ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E
JJJ I I'll r I' ~I III~'~~III II ~I~' ~ IGI'lllllll I~;I i~~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ m
E
E'~°o~
0 C L
~ E m "
o=off
z~a.~
a
rn
^
of
I ~'I Ii Ifl
1
~!II'I to ' 1~
( ~ O
Ir M
I I'
,'
~ ~
'~ t I I _
~ { d
I ~~ v
~ II I i
c~ II ~~ lil I ~
~I I~I~ ii
c ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I
I~I hi
III ~ '~
~~~ ~I 'll I'f ~;
~I VIIIII I;
I I , ,
(t
~4' - -- I
~l~ I y{ ~ III
x ~.
I ~ ~~
I ~c ~ (p
~ ~
1 ul V I ~ I ~r I ~~~~{4`.
~~~, I III .; ~ 4 !~
1 ~ IIII ti~ _~
' ~ ~ '~ ~~
a+ ~ ~pllllll ~i~ ' ~
~,~!, ~ II I .A ~;
~ ~~ •I I ~,~ a ~ ~~
IM
1 ~ y ;
III, ~ ~ I ICI, f
I '~ III ( 1l ~ ~
I
QQ~IIq s
~ Z*~I ~ I IIIIIIII I,~ ' I ,
III 1.
II ~I ~ ~I~ ~ ~~~I~
i pp
~ I VIII ~'d~~ '~p~l $ G!I
I 8 I x
I
~'I ~I'I ~ I ~!
~ ~ , I I t,l
~I I, ~ II I
,I I I
I
~~ IIII ~ ~~ ~
~' ~ I ~ IIfIjO, I 1
I I~~ ~ d~llll I;.
II ~ I I I llul I_~
~~ I ~ a;IIII~ ~
II~ ~ ~ ~I ICI ~ 'llllll Pi 'g
I I I I ~ 1,III 1 II B I
I'II~1~;~ ~ ,Ili IIII,VIIII `I d
~~~~~j Ili n w ~ II-h. I~ ' II
I NISI ~ ~,' ' 'l i' e 1 ~ ~ ICI I
I
I' 'I Illi I ~" I ~ ~ ?
n #I, I IIn1'
,III III $I II II I I ~,
'ii I I ~ ~il I YY VII '`l ~r~..
'll I ~ ICI` I iii Iii III JJ~ t1
~ I Y
I
it I I I I II I I'~ ~ ~ I ~I I~~ ~' It'III I~I ' ~ ~ ~,; {I tll
~A
Z
4
~ z
w
mo 0
N
8 II
U
N
ui
N
LL
m
m
C
rn
' E
m ~
x z
m
m 3 m m
0
z
w v
J ~
m
t
_~ ~
I I~~ :~~~ 'I~~~II ~ ~I '.I i I I ~ I , ~ ' ~ ~ I I~~I~ ry11 ' I ~ ~I
Ii I I ~ ~ ~ I III I II i
I ~~~ II~~ I yl ~w IIII ~ ~ I
I y
II~ ~~Ii I ~ilill~l~ll11I Y~~+II~ ~I~I I~~~ ~ I~,I'~ 14II~~~~
~,~~ ~,i,~ ~~~~I~~~,~I ~I IIII ~ I~ ~ ~~ ~~ IIti II~~
''~ j LI III ICI I I I 14 I I I I ~'~ g~I I X411
I -jI~I~~II ~1~~~ ~I ~ ~ ~, ~ ~, I I ~ o'I~~~~I~~~~ I EI I~ ~ 7
I I I I~ _IIII' IIII ~il 1i it ~l ~ i'iiiiili~~ii. I
~~~II~II~ IIII II "IIIIII~ iiiill'IiII~IIIII ~~ li III ~
Iliin I IIII ' I IIIIIIIII,II ~.I
y I 7i
~~~ --'~ I Ili 6'I ~I iA~~~~ II III~II I~~'~~Id -. it
~ lr' II~~ ~~ I I~'Iil ''~ I II ~I~;II, ll i~, l ~ ~IIIII~i~iV
1. III i~ i l i ~ it r I III~ G III I VIII III i
I I1 ~~~ IIII Ili 11~9~II~iI I III IIII k
I, I
I '`til ~Ii,Ill~ II~ uhII~I I I~I I~
I p/
' 1_!IIII Ii ~1 ~I III IIIII~II'Y IIII I IIIIIII I i n •~k~
.. I~ ~~I~ I I~1 ~~ 1'r~ '~~t~l*I I~I~I~ t ~ i,a ~ ~ ..
IIII I ~Jld Ol HOl W I IIII
014 hII III I II I IIII ~~, I I n,
~~ ~ ~~ ~L~'IIU 9~~i I ~~~d~111 II' I I ~~~
~ I ' Iill III I III iI I'I IIII j II I I it ~ ~ ~I ~~~~ II I~a~ SGT
A ~~~ 111111 ~iill~ll Illlbllll I~ L I 'IIIIIIIIIII ~ l
I ~~~~ 11 ,I ~;I;ii ~l~l l I ~ I "~ I II'~ ~ I I ~r I ~I l,lilli~~~ I ~ ~_
" ~~% ~ ~ ~~j~ '~~~~~~' i ~i ~~ ~ ° ~ I~!I~'~II i i ii I ~ II~~I ~i I ~~~.
~~ - d~ii ~I~I B
I.~ I II~~ il~~ll~l~ ~. it Iii l~lll~l~5 I III I I I ~ ;,_~.~
~i C
`~~~
m
A "' H
Wa
~~~~
c ~+
~'y ~ ~
~~ m§
~~
'rn`° ~
m
w ~ @ a
o~B`o
~Ti ~ E
yy m N
a W a m
~'mm
E'~°oy,
`~ ~ `~
m ~+ d "
w m$~
o" o
Z~a.~
W~
C7 ~
a
a
Q
W
C7
O
h
O
00
F
^
r
r
r
r
r
c r
t9 !
rn
~~
r
r
r
~r
r
t
r
f
1
Z
c~
w /
!
r
3
~c
~o r
r
am
~ t
~
1
;. 1
~2
l
~ V
~
d 1
1
1
V
of
P
A
Q
U~
z
0
..,
o.
O c7 ~
rn
~ ii
,,W^^ `~',
VI
YI
V
t~ 7774
N
O ~
Z
~'
~' 4
O
RCf
G
~ 4i~.1
v ~
~~ H
T
N
m
N
Z
~~
c ~
°' ,1
~~
i
d ~ ~
~~ ``\ ~i
~~ y`\
h
l
V
A
A ~
~ 1
qI
3`
p1
Z ~
1
C ~ `'
o O
~ ~ ~ LL
Q
N
O
o V
~ ~ d
d ~
m
O
~,
W ~,
d
~- ~
Y
m
N
Z
A ~ ~ A
~ n ro ro ro C ro ro b ro ro m ro ~ ~ ~ ~
u
" b 3 m ro ro .. .. w ..
a ro 3 o v
' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 E E E E
~ 3 3 3 3 ~ p ~ p n 3 3 3 ~
q~ [-+. r H '+ r"' r' N N N N ,
N M M ~ ~ X m' .,`n, d' d~ d~ W
a d'
~ d~ N
~ v d
n d
n d
W y PO W ~ Lb W W W m P] in W O W O W ~ W [ P W P ~ . , A
G ~ ~ ~ ~
P~ G1 FO ~
E W
M d~ ~
h M
~ M
~ ~--~
~ M
~ ~O
~ u7
~ M
~ T
~ ~D
~ M
~ M
~ m
M m
N '+
~ O
~ O
~ r+
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ W
~ N
~ M
b M
b d~
~
d~
.dam Ew
~
M
a
d ~ ~
M n
~D ~
~D M
~O d'
~O ~fl
~O d'
~D O~
u1 m
Ifl M
~D rr
~D N
~O N
~D M
~D V'
~D M
~a M
~D ~ ~
~• i
a y
.~
ro a ~ "^ ,n ~ ~ rn m ~n m in o m ~ M <n ~n m ~
~
P~ ;°
O M ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w
pz
z
~ °D~' E
F
~d ro `=
'd' .o
~ n
~ m
~ m
~ o
n m
~ - m
~ rn
~ m
~ .o
.o
~ n
~ .n
~ .v
~ ~o
~ ~r
A .o
.o n
•O .o
.o m
~
Q 'J," 'o m
N
c
/~ N
E
z `=
~ ~ rn
~ rn
~ o
n o
n o
~ N
~ r.
~ m
~ m
~ ~
h o
n m
~ M
~ [~
~ ~
~ m
~ m
~ m
~ m
~ a.
~ M
n ~
~ m
~ ~
~ o
n
C.'
W
!~
Li '" d
Q d d b
~ .a. r1 ~ O 0\ ~--i N O M N '+ N M ~O a\ n a, n D` d' N O O N W O~ O m N
W b a L A .o [~ n [~ n A A h h A ~O .O ~D ~D ~a A A P A P A i0 A ~O A
y ~ w a
do
~; z aza
°
H
v
"
v
W i ~ m m T O
A m N
A H
L D\ O
h H
P 'cX
P l~
O ~
O n
D ~
D n
~D N
A ~--~
A m
~D m
~D M
A N
L~ h
~ L~
b ~O
~ O
n
rl Q' V ~ ~ ~ ~D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W
I~ N ~ (~
z ~
,
c
z a v i
~ h N m N m .o ,~ m ~ ~
O k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~O A ~O
W
W
V
W ~+
R.' Q ..p.
Fy C a ~ N N N ti N N M T N N N r M N M M M M M W M m M N ~
^i~ V
Q
h
U N
Q N
Q
v
C w w _
U
U v
"'
a
m
H
U
U ai
~ i
6
~ a
C a
G N v 7 i O O U v v W N N 4i N N y U ~' ro N
Q N ~ ~ ~ p 0 ~ Q ~ ~ ¢ ~ ro .b .~ Q A.
~ O E ~ O a 7 ~ Fi /-. V '
' y ro ro b A A ~ 9 O tl
G ~. ~.
~ ~.
a A F
" F ~. ~ N U1 a b 'D
'd
N
'
d
ro
is
0
C F ~ N '
ro 7
N
0
0
0 M
~
7 N
N d
~ m
N [~
M ~
~+
ro G
N G
ro
V
O y
V y
U
O y
V
F .o
C a
O .o
N
O p~
v
M
a
~ T
y w ~--~ N M d' ~D I~ m ~ O '+ M
+ d I~ m O~
- O '+ N M 1 u7 ~O I~ m O~ O
a V7 '+ n r n ~ r+ ~
+ N N N N N N N N N N M
a
67
y
" '" b E~ E N N N ~ y G u ~0 ~E Rt N N ~0 i0 N itl itl ~d ~6
CC a 3 ;, m v m 3 3 3 m „~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
k
i'
~
-O, 3
~ 3
00
~o
~o 3
.a
3 0 0 N M W ~ d~ d~ d~ W d~ d~
F
~ °' m m ~ m m ~ ~ m w m m m m ro m m m m m
~
[~ d~ o
~p w
~O ,-.
~D o
~° in
v ~ w
~ ~n in m, rn ,-. o 0 o r» o ~-. ,~. ~n
d' `. l N D ~D ~O ~° N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q
~
~ i
G w
q U
t~ N
M '+
b p~
~
w
~
v`~i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~" i
N
~
~+
C
G~i a ~
A b
~ ~ _
~ "'
d~
~D
IC!~
N
o0
O
~O
W
a0
O
~--~
M
M
d~
d~
e M o .o .o ~6 ~D in .o .~ .~ ~D .o ~o ~D .° .p .°
z v
z m a
O u N
~^ .u ~
N W
~ M
~ O
~ N
lD W
~ O
n O~
~ W
~ ~D
~ ~D
~ ~D
~ u1
~
O W
w
~
O _
~
'~
~
W u
W ~ O
A O~
~p C
~D N
~D O~
~D ~--
h N
A O
P M
~D d~
~D W
~D I~
~D O
A O~
~D O~
~O T
~D W
~O h
~D
~ ~
W
! ~
y
R O d
z
'a °' ~
~
i
V
t^
` m
P o
A ~
~p ~
~O o
A 0
h o
t~ M
[~ ~
n in
A ~
~D n
~O w
A o
A 0
I~ o
t~ co
h ~
A m
~p rn
~O
F
y, .
.
.
O 0
?
v
N '2 .
~
N yyyGy
.a ry
¢ 'Q
Fy
~ w d
W a
i
d
N
H
n
n
W
O
W
W
~
N
~°
d~
C
to
N
W
W
~
~
N
W
W
.
l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n [~ A ~D ~p h ~O ~D ~D h L~ ~ ~
] ~ ryry
~ m V
W O
~' z
8 m o b
z L~
a+ w w ~ ~ i ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~
°~ "' ~
W
V
W ~
o
F W
Fy C Pi ~--~ N N ~--i N ti eN M d~ N ~-+ N N ~--i N r+ t+] t7 C N
P. ~ u
d a
m
m
3 3
C w v v m v CJ
xww 3 i
~ .: u u
° q G F ~ ~ ~ U
Q o d d d d A ~
~ ~ ~ G O O O O A U ~ ~
N A N ~7
~ V A A tiC A
N
~ ~
w 'L'
n y
O 0
z 0
z m
z b
z N
Z ~
z > ~
w p
' n
~ ~ ro
~ N
d
~ ~ O
`" N
~
c ~ O O ,-. O ,
.
0
a « ,-. N ~n ~ n ao N m w in ,-~ cn w in .o n co m o ,-+
~~ M m m m m c~ w ~ r w ~n u~ ~n in in ~n in in ~ .o
i
b
G
O
A C
~. N
`u 'O
v b
A N
~ G
m .~
~ b
u
~ O
v
L v
w V
b ~
W p
d b
G
O
,y 'F
k ~
w ~
w
~ W
o~
,.
~~
~°
aF
~ A
~ ~
N b
i ~
v V
A ~
o ~
,. o
m~ v
~ m 'a
,L ~ e
N d
„ F
ro
w
~ w A
.° N
a N N
~ .k.
Aa
o F" ~
0
" u
v ~,
~ o
.. ~
68
Table 6
SUMMARY OF NADR FEASIBLF/REASONABLE ASSESSMENTS
AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Barrier ~ ~
ID Noise
Bamer
Type
B1A/Bl Wall
B2 Berm
B3 Wall
B4 Wall
B5 Wall
B6 Berm/
Wall
B7 Wall
BS Wall
B9 Berm/
Wall
B10 Wall
B12 Wall
B13 Wall
B14 Wall
B15 Wall
B16 Wall
Dimensions
Height, Length
L=71 (233)
H=1.82 (6)
L=432 (1,417)
H=3.05-3.66 (10-12)
L=141 (462)
H=3.05 (10)
L=438 (1,437)
H=3.66 (12)
L=102 (335)
H=1.82-3.05 (6-10)
L=393 (1,289)
H=2.44 (8)
L=33 (108)
H=2.44 (8)
L=51 (167)
H=3.05 (10)
L=121 (397)
H=3.05-3.66 (10-12)
L=174 (571)
H=1.S3-2.44 (6-8)
L=76 (249)
H=2.44 (8)
L=87 (285)
H=2.44-3.05 (8-10)
L=450 (1,476)
H=1.S2 - 2.44 (6-8)
L=112(367)
H=1.83 (6)
L= 99 (325)
Feasibility Reasonable
C
t Estimated
C
t
ti
Recommen-
Acoustical Physical os
Allowance ons
ruc
on
Cost dation
YES YES 403,000 404,410 Build
YES YES 465,000 297,028 Build
YES YES 132,000 197,417 Build
YES YES 700,000 575,858 Build
YES YES 140,000 149,654 Build
YES YES 651,000 750,887 Build
YES YES 33,000 38,349 No Build
YES YES 62,000 104,048 Build
YES YES 231,000 132,174 Build
YES YES 296,000 244,016 Build
YES YES 87,000 84,221 Build
YES YES SS,000 53,984 Build
YES YES 740,000 557,010 No Build
YES YES 124,000 115,563 Build
YES YES 99,000 108,040 Build
Source: Rick Engineering Company (2003).
It should be noted that identified noise abatement barriers may change or be eliminated from the final
project design, if pertinent changes (e.g., reasonable/feasible conclusions or homeowner preferences)
occur as a result of public review. Specific homeowners, for example, may decide not to authorize wall
construction on their private property, with walls still proposed on adjacent lots (i.e., with more than 50
percent of affected property owners still in favor). The creation of such a "gap' in a proposed wall under
this scenario would require the construction of "wing walls' on one or both sides of the gap to maintain
adequate noise abatement at adjacent sites (i.e., to prevent noise from "leaking" through the gap and into
adjacent sites). Under such circumstances, additional technical and/or environmental reviews could be
69
required prior to implementing the proposed changes. The following noise abatement measure would
address all noise impacts identified above:
Proposed Noise Abatement Measure
• Prior to completion of project construction, noise abatement barriers should be constructed at
applicable locations along the I-805 corridor and East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway both east
and west of I-805, pursuant to the project Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002, as amended) and
direction for applicable barriers by the City of Chula Vista, the Department and FHWA as identified
in the project NADR (Rick Engineering Company 2003). Preliminary noise abatement barrier
locations and dimensions are depicted as locations Bl through B16 in Tables 5 and 6 and on Figures
Sa through 8c and 9a through 9c in this IS/EA.
Implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would also generate noise in association with construction
activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation and base preparation, paving and cleanup.
Associated maximum noise levels at approximately 15.25 meters (50 feet) for the types of equipment
typically used in roadway projects (e.g., tractors, backhoes and pavers) range from approximately 75 to
90 dBA. The Department standard specifications for construction projects include requirements for
allowable equipment related noise generation. Specifically, these requirements mandate that contractors
comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances that apply to work
conducted under the contract. In addition, internal combustion engines used for contract related
activities are required to be equipped with mufflers that meet manufacturer recommendaiions. All
construction activities associated with Altematives 1 or 2 would meet these existing construction noise
requirements. No substantially adverse construction noise impacts are expected from Altematives 1 or 2;
therefore, no mitigation is required.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built, and none of the
described project-related noise impacts would occur. The existing noise impacts associated with the I-805
corridor, however, would continue to exceed applicable criteria under this alternative.
70
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a -Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered fire protection
services?
The project consists of several freeway/roadway modifications and associated (low fire potential)
landscaping. Accordingly, the project would not include facilities subject to fire hazards, and
implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate increased demand for fire protection
services or associated impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built and no associated
impacts related to fire protection services would occur.
Item b -Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered police protection
services?
The project consists of several freeway/roadway modifications and associated landscaping. Accordingly,
the project would not include facilities or activities requiring police service, and implementation of
Altematives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate increased demand for police protection services or
associated impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built and no associated
impacts related to police protection services would occur.
Item c -Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered schools?
The project consists of several freeway/roadway modifications and associated landscaping, and would
not result in increased population (see Section 5.2} or associated requirements for schools. As a result,
implementation of Altematives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate increased demand for schools or
associated impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built and no associated
impacts related to schools would occur.
71
Item d -Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered maintenance of
public facilities, including roads?
Freeway/roadway improvements to be constructed under Alternatives 1 or 2 would generate
requirements for associated maintenance, including street sweeping, landscaping and upkeep/repairs for
road and/or wall facilities (e.g., retaining and noise walls). These potential impacts are not considered
substantially adverse due to the fact that project maintenance will be included in and administered
through the project budget.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built, and no associated
impacts to new or altered maintenance requirements would occur.
Item a -Would the proposed project affect or result in the need for new or altered efforts for other
government services?
The project consists of freeway/roadway facilities and associated landscaping, and would not include
facilities or activities requiring government services other than those already discussed. Accordingly,
implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 is not expected to generate increased demand for other government
services or associated impacts.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be built and no associated
impacts related to other governmental services would occur.
5.13 LOCAL SERVICE THRESHOLDS
Item a -Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista fire/EMS service
threshold standard?
As noted above in Section 5.12, the project alternatives would not generate demand for fire protection (or
EMS) services, with no associated impacts to City fire/EMS service threshold standards anticipated.
72
Item b -Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista fire police service
threshold standard?
As noted above in Section 5.12, the project alternatives would not generate demand for police protection
services, with no associated impacts to City police service threshold standards anticipated.
Item c -Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista traffic service threshold
standard?
As previously described in this document, Alternatives 1 and 2 would accommodate projected traffic
volumes, provide acceptable LOS and improve safety levels through the year 2025. Accordingly, these
altematives would improve local traffic circulation, service level and safety, with no associated adverse
impacts to City traffic service threshold standards anticipated.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed improvements would occur and
freeway/roadway facilities within the project study area would remain in their current condition. Based
on the projections for local traffic volumes previously described in this document, portions of the existing
on-site transportation system could experience unacceptable LOS, traffic congestion and traffic safety
levels, with associated substantial adverse impacts. Potential mitigation of such effects would likely
involve freeway/roadway improvements similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Item d -Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista parks recreation service
threshold standard?
The project alternatives would not generate demand for park/recreation service, with no associated
impacts to City parks/recreation service threshold standards anticipated.
Item a -Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista drainage service
threshold standard?
As discussed in Section 5.5, the project altematives would not substantially alter runoff volumes or
drainage patterns within the study area. On-site drainage facilities installed as part of Alternatives 1 or 2
would be designed and sized to meet all applicable Department and City of Chula Vista requirements,
with no substantial adverse impacts to associated City drainage service threshold standards anticipated.
73
Item f -Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista sewer service threshold
standard?
The project alternatives would not impact any existing sewer facilities or generate any demand for sewer
services, with no impacts to associated City threshold standards anticipated.
Item -Would the proposed project adversely impact the City of Chula Vista water service threshold
standard?
Water use associated with Alternatives 1 or 2 would include short-term construction needs (e.g., dust
control) and long-term street sweeping and landscape irrigation. Water use associated with the No
Project Alternative would be limited to long-term road maintenance and landscaping needs (i.e., for
existing facilities). Because of the short-term and/or incremental nature of such uses, no associated
substantial adverse impacts to water service threshold standards are anticipated from the project
alternatives. As identified in Section 5.5, potential project-related impacts to water quality (and related
City standards) for Alternatives 1 and 2 would be addressed through conformance with applicable water
quality criteria of the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES No, CAS10S758) and the related
SUSMP (San Diego Co-permitees 2002). No adverse impacts to water quality or associated City
thresholds would be associated with the No Project Alternative.
5,19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Item a -Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for power or
natural gas systems?
Power demands associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be limited to minor use from construction
activities, street lighting and traffic signals, with no associated substantial adverse impacts anticipated.
Power use under the No Project Alternative would be limited to existing street lights and traffic signals,
with no associated substantial adverse impacts.
I em b - Would khe proposed project require new Or substantially altered facilities for
communications systems? .
The project alternatives would not generate any impacts to existing facilities or new demand for
communication s}'stems, with no associated impacts anticipated.
74
Item c -Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for water treatment
or distribution systems?
The project alternatives would not generate demand for water treatment systems, with distribution
facilities limited to minor irrigation pipelines for Alternatives 1 and 2 (and no additional water
distribution requirements for the No Project Alternative). Based on these conditions, no substantial
adverse impacts related to the need for water treatment or distribution systems are anticipated from any
of the project altematives.
Item d -Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for sewer or septic
tank systems?
The project alternatives would not generate demand for sewer or septic tank facilities, with no associated
impacts anticipated.
Item a -Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for storm water
drainage systems?
Storm water drainage demands associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be limited to minor runoff
increases from paved areas, with no associated substantial adverse impacts anticipated (refer to Section
5.5 for additional discussion of existing and proposed storm drain facilities).
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed, with no
associated impacts to storm water drainage.
Item f -Would the proposed project require new or substantially altered facilities for solid waste
disposal systems?
Solid waste demands associated with the project alternatives would be limited to minor short-term
construction debris (Alternatives 1 and 2 only) and long-term litter control. No associated substantial
adverse impacts to solid waste disposal systems are anticipated.
75
5.15 AESTHETICS
A Visual/Aesthetic Technical Report was prepared for the project alternatives by KTU+A (2002). The
results of this study are summarized below, with the complete report available for review at the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the South Chula
Vista Public Library.
Item a -Would the proposed project obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
Existing visual conditions in the project study area were defined by visual character units and views, as
described below.
The project study area is characterized by seven distinct visual character units, including: (1) 1-805; (2)
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway; (3) Palomar Street; (4) Main Street/Auto Park Drive; {5) single-
family residential development; (6) multi-family residential development; and (7) open space. A visual
character unit is defined as an area containing consistent visual and perceptual characteristics. Individual
units are determined by elements such as landform, vegetation, architectural character, scale and land
use, and can range in size from a few to several hundred hectares (acres). Visual character units in the
project study area were evaluated for existing visual quality (including criteria such as landform,
vegetation, color, diversity, harmony and adjacent scenery) and sensitivity to change (i.e., the ability of an
area to absorb visual changes), with the results summarized in Table 7.
Table 7
VISUAL CHARACTER UNIT SUMMARY
VISUAL
CHARACTER UNIT VISUAL
QUALITY VISUAL
SENSITIVITY
I-805 Low/Moderate Low/Moderate
E. Oran e Ave./Ol m is Pkw Low Low
Palomar St. Low Low
Main St./Auto Park Dr. Low Low
Sin le-fami] residential Low Moderate
Multi-famil residential Moderate Moderate
O ens ace Moderate Moderate
76
As seen from these summary data, visual quality and sensitivity within the project study area are
classified as low to moderate, due to the predominantly developed urban character and the presence of a
major freeway corridor as the principal on-site feature. Existing views in the project study area were
assessed on the basis of several criteria, including: (1) viewer groups; (2) viewer quantities (i.e., the
number of individuals with views); (3) viewer sensitivity; and (4) viewing duration. A summary of these
criteria within the project study area is provided in Table 8.
Table S
VIEWER SUMMARY
VIEWER
GROUP VIEWER
QUANTITIES VIEWER
SENSITIVITY VIEWING
DURATION
Freewa drivers Hi h Moderate Short
Local drivers Hi h Moderate Short
Sin le-famil residential Moderate Hi h Extended
Multi-famil residential Low Moderate Extended
Pursuant to Department and FHWA guidelines, the project Visual/Aesthetic study also identified twelve
candidate keyviews to provide representative views within the study area. These keyview points were
photo-documented, with photos included in the Visual/Aesthetic Technical Report (KTU+A 2002). Three
of the keyview points were selected (based on direction by the Department) for visual simulations to
document existing, proposed (i.e., with project facilities) and mitigated (e.g., with landscaping and
color/texture treatments) views. These simulation photos are included in the Visual/Aesthetic Technical
Report (KTU+A 2002). Based on the described visual/aesthetic characteristics within the project study
area, potential impacts from Alternatives 1 and 2 were evaluated in relation to four aesthetic criteria:
visual quality, landform quality, view quality and community character. Potentially substantial adverse
impacts were identified for visual quality, view quality and community character for one or more
elements of Alternatives 1 and 2, based on proposed vegetation removal and construction of retaining
walls and noise barriers. Based on the similar or nature of proposed activities and facilities in these two
alternatives, associated impact levels would be essentially identical. These impacts would be addressed
through implementation of the mitigation measures described below. These measures include policy and
guidelines from the City of Chula Vista General Plan, Olympic Parkway Master Plan and Design Manual,
as well as applicable Department landscaping and irrigation criteria.
77
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Noise abatement barriers B2, B6 and B9as shown in the project Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002,
as amended) should incorporate earthen berms (or berm/wall combinations) rather than walls, and
spac2 for screening vegetation such as large shrubs (e.g., by use of retaining walls).
• All berms should be permanently irrigated and landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover to
provide 100 percent coverage within one year.
• Sound wall planting pockets should be used when ROW areas are too narrow to accommodate berms
or landscaped buffers. A safety barrier with a 1-meter (3.2-foot) wide planting area between the
barrier and the sound wall should be used.
• Noise and retaining walls should maximize shrub and vine plantings on both sides of the wall (i.e.,
based on direction from Department and City staffs and the amount of plantable space available).
• All shrubs removed or damaged during project activities should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio within the
same area with size number 5 specimens (i.e.,19-liter [5-gallon] specimens).
Replacement trees should be 0.6-meter (24-inch) specimens, except for eucalyptus trees which should
be size number 5 specimens (i.e.,19-liter [s-gallon] specimens).
• Groundcover replacement should be provided in disturbed plantable areas to achieve 100 percent
cover within one year.
• All disturbed planting areas within the Department ROW should be fully planted with vines,
groundcover, shrubs and trees.
• Project landscaping should be installed during or immediately after project construction, and athree-
year establishment period should be included in the construction contract(s) specifications. The
three-year establishment period should be reviewed annually by the Department and the City, and
may be terminated before the end of the third year (i.e., if landscaping conditions are acceptable) or
extended for an additional (i.e., fourth) year if necessary. The selection of plant materials for all
project landscaping should conform with applicable Department and City guidelines and
requirements (including the state noxious weed list).
78
Al] irrigation systems installed as part of the project should be fully automatic and permanent and
should conform with applicable Department and City requirements. Repair/replacement of existing
systems (i.e., those not affected by project activities) should be conducted by the Department to
provide 100 percent coverage for planted areas.
Plantings and design along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway should conform with
landscaping and design guidelines in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Circulation
elements, and the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan, including landscaping and paving in
the median and ROW, as well as use of public art and banners where applicable.
• A maintenance walkway should be provided along the landscaped East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway median.
• Retaining and noise wall colors, textures and details should compliment and enhance local
community character, with the use of standard concrete kept to a minimum and wall designs
coordinated with City planning efforts to establish East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway as a
gateway access to the eastern portion of the City. Coloring within the Department ROW should
conform with the approved Department color palette.
• The design of all project-related noise barriers and retaining walls (including landscaping) should be
compatible with existing and proposed wall design in the project study area, to the maximum extent
feasible (per direction by Department and City staff), and should conform with applicable
Department and City design standards.
Proposed noise walls should be sited and designed per direction by Department and City
engineering staffs to minimize the size of the wall visible to local residents to the maximum extent
feasible.
• Awater-based, volatile organic compound (VOC) compliant (per federal, state and local standards)
and graffiti-resistant coating should be applied to all walls. The coating should be clear in color, have
a low-sheen finish and be free of lead, chromium, mercury and similar heavy metals.
79
• Vines should be planted approximately every 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet) at appropriate locations (as
determined by Department Landscape Architects and City landscape staff) along all walls (i.e., the
top and/or base) to discourage graffiti, reduce visual scale and improve streetscape character.
• All landscaping, retaining wall and noise barrier plans should be submitted to the Department and
the City of Chula Vista for review and approval. The results and recommendations of these reviews
should be included in the final design, as appropriate.
The installation contractor(s) would be responsible for monitoring and maintenance of the above-
described landscaping and related irrigation systems for a period of three years (as described above).
Long-term monitoring and maintenance of project landscaping and irrigation systems would be
conducted by the Department within the I-805 ROW and the City of Chula Vista for areas outside the I-
805 ROW.
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed and no impacts
related to visual/aesthetic resources would occur.
Item b -Would the proposed project cause the destruction or modification of a scenic route?
East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway/Olympic Parkway is identified as a scenic roadway in the City
of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element. Based on the design measures and project environmental
conditions described above in Ttem a of this section, implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would not be
expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to the scenic roadway designation of East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway/Olympic Parkway (KTU+A 2002).
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed and no impacts
related to scenic routes would occur.
Item c -Would the proposed project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
As described in Item a of this section, a number of potentially substantial adverse impacts related to
negative aesthetic effects were identified for Alternatives 1 and 2 in the project Visual/Aesthetic
Technical Report (KTU+A 2002). These potential effects are associated with visual quality, view quality
and community character issues, with a number of related mitigation measures identified to address
those concerns.
SO
Under the No Project Alternative, none of the proposed facilities would be constructed and no impacts
related to aesthetic issues would occur.
Item d -Would the proposed project create new light or glare sources that would increase the level of
sky glow or result in non-compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title
19?
Lighting associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be limited to streetlights and traffic signals in
applicable locations within the study area. The study area is within a predominantly urban area, with
proposed lighting not expected to notably increase local illumination levels. The location and design of
project lighting would be required to conform with all applicable Department and City of Chula Vista
requirements. No associated substantial adverse light and glare impacts are anticipated. Specific design
elements associated with proposed lighting may include features such as low sodium light fixtures or
shielding of streetlights to reduce and direct illumination.
Under the No Project Altemative, no additional lighting would be added within the project study area
and no associated impacts would occur,
Item a -Would the proposed project result in an additional amount of spill light?
As noted above in Item d of this section, no substantial adverse lighting effects are anticipated from
implementation of the project alternatives.
5.16 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A Historic Property Survey Report was prepared for the project alternatives by Kyle Consulting (2000).
The results of this study are summarized below, with the complete report available for review at the City
of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, the Department District 11 office and the South Chula
Vista Public Library.
Item a -Would the proposed project result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
The referenced Historic Property Survey includes the following historic and prehistoric investigations
conducted pursuant to Department and City of Chula Vista requirements: a record search; field survey;
S1
post-1945 short-form Historic Architectural Survey Report (HASR) and MOU Short Form; Archaeological
Survey Report (ASR); California Historic Bridge Inventory Print-Out Sheet; and preparation of Area of
Potential Effect (APE) maps. The referenced report also evaluated Alternatives 1 and 2 under applicable
criteria of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and concluded that no associated impact
would occur. Based on the results of these investigations, no historic or prehistoric sites are present
within the project study area, and no additional work is recommended (Kyle Consulting 2000).
Accordingly, no impacts related to prehistoric or historic sites would occur from implementation of any
of the project alternatives.
Item b -Would the proposed project result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object?
As noted above in Item a of this section, no cultural resources are present within or adjacent to the study
area and no associated impacts are anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item c -Would the proposed project have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
No unique ethnic cultural values are present within the study area, with associated impacts therefore not
expected from implementation of the project alternatives.
Item d -Would the proposed project restrict existing religious or scared uses within the potential
impact area?
The project study area does not encompass any religious or sacred uses, with no associated impacts
anticipated from implementation of the project altematives.
Item e - Is the proposed project study area identified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan EIR as an
area with high potential for archaeological resources?
The project study area is not identified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan EIR as having high
potential for archaeological resources. Accordingly, no associated impacts are expected from
implementation of the project alternatives.
82
5.17 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Based on project grading/construction plans and the project geotechnical report (Ninyo & Moore 2000a),
excavation and grading activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 could potentially encounter undisturbed
portions of the Quaternary Lindavista and/or Tertiary San Diego formations. These formations are
assigned moderate and high potential (respectively) for the occurrence of sensitive paleontological
resources (Demere and Walsh undated), with associated impacts considered potentially adverse and
substantial. These potential effects would be addressed through the following mitigation measures:
Proposed Mitigation Measures
A qualified paleontologist should be retained by the City of Chula Vista to implement a
paleontological monitoring and recovery program as a condition of the project construction contract.
A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or
geology who is a recognized expert in the identification and recovery of fossil materials.
The qualified paleontologist should attend the project pre-construction meeting to discuss project
grading plans with the project contractor(s). If the qualified paleontologist determines that proposed
excavation/grading would likely cut into undisturbed portions of the Quaternary Lindavista or
Tertiary San Diego formations, then monitoring should be conducted as outlined below.
The project paleontologist or a paleontological monitor should be on site during original cutting of
the above noted geologic units. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in collection and salvage of fossil materials, and who is working under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist. Monitoring of the noted geologic units should be at least half-time at the
beginning of excavation, and should be either increased or decreased depending on initial results (per
direction by the project paleontologist).
In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist would have the
authority to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities in the discovery area to allow recovery
in a timely manner (typically on the order of 1 hour to 2 days). All collected fossil remains should be
cleaned, sorted and catalogued, and deposited in an appropriated scientific institution such as the
San Diego Museum of Natural History.
83
• A report (with a map showing fossil site locations) summarizing the results, analyses and conclusions
of the above described monitoring/recovery program should be submitted to the Department and
the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department within three months of terminating
monitoring activities.
5.18 RECREATION
Item a -Would the proposed project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks, or other
recreational facilities?
The project alternatives would not generate any new homes or population, with associated impacts to
demand for park and recreational facilities therefore not expected.
Item b -Would the proposed project affect existing recreational opportunities?
Because no existing recreational facilities or sites are located within or adjacent to the project study area,
no associated impacts are anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives.
Item c -Would the proposed project interfere with parks and recreation plans or programs?
No known park & recreation plans or programs encompass the project study area, with associated
impacts therefore not anticipated from the project alternatives.
Item d -Would the proposed project result in the use of any publicly owned land from a park,
recreation area, or wildlife and water fowl refuge?
The project alternatives would not involve the use of any publicly owned land from a park or
wildlife/waterfowl refuge, with no associated impacts expected.
84
6.0 SUMMARY CEQA EVALUATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides a summary evaluation of project-related impacts and mitigation measures pursuant
to CEQA guidelines. As described in Section 1.0, the proposed project is subject to review under both
federal (NEPA) and state (CEQA) guidelines, with the body of this IS/EA encompassing elements of
both. The terms significant or significance are not used to qualify impact levels in Section 5.0 (or other
relevant locations) due to the fact that NEPA and CEQA have somewhat different definitions and
requirements for these terms. Specifically, under NEPA, these terms are used to determine whether an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a lower level of documentation (e.g., an EA) will be required.
Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA Guidelines may not be of sufficient magnitude to
trigger an EIS requirement, with the use of such terms thus presenting inherent difficulties for a joint
analysis. In addition, CEQA requires that environmental documents (e.g., MNDs) include a
determination of impact significance, while NEPA documents (e.g., EAs) do not require such a
determination, but rather the analysis focuses on context and intensity. An IS was prepared for the
project under CEQA based on the determination (pursuant to the City's CEQA Guidelines) that an EIR
would not be required.
6.2 EVALUATION OF PROJECT IMPACTS UNDER CEQA
Based on the above-described conditions, the assessment of project-related impacts in this document
intentionally omitted a determination of significance. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, however, such a
determination is provided below, along with a summary discussion of impact assessments and CEQA
mandatory findings of significance. As described in Section 5.0, the format for identifying and evaluating
environmental issues for the project was based in part on the City of Chula Vista CEQA Environmental
Evaluation Checklist. This checklist is provided below, followed by summary discussions of impacts
assessed as significant, potentially significant or less than significant under CEQA.
ss
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? O O • O
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project (including the Coastal Zone Management
Plan)? O O O •
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? O O O •
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including aloes-income
or minority community)? O O • O
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposnl:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? O O O •
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? O O • O
c) Displace existing housing (especially affordable
housing)? O O O •
d) Affect lifestyles, or neighborhood character
or stability? O O • O
3. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC. Would the proposnl:
a) Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit-
dependent or other specific interest groups? O O • O
b) Affect employment, industry or commerce,
or require the displacement of businesses or farms? O O O •
86
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Affect property values or the local tax base? O O • O
d) Affect any medical, educational or scientific
community facilities? O O O •
e) Support large commercial or residential
development? O O O •
f) Conflict with federal Environmental Justice
requirements? O O • O
4. GEOLOGY/TOPOGRAPHY. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impncts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic
substructures? O O • O
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil? O O • O
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features? O O • O
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features? O O O •
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? O • O O
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or
the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? O O O •
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure or similar hazards? O O • O
5. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? O O • O
b) Exposure of people or property to water-related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? O O • O
87
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unleas Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? O
d) Change the amount of surface water in any
water body? O
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? O
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? O
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? O
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? O
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? C
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies? C
• O O
O O •
O • O
p • O
O • O
O • O
O • O
O O •
6. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposnl:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality violation? O O • O
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? O O • O
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally? O O • O
d) Create objectionable odors? O O • O
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality? O O • O
7. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposnl result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? O O • O
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? O O • O
88
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? O O • O
d) Insufficient parking capacity on or off site? O O O •
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? O O • O
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? O O O •
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? O O O •
h) A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.) O O O •
8. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
res ult in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern
or species that are candidates for listing? O • O O
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? O O O •
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? O O O •
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? O O O •
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? O O O •
f) Regional habitat preservation planning efforts? O O O •
g) Wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks? O O O •
h) Existing habitats or species through the introduction
of new plant or animal species? O O O •
9. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Wou ld the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? O O O •
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? O O O •
89
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unleas Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource
protection, will this project impact this protection? O O O •
d) Increase the rate of use of any natural resource? O O • O
10. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to petroleum
products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? O O • O
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? O O • O
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? O O • O
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? O O • O
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? O O O •
11. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? O • O O
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? O • O O
12. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal hnve an
effect upon, or result in n need far, new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? O O O •
b) Police protection? O O O •
c) Schools? O O O •
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? O O • O
e) Other governmental services? O O O •
90
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Signfficant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
13. LOCAL SERVICE THRESHOLDS. Will the proposnl
adversely impact the City of Chula Vista's Threshold Standards?
a) Fire/EMS O O O •
b) Police O O O •
c) Traffic O O O •
d) Parks/Recreation O O O •
e) Drainage O O • O
f) Sewer O O O •
g) Water O O • O
14. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in n need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? O O • O
b) Communications systems? O O O •
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? O O • O
d) Sewer or septic tanks? O O O •
e) Storm water drainage? O O • O
f) Solid waste disposal? O O • O
15. AESTHETICS. Would the proposnl:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? O • O O
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic
route? O • O O
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? O • O O
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? O O • O
91
e) Result in an additional amount of spill light?
16. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Wil] the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area high potential for
archaeological resources?
17. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleontological resources?
18. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation
plans or programs?
e) Result in the use of any publicly-owned land
from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and
water fowl refuge?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
O O • O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O •
O O •
O O •
O O •
O O •
•
O
O
O
O
O O
O •
O •
O •
O •
92
19.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? O • O O
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? O • O O
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable' means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.) O O • O
d) Does the project have environmental effect
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? O • O O
93
6.2.1 Imuacts Mitigated Below a Level of Significance
The following issues are subject to potentially significant impacts from project implementation. These
impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the identified mitigation
measures, with these measures and related implementation responsibilities also described in the project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) included as Attachment A to this document.
Geology/Topography
Potential impacts related to checklist Items a (unstable surface or subsurface conditions); b (soil
disruptions, displacements, compaction); c (topography); d (unique geologic features); and g
(earthquakes, landslides, ground failure) were determined to be less than significant for the reasons
summarized below.
Item a -Potential unstable conditions identified for the study area in the project geotechnical study
(Ninyo & Moore 2000a) were limited to corrosive soils. Potential effects from these soils (e.g.,
deterioration of concrete or steel) would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through
implementation of standard geotechnical and construction guidelines contained in sources such as the
UBC (199' and the "Greenbook" for public works projects (2000). Specifically, these guidelines involve
measures such as the use of corrosion-resistant materials.
Item b -Native topsoils have been disturbed or removed from all areas proposed for development, with
project activities to employ industry standards for engineering and placement of fill deposits.
Item c -Proposed project grading would entail only minor alterations of existing topography, which
reflects previous roadway development (i.e., no previously undeveloped topographic features would be
affected).
Item d -The project study area has been largely developed, with no unique geologic or physical features
present.
Item e - No active or potentially acting faults are located within or adjacent to the study area, or all
proposed development would encompass standard industry seismic design and construction measures.
Specifically, these would incorporate techniques from sources such as the Ciry General Plan, UBC and
94
Greenbook, including proper fill composition and placement, and appropriate design of concrete, walls,
bridges, and related features.
Pursuant to checklist Items e and f, potentially significant erosion/sedimentation impacts were identified
in association with proposed grading, excavation and construction activities. Specifically, such impacts
would be related to the potential erosion and downstream transport of material from areas destabilized
by project grading, etc. Such effects would be particularly applicable between construction and the
establishment of project landscaping and could, if left unchecked, potentially result in damage to
manufactured slopes (i.e., rilling, etc.) siltation of downstream drainage facilities and degradation of
downstream water quality and biological habitats (e.g., through increased turbidity and transport of
other contaminants). These potential impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance
through conformance with existing regulatory requirements including the NDES General Construction
Activity Permit (and related BMPs from sources including the Stormwater Quality Task Force
Handbooks [1993]), and the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit and related City SUSMP (San Diego
Co-Permittees 2002). These requirements specifically include the following types of measures:
• Existing vegetation shall be preserved wherever feasible;
• Construction activities shall not be conducted during the rainy season (November 15 to March 15)
when feasible;
Construction access points shall be stabilized through measures such as temporary gravelling or
paving;
• Runoff over manufactured slopes shall be avoided through the use of measures such as slope drains,
dikes and/or brow ditches;
• Sediment trapping devices such as gravel bags, hay bales and fiber rolls shall be used to minimize
off-site sediment transport;
• Applicable graded areas (e.g., slopes) shall be temporarily revegetated (e.g., by hydroseeding) and
protected (e.g., by application of duff or bonded fiber matrix) to provide interim stability prior to the
installation of permanent landscaping;
95
Permanent landscaping shall be installed as soon as feasible after construction (but no later than one
year after grading) and shall include native or drought-tolerant varieties where feasible; and
Project erosion control and drainage facilities shall be regularly monitored and maintained to ensure
proper working order. While the timing and frequency of BMP monitoring and maintenance efforts
vary somewhat by nature and location, pertinent guidelines typically require contractors to inspect
construction erosion/sedimentation BMPs bi-weekly during the winter season, before and after each
storm event, and at 24-hour intervals during extended storms (regardless of the season).
Requirements for permanent erosion/sedimentation BMPs include inspections conducted annually
and following major storm events in known problem areas, as well as "periodic' efforts to remove
sediment, debris or other potential obstacles to effective BMP operation. Responsible parties for such
activities will include the project contractor(s) during construction, the Department for long-term
maintenance in portions of the project within the I-805 ROW, and the City of Chula Vista for areas
outside the I-805 ROW.
These requirements are formalized in the following mitigation measure:
1. The project contractor(s) shall implement all applicable BMP requirements related to
erosion/sedimentation as identified in existing NPDES, Department and City of Chula Vista
guidelines. Proposed compliance activities (i.e., specific written methods proposed to comply with
the noted requirements) shall be submitted to the Department and the City for review and approval
prior to grading to ensure that all requirements will be adequately addressed. Inspection and
maintenance of all erosion control BMPs will be conducted by the project contractor(s) during
construction activities and by the Department and the City (in their respective ROWS) over the long-
term.
Hydrology/Water Quality
Potential impacts related to checklist Items a (absorption rates, drainage patterns and runoff); b (flooding,
tsunami hazards); d (surface water bodies); e (water currents or movements); f (groundwater quantity); g
(groundwater movements); i (floodwater movements); and j (public water supplies) were determined to
be less than significant for the reasons outlined below.
96
Item a -The project would result in minor alterations to local drainage, runoff and absorption through
construction of paved surfaces. These impacts would be less than significant, however, due to the
developed nature of the site and the small area involved.
Item b -The project area is located outside of all 100- and 500-year floodplains (as mapped by FEMA
1997) and is located approximately three miles inland, and is thus not subject to significant flooding or
tsunami (or tidal wave) effects.
Item d -The project would not involve any impacts to the amount of water in any surface water body.
Item e - As stated in Item a, the project would not result in significant impacts to existing drainage
patterns. Based on the project nature and location, no associated impacts are anticipated to currents or
water movements in any marine or fresh water bodies.
I em -The project would not directly use any groundwater resources, with potential effects to local
aquifers limited to possible construction dewatering. Such impacts (if required) would be less than
significant due to the short-term duration and small quantities involved.
It_e~ -Potential impacts to groundwater directions or flow rates are considered less than significant for
similar reasons as noted above for Item f.
Item i -Potential impacts to floodwater movements are considered less than significant due to the nature
of local flooding potential (see Item b) and the fact that project facilities would not generate substantial
floodwater obstructions.
Ite~i -Water use associated with project facilities and ar6viHes would he limited to minor needs such as
construction watering (e.g., dust control) and landscape irrigation. Due to the small quantities involved
with such uses, no significant impacts to public water supplies would result.
Pursuant to checklist items c and h, potentially significant water quality impacts were identified in
association with the disposal of extracted groundwater (if required), the use and storage of construction-
related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels and lubricants), the use of hazardous materials for long-term
maintenance activities (e.g., graffiti removal), and long-term facility operation. Specifically, such
potential impacts would be associated with: (1) discharge of contaminated groundwater or generation of
erosion/sedimentation effects from the uncontrolled discharge of extracted groundwater; (2) accidental
97
discharge of construction related hazardous materials in association with activities such as paving
operations, material use and storage, or vehicle operation and maintenance (e.g., refueling); and (3)
accidental discharge or improper use of chemical contaminants related to maintenance activities such as
graffiti removal (e.g., solvents) or landscape control (e.g., herbicides or pesticides). Such occurrences
could result in the introduction of physical and chemical contaminants to local surface waters and/or
groundwater aquifers. While many of these potential impacts would be addressed through conformance
with existing regulatory requirements (e.g., the NPDES Municipal Stormwater, Dewatering Waste
Discharge and Genera] Construction Activity permits), potentially significant water quality effects could
still result (e.g., if measures are not fully or properly implemented). Specific measures identified in these
guidelines include requirements such as:
• Sediment catchment and filtering devices (e.g., hay bales, sand bags and filter fabric) shall be placed
around storm drain inlets in areas downstream from paving and dewatering discharge operations;
• Paving slurry and wastes shall be contained, collected and disposed of properly;
• Hazardous material storage shall be minimized on site (i.e., only a few days supply), and shall be
restricted to designated locations;
• Hazardous material storage sites shall encompass berms, ditches and/or impervious liners to prevent
off-site discharge in the event of a spill;
• Hazardous material preparation use and disposal shall comply with manufacturer's specifications;
• Fueling and maintenance areas shall be designated for construction equipment, with mobile fueling
(i.e., outside the designated areas) to be avoided whenever feasible. The described fueling and
maintenance areas shall be located away from storm drains or water courses, and shall include
measures to protect and contain hazardous materials (e.g., impervious liners or berms);
• Appropriate construction employees shall be trained by the project contractor(s) in proper hazardous
material use, handling, storage and disposal techniques prior to commencement of project
construction. Construction employees shall also be trained on appropriate action to take in the event
of a spill, including containment techniques and agency notification; and
98
• Extracted groundwater shall be tested and (if appropriate) treated prior to disposal.
Potential water quality impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the
following mitigation measures to formalize the described regulatory requirements:
2. The project contractor(s) shall implement all applicable BMPs related to disposal of extracted
groundwater and construction-related hazardous material use identified in existing NPDES,
Department and City of Chula Vista guidelines. Documentation of proposed compliance with these
existing standards shall be submitted to the Department and the City for review and approval prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
3. The project applicants shall implement all applicable BMPs related to long-term operation and
maintenance activities identified in existing Department guidelines and RWQCB Order 2001-01.
Documentation of proposed and ongoing BMP maintenance efforts shall be kept on file at the
Department District 11 and City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department offices.
Biological Resources
Potential impacts related to checklist Items b (locally designated species); c (locally designated natural
communities); d (wetlands); e (wildlife movement or migration); f (regional habitat preservation
planning); g (wild or scenic rivers, natural landmarks); and h (introduction of new species) were
determined to be less than significant as described below.
Item b - No locally designated species are known or expected on site, with no associated project impacts
anticipated.
Item c - No native habitats are present within the study area, with no associated project impacts
anticipated.
Item d - No wetlands are present within the study area, with no associated project impacts anticipated.
Item e -The project study area is completely developed or disturbed, and is located in an area of
primarily urban development. As a result, no project-related impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors are expected.
99
Item f -The study area is within a "take authorized area" in the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, with associated project impacts not anticipated.
Item e -The project study area does not encompass any wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks, with
associated project impacts not expected.
Item h -While the project may include the introduction of new plant species, no associated impacts to
existing habitats or species are expected due to the absence of native habitat and the
developed/disturbed nature of the site.
Pursuant to checklist Item a, potentially significant impacts to nesting birds were identified from the
proposed removal of several mature eucalyptus trees that could be used for nesting sites. These potential
impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the following miHgaHon
measure:
4. Prior to the removal or alteration of landscaping during the months of January 15 through July 31, a
qualified biologist should conduct apre-construction survey of such landscaping, as well as those
areas within the construction impact area established by the biologist, to determine if any nesting
raptors or migratory birds are present. In the event that an occupied nest(s) is/are found during the
survey, appropriate construction setbacks should be established as deemed appropriate by a
qualified biologist to ensure the protection of young birds.
Noise
Potentially significant noise impacts were identified in checklist Items a and b from the generation of
project noise levels (i.e., from traffic) which exceed applicable noise criteria. Specifically, such impacts
would be associated with noise generation exceeding City noise criteria for several residences located on
the north and south sides of Olympic Parkway east of I-805. The noise effects identified along the I-805
corridor and along East Orange Avenue west of the freeway in Section 5.11 of this document are
associated with existing noise generation from adjacent roadways, rather than project-generated noise.
Pursuant to Department Noise Protocol and the federal Noise Abatement Criteria, applicable existing
noise generation is required to be evaluated for abatement, as described in Section 5.11. The City noise
criteria specifically apply to project-generated noise rather than existing noise. Project-generated noise
along the I-805 corridor and East Orange Avenue west of the freeway do not exceed the City noise
criteria. Based on these conditions, an evaluation of noise impacts in these areas were not required and
100
no significant noise impacts under CEQA would occur. This conclusion applies to Barrier Nos. 1, lA, 2-7,
9-10, and 13-16, as depicted on Figures Sa-8c and 9a-9c of this document. Significant noise impacts under
City criteria and CEQA are therefore limited only to five residences along Olympic Parkway. These
impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the following mitigation
measure:
5. Prior to completion of project construction, noise abatement barriers will be constructed at applicable
locations along Olympic Parkway east of I-805, pursuant to the project Acoustical Assessment
(HELIX 2002, as amended) and direction by the Ciry of Chula Vista, the Department, and FHWA as
identified in the project NADR (Rick Engineering Company 2003). Preliminary noise barrier
locations and dimensions required as mitigation are depicted as locations B8 and B12 on Figure 8b of
the project IS/EA.
Aesthetics
Potential impacts related to checklist Items b (scenic routes); d (light and glare); and e (spill light) were
determined to be less than sigrtificant for the following reasons.
Item b -East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway is the only designated scenic route in the study area
(City of Chula Vista 1995). Based on design elements and mitigation measures (as noted below)
identified for the project, no significant impacts related to this scenic roadway designation are expected.
Item d -Proposed project lighting is limited to street Iights and traffic signals in appropriate locations
within the predominantly urban study area. The noted lighting would also conform with related
regulatory guidelines, with no associated significant light and glare impacts expected.
Item e - As noted above for Item d, no significant lighting effects are expected from project
implementation. '
Based on the visual/aesthetic characteristics within the project study area, potential impacts from
Alternatives 1 and 2 were evaluated in relation to four aesthetic criteria: visual quality, tandform quality,
view quality and community character. Potentially significant impacts were identified for visual quality,
view quality and community character for one or more elements of Altematives 1 and 2, based on
proposed vegetation removal and construction of retaining walls and noise barriers. These impacts
would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through implementation of the mitigation
101
measures described below. These mitigation measures include policy and guidelines from the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, Olympic Parkway Master Plan and Design Manual, as well as applicable
Department landscaping and irrigation criteria.
6. Noise abatement barriers B2, B6 and B9 as shown in the project Acoustical Assessment (HELIX 2002,
as amended) shall incorporate earthen berms (or berm/wall combinations) rather than walls, and
space for screening vegetation such as large shrubs (i.e., by use of retaining walls).
7. All berms shall be permanently irrigated and landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover to
provide 100 percent coverage within one year.
8. Sound wall planting pockets shall be used when ROW areas are too narrow to accommodate berms
or landscaped buffers. A safety barrier with a 1-meter (3.2-foot) wide planting area between the
barrier and the sound wall shall be used.
9. Noise and retaining walls shall maximize shrub and vine plantings on both sides of the wall (i.e.,
based on direction by Department and City staffs and the amount of plantable space available).
10. All shrubs removed or damaged during project activities shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio within the
same area with size number 5 specimens (i.e., 19-liter [5-gallon] specimens).
11. Replacement trees shall be 0.6-meter (24-inch) specimens, except for eucalyptus trees which shall be
size number 5 specimens (i.e., 18.9-liter [5-gallon] specimens).
12. Groundcover replacement shall be provided in disturbed plantable areas to achieve 100 percent cover
within one year.
13. All disturbed planting areas within the Department ROW shall be fully planted with vines,
groundcover, shrubs and trees.
14. Project landscaping shall be installed during or immediately after project construction, and athree-
year establishment period shall be included in the construction contract(s) specifications. The three-
year establishment period shall be reviewed annually by the Department and the City, and may be
terminated before the end of the third year (i.e., if landscaping conditions are acceptable) or extended
for an additional (i.e., fourth) year if necessary. The selection of plant materials for all project
102
landscaping shall conform with applicable Department and City guidelines and requirements
(including the state noxious weed list).
15. All irrigation systems installed as part of the project shall be fully automatic and permanent and shall
conform with applicable Department and City requirements. Repair/replacement of existing systems
(i.e., those not affected by project activities) shall be conducted by the Department to~ provide 100
percent coverage for planted areas.
16. Plantings and design along East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway shall conform with landscaping
and design guidelines in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use and Circulation elements,
and the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan, including landscaping and paving in the median
and ROW, as well as use of public art and banners where applicable.
17. A maintenance walkway shall be provided along the landscaped East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway median.
18. Retaining and noise wall colors, textures and details shall compliment and enhance local community
character, with the use of standard concrete kept to a minimum and wall designs coordinated with
City planning efforts to establish East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway as a gateway access to the
eastern portion of the City. Coloring within the Department ROW shall conform with the approved
Department color palette.
19. The design of all project related noise barriers and retaining walls (including landscaping) shall be
comparable with existing and proposed wall design in the project study area to the maximum extent
feasible (per direction by Department and City staffs), and shall conform with applicable Department
and City design standards.
20. Proposed noise walls shall be sited and designed per direction by Department and City engineering
staffs to minimize the size of the wall visible to local residents to the maximum extent feasible.
21. Awater-based, volatile organic compound (VOC) compliant (per federal, state and local standards)
and graffiti-resistant coating shall be applied to all walls. The coating shall be clear in color, have a
low-sheen finish and be free of lead, chromium, mercury and similar heavy metals.
103
22. Vines shall be planted approximately every 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet) at appropriate locations (as
determined by Department Landscape Architects and City landscape staff) along all walls (i.e., the
top and/or base) to discourage graffiti, reduce visual scale and improve streetscape character.
23. All landscaping, retaining wall and noise barrier plans shall be submitted to the Department and the
City of Chula Vista for review and approval. The results and recommendations of these reviews shall
be included in the final design as appropriate.
Paleontological Resources
Impacts to paleontological resources were identified as potentially significant due to proposed excavation
in previously undisturbed portions of the Quaternary Lindavista and/or Tertiary San Diego formations
during project grading. These potential impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of
significance through the following mitigation measures:
24. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the City of Chula Vista to implement a paleontological
monitoring and recovery program as a condition of the project construction contract. A qualified
paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or.Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is a
recognized expert in the identification and recovery of fossil materials.
25. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the project pre-construction meeting to discuss project
grading plans with the project contractor(s). If the qualified paleontologist determines that proposed
excavation/grading will likely cut into undisturbed portions of the Quaternary Lindavista or Tertiary
San Diego formations, then monitoring shall be conducted as outlined below.
26. The project paleontologist or a paleontological monitor shall be on site during original cutting of the
above noted geologic units. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in collection and salvage of fossil materials, and who is working under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist. Monitoring of the noted geologic units shall be at least half-time at the
beginning of excavation, and shall be either increased or decreased depending on initial results (per
direction by the project paleontologist).
27. In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist shall have the
authority to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities in the discovery area to allow recovery
in a timely manner (typically on the order of 1 hour to 2 days). All collected fossil remains shall be
104
cleaned, sorted and catalogued, and deposited in an appropriated scientific institution such as the
San Diego Museum of Natural History.
28. A report (with a map showing fossil site locations) summarizing the results, analyses and conclusions
of the above described monitoring/recovery program shall be submitted to the Department and the
City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department within three months of terminating
monitoring activities.
6.2.2 Imuacts Determined to be Less than Significant
In addition to the specific issues noted above in Section 6.2.1, the project CEQA analysis identified no
impacts or less than significant impacts for the following issues: land use and planning; population and
housing; social and economic; air quality; transportation/circulation; energy and mineral resources;
hazards and hazardous materials; public services; local service thresholds; utilities and service systems;
cultural resources; and recreation.
It should be noted that the above less than significant impact assessments assume that all project design
conditions (as described in Section 3.0) are implemented as proposed. A summary discussion of these
issues is provided below.
Land Use and Plannine -Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with any land use or zoning
designations in the City of Chula Vista General Plan (1995), and is not within the Coastal Zone (or any
related planning area). The site is completely developed or disturbed and exhibits no agricultural use or
potential. The proposed facilities are associated with existing freeway and roadway corridors, and would
not disrupt or divide any communities.
Population and Housing -Implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in any displacement
of existing housing, construction of new housing, or population growth, with no associated impacts.
Proposed facilities involve roadway improvements and related facilities (e.g., retaining walls, noise
barriers and landscaping), with this development considered consistent with existing neighborhoods and
not expected to significantly affect local character or stability.
Air Oualitv -The project is included in (and conforms with) current SANDAG RTIP (2000a) and RTP
(2000b) documents, as well as the 2000/2001 Regional Air Quality Strategy/State Implementation Plan
(RAQS/SIP). Based on these conditions, no significant impacts related to air quality standards or
105
violations, or deterioration of ambient air quality are expected. The project air quality analysis included a
CO microscale analysis, which concluded that no significant "hot spot" impacts would result. The project
would not generate substantial odors (with potential sources limited mainly to dust and vehicle exhaust)
or result in large obstructions to air movements. Accordingly, no related significant impacts would
occur.
Transportation/Circulation -The project would not generate vehicletrfps per se, but rather is intended to
accommodate traffic from existing and planned development. As a result, no significant impacts related
to traffic congestion or design hazards would occur. The project would not generate any impacts to
parking capacity or rail, water or air traffic. Project construction could affect local access (including
emergency access) through temporary lane closures or restrictions, although these impacts would be
avoided or reduced by implementing traffic control plans to be approved by the City and Department
engineering staffs. Project design including a number of improvements related to pedestrian and bicycle
access (e.g., bike lanes/routes, lighted intersections and crosswalks), with no related significant impacts
expected. The project would also accommodate existing and proposed alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus services and bicycle access), and would not constitute a "large project" per SANDAG Congestion
Management Program definitions (i.e., a project generating an equivalent of 2,400 or more average daily
trips or 200 or more peak hour trips). As a result, no associated significant impacts would occur.
Ener~v and Mineral Resources -The project would use only minor amounts of energy and mineral
resources and would not employ wasteful or inefficient methods for use of non-renewable resources (e.g.,
fossil fuels). As a result, no associated significant impacts are expected. The project would not
significantly increase the rate of use for natural resources, with such use limited mainly to short-term
construction needs. The project study area is not located in any designated mineral resource protection
zone, with no associated impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials -The use of hazardous materials would include construction-related
sources (fuels, etc.), with long-term uses consisting of activities such as potential pest control or graffiti
removal. Potential impacts associated with these uses would be avoided or reduced below a level of
significance through conformance with existing regulatory standards such as the NPDES Municipal
Stormwater Permit. The project includes improvements to existing freeway and roadway facilities (and
access) in a developed urban area, and would not result in significant impacts to emergency response or
evacuation plans, health hazards or fire potential. Based on the results of Hazardous Waste Initial Site
Assessments and lead testing conducted for the project (Ninyo & Moore 1998, 1999 and 2000b), no
106
potential release of or exposure to existing sources of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage
tanks) would occur, with no associated significant impacts.
Public Services -The project involves improvement/modification of existing roadway structures and
construction of related facilities (e.g., noise barriers and landscaping). Because such features would not
require new or altered police, fire, school or other services, no associated impacts would occur. The
proposed facilities would involve some ongoing maintenance requirements (e.g., landscaping), although
related impacts are less than significant due to inclusion of maintenance funding in the project budget.
Local Service Thresholds -The project would not generate demand for fire, police, park/recreation,
sewer or drainage services, with no associated impacts to City thresholds. The project would improve
local traffic circulation, with no adverse impacts to traffic service thresholds. Water use related to the
project would be limited to minor or short-term applications (e.g., landscape irrigation or dust control),
with no significant impacts to City water service thresholds. Potential impacts to local water quality
thresholds would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through implementation of existing
regulatory requirements, such as the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit and City SUSMP.
Utilities and Service Systems -The project would affect existing facilities or require new services related
to communications, water treatment or wastewater services. Project-related use of power/natural gas,
water, drainage, wastewater and solid waste systems would be minor and/or short-term, with no
associated significant impacts anticipated.
Cultural Resources -The project area is completely developed or disturbed, with no impacts to
prehistoric or historic cultural sites or related designations, uses or ethnic values identified in the project
cultural report (Kyle Consulting 2000).
Recreation -The project would not involve effects to or increased demand for park sites, recreational
opportunities, park and recreational plans or programs or wildlife refuges. This conclusion is based on
the location of the project in previously developed or disturbed areas with no park/recreation or wildlife
designations present, as well as the nature of proposed actions (i.e., roadway improvements). Based on
these considerations, no impacts related to recreation are anticipated.
107
6.3 MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Item a -Alternatives 1 and 2 could potentially degrade the quality of the environment through: (1)
erosion/sedimentation; (2) impacts to water quality associated with use of construction-related
hazardous materials, disposal of extracted groundwater (if required) and long-term facility
operation/maintenance; and (3) impacts to views and visual resources. These potential impacts would be
avoided or reduced below a level of significance through incorporating applicable existing requirements
into the project design (e.g., the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit/City SUSMP, Caltrans Design
Manual and Standard Contractor Specifications) as well as the mitigation measures identified in
applicable sections of this document.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not substantially reduce fish or wildlife habitat, but could potentially affect
avian nesting sites (if present) through the removal of vegetation such as mature eucalyptus trees. These
potential impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation
measure described in Section 5.8a of this report.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not impact any historic or archaeological cultural resources, although project
grading could potentially result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. These potential
impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified in
Sections 5.17 of this report.
Item b -Alternatives 1 and 2 are not expected to threaten any long-term environmental goals, due to the
fact that all identified significant impacts would be avoided or effectively mitigated through identified
design and mitigation measures.
Item c -Based on the disturbed/developed nature of the project study area, the short-term nature of
most potentially significant impacts, and the fact that all such effects would be avoided or effectively
reduced through identified design/mitigation measures, no significant cumulative impacts are
anticipated from implementation of any of the project alternatives. It should be noted that the proposed
mitigation measures identified for noise impacts on Olympic Parkway east of I-805 (i.e., Barrier nos. B8
and B12 on Figure 8b) could conceivably not be constructed if associated property owners change their
current position and oppose these structures. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated from the
project as proposed, however, based on the following considerations: (1) project-related noise increases
in this area associated with Barrier B12 are projected at 3 dBA or less, and therefore below the discernable
threshold of human hearing; and (2) both affected property owners associated with Barrier BS are
108
currently in favor of constructing this wall. If this situation were to change during the public review
period, additional technical and/or environmental analysis may be required.
Item d - Alternatives 1 and 2 could potentially result in significant impacts to human beings through
activities such as increased noise levels, accidental spills of construction-related hazardous materials, or
impacts to local visual resources. All of these potential adverse impacts to human beings would be
avoided or reduced below a level of significance through the design and mitigation measures identified
in this report. As noted above in Section 6.2.1 and Item c of this section, mitigation for project noise
impacts (in the form of noise abatement barriers) would be offered to applicable property owners along I-
SOS, East Orange Avenue and Olympic Parkway. If individual property owners decide not to accept or
authorize the construction of noise abatement barriers on their property, those barriers would not be
built. Noise impacts from the project as proposed are not considered significant, however, for the
following reasons: (1) project-related noise level increases (as noted above for Item c) would be 3 dBA or
less for all receptor sites except the two homes associated with Barrier B8, with such increases below the
discernable threshold of human hearing; and (2) affected property owners associated with Barrier BS are
currently in favor of constructing this wall. If this situation were to change during the public review
period, additional technical and/or environmental analysis may be required.
109
6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED/DETERMINATION
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated;' as indicated by the checklist
on the preceding pages.
O Land Use and Planning
O Population and Housing
O Social and Economic
• Geology/Topography
• Hydrology/Water Quality
O Air Quality
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
O Transportation/Circulation O Thresholds
• Biological Resources O Utilities and Service Systems
O Energy and Mineral Resources • Aesthetics
O Hazardous Materials O Cultural Resources
• Noise • Paleontological Resources
O Public Services O Recreation
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the described mitigation measures
have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Signature
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
Signature
Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch
The Department District 11
Signature
Project Manager
The Department District 11
Date
Date
Date
110
O
•
O
O
7.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Preparation of this draft environmental analysis involved extensive interaction with Department and City
of Chula Vista technical and environmental staff. This document will be circulated for public review
pursuant to applicable NEPA and CEQA guidelines, with associated comments to be reviewed, evaluated
and incorporated into the project environmental analysis and design as appropriate.
7.1 PERMITS
Implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would require conformance with existing regulatory conditions
under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water, Dewatering Waste Discharge and Municipal
permits, as described in Sections 5.4e and 5.5c.
7.2 PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW
As noted above, this draft environmental analysis will be circulated fora 30-day public review and
comment period pursuant to applicable NEPA and CEQA guidelines. This will include document
distribution to appropriate federal and state agencies, as well as local agencies, community groups,
political representatives, organizations and individuals. The public review and comment process will
also involve appropriate public noticing such as distributing a notice of availability in English and
Spanish that specifically includes all property owners within 500 feet of the project area, as well as
posting the notice of availability at the County Clerk's office. Additional opportunities for public review
and comment will occur during: (1) a public noise workshop; (2) a public hearing/information meeting
to be conducted during the public review period for the project environmental document; and (3) a public
hearing to be conducted for document certification during a Chula Vista City Council session.
7.3 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
To be provided after completion of the public and agency review.
111
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/REVIEWERS
The following individuals were principally responsible for the preparation and/or review of the
preceding environmental analysis and associated technical studies.
The Department
Chuck Davis -Project Manager
Kelly Finn -Environmental Analyst
Kent Askew -Landscape Architect
Marty Rosen -Cultural Resource Heritage Coordinator
John Kempf -Project Engineer
Jayne Dowda -Environmental Engineering Branch Chief
Robert Avilla -Environmental Engineer
City of Chula Vista
Marilyn Ponseggi -Environmental Review Coordinator
Marisa Lundstedt -Environmental Projects Manager
HELIX Environmental Planning. Inc.
Dave Claycomb -Project Manager
Dennis Marcin -Environmental Specialist
Pacific Noise Control
Mike Komula -Principal
Giroux & Associates
Hans Giroux -Principal
KTU+A
Sharon Singleton -Senior Associate
Kyle Consulting
Carolyn Kyle -Principal
Rick Engineering Company
Kai Raimer -Project Manager
Edgar Camerino -Project Engineer
Carl Schmitz -Project Engineer
112
9.0 REFERENCES
American Public Works Association (APWA)
2001 Southern California Chapter, Work Area Traffic Control Handbook. Ninth Edition.
California Department of Transportation (Department, formerly Caltrans)
2002a Letter from Mr. John Kempf, Department Project Engineer, to Mr. Gary Hamby, FHWA
Division Administrator. November 8.
2002b Letter of Transmittal from John Kempf of the Department to Edgar Camerino of Rick
Engineering Company, regarding current period (1998-2000) accident data. January 11.
2001 Field Guide to Construction Site Dewatering. CTSW-RT-01-010. October.
2000 Facsimile transmittal from Mike Owen of Caltrans to Dennis Marcin of HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. August 3.
1999 Standard Specifications. July.
1998 Traffic Analysis Noise Protocol. October.
1997a Construction Contractor's Guide and Specifications. August.
1997b Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks. September.
1995 Highway Design Manual. July.
1991 Standard Test Methods.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)
1983 Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County
Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 153.
113
City of Chula Vista
2002 Facsimile Transmittal of Median Income, Ethnicity and Population Data for Census
Tract Block Groups 133061,133062,133069 and 133121. November 25.
2001 Personal Communication with Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager.
October 24.
1995 City of Chula Vista General Plan. Revised through September 5.
Demure, Thomas A. and Stephen L. Walsh
Undated Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
1997 Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Number 0607302156 F. June 19.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
1998 California Division Environmental Checklist, "Draft" Environmental Documents.
September 3.
Giroux & Associates
2002 Memo to HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. regarding current RAQs/SIP status.
February 27.
2000 Air Quality Impact Analysis, I-805/Orange Avenue Interchange Improvements.
August 18.
Greenbook Committee of Public Works Standards, Inc.
2000 Greenbook Standard Specificafions for Public Works Construction.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
2002 Interstate 805/Orange Avenue Acoustical Assessment Report. September 16, as
amended through January 2003.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
1997 Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering Design Provisions.
114
KTU+A
2002 Interstate 805/Orange Avenue Environmental assessment Visual/Aesthetic Technical
Report. September.
Kyle Consulting
2000 Historic Property Survey Report for the Interstate 805/Orange Avenue Interchange
Project, City of Chula Vista, California. June.
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
2001 Personal communication with Mr. Mike Daney, Transportation Planner. November 15.
1993 South Bay Public Transportation Plan. March.
Ninyo & Moore
2000a Interstate 805 K.P. 5.9 to 8.1 Chula Vista, California Geotechnical Design Report.
March.
2000b Soil Sampling for Aerially-Deposited Lead, I-805 and Orange Avenue Interchange,
Chula Vista, Califomia. May 5.
1999 Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment Report, I-805/Otay Valley Road Interchange,
Chula Vista, California. October 4.
1998 Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment Report, I-805/Orange Avenue Interchange,
Chula Vista, California. Apri16.
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
2002 2002 CWA Section 303(d) Draft List of Water Quality Limited Segment. October 15.
Rick Engineering Company
2003 Feasibility and Reasonableness of Noise Abatement (Noise Abatement Decision Report
[NADR]), Route 805 from the Main Street Undercrossing to the Palomar Street
Overcrossing. January.
115
Rick Engineering Company (cont.)
2002a Draft Project Report for the I-805/Orange Avenue Interchange Project. August 23.
2002b Facsimile Transmittal from Edgar Camarino, Rick Engineering Company, to Dennis
Marcin, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. December 9.
2001 Project Study Report for the I-805/Orange Avenue Interchange Project. April.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
2002 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Chula Vista, California.
www.sandag.org.
2000a Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. July.
2000b 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. Adopted February 25.
San Diego Co-Permittees
2002 Final Model, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan for San Diego County, Port
of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County. February 14.
Stormwater Quality Task Force
1993 California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks. March.
United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
2002 The 2002 HHS Poverty Guidelines. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/0lpoverty.htm.
United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. December.
Urban Systems Associates (USA)
2002 Facsimile Transmittal from Andrew Schlaefli, USA, to Edgar Camerino, Rick
Engineering Company, regarding updated (2001) existing traffic. Apri118.
2000 Facsimile Transmittal from Andrew Schlaefli of USA to Dennis Marcin of HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. Apri14.
116
Urban Systems Associates (USA; cont.)
1999 Transportation Analysis for The Coors Amphitheatre. October 1.
1997 Transportation Analysis for Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue Combined
Traffic Impact Report. April 7.
1996 I-SOS Interchanges in Chula Vista Existing Traffic Volumes and Future Estimates for
Telegraph Canyon Road and Orange Avenue. December 23.
117
C~QA MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Appendix A
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION AND MMRP REQUIREMENTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for approved Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and
Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs). This MMRP was prepared for the I-805/East Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway project to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures, verify that
required measures effectively mitigate identified impacts, and provide guidance for future actions. The
MMRP provides overall mitigation monitoring program requirements for Alternatives 1 and 2 (i.e., the
"build alternatives'), including provision of mitigation measures, proposed monitoring activities and
timing, as well as identifying responsibility for monitoring and reporting. The Department and the City
of Chula Vista (City) will identify a mitigation compliance coordinator (MCC) to oversee implementation
of the MMRP, including such duties as assigning qualified personnel for specific monitoring tasks,
ensuring adequate documentation of findings, and modifying the extent and/or frequency of monitoring
activities, if necessary (and with concurrence from the Department and the City). Approved changes in
monitoring requirements will be duly noted in activity logs and monitoring reports, with this MMRP
modified accordingly. The MCC will be ultimately responsible for verifying the implementation of
required mitigation measures, although he/she may utilize existing materials to avoid duplication of
effort. Specifically, this may include using documents such as construction progress reports or activity
logs to document mitigation compliance.
If authorized to do so by the Department and the City (and to the extent that such actions do not conflict
with enforcement activities or regulatory guidelines of other applicable agencies), the MCC will also
enforce the implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring activities in the field. This may entail
interrupting construction activities to resolve conflicts over compliance issues.
Documentation of specific monitoring activities will utilize a checklist type format, with additional
narrative attached as separate sheets, if required. A sample monitoring report form is included at the end
of this section, with the final format to be approved by the Department and the City. If requested by the
Department and the City, summary mitigation monitoring reports will also be prepared by the MCC
following the completion of project construction activities. Such reports will describe all monitoring
activities during applicable periods, the success of associated mitigation measures, and any
recommendations for future MMRP actions.
A-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Alternative 1-East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment
This alternative consists of modifying and improving the existing diamond interchange at I-SOS and East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway, adding a second lane to the southbound I-805 off-ramp at Main
Street/Auto Park Drive, and adding auxiliary lanes to portions of the north- and southbound mainline
freeway both north and south of East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway. All proposed roadway
facilities and related construction activities would be located within or immediately adjacent to existing
Department rights-of-way. Accordingly, this alternative would not directly affect any existing homes,
businesses or other structures, with related effects consisting of minor right-of-way (ROW) acquisitions,
construction of retaining walls and noise barriers, and removal of freeway landscaping. The construction
period for project implementation would be approximately 18 months, and would involve standard
construction equipment, materials and methods. Proposed road and freeway lanes would generally be
3.6 meters (11.51 feet) wide, with minimum angles of 60 degrees between surface streets and the
associated freeway ramps (pursuant to the Department design standards).
Project grading would be confined within the existing ROW boundaries in most areas, although such
activities would also encompass a number of small ROW acquisitions (as previously noted). Project
grading would be balanced, with no excess material import or export anticipated, and maximum
manufactured slope ratios of 1:1.5 (vertical to horizontal). Construction-related equipment/vehicle access
and staging would be confined within the described study area corridor, with disturbance to areas
outside the existing ROW limited to grading/construction within the noted ROW acquisition areas and
potential construction of noise abatement barriers along applicable property boundaries.
Altemative 2 -Modified East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Alignment
This alternative is identical to Alternative 1, with the exception that the East Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway overcrossing would be widened on both (i.e., north and south) sides and Olympic Parkway east
of the freeway would be realigned approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) to the south. The realignment of
Olympic Parkway to the south would require a 52-meter (170-foot) long and 3-meter (10-foot) high
retaining wall beginning approximately 25 meters (82 feet) east of the freeway. This widening on the
south side would also require ROW acquisitions approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) wide for a length of
115 meters (380 feet). Grading specifications for this alternative would be essentially the same as those
described above for Alternative 1. Project activities related to material export and disposal, construction
A-2
access and staging, and disturbance to off-site areas would also be the same as those described above for
Alternative 1.
SPECIFIC MMRP ELEMENTS
The proposed I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange project MMRP includes the
following elements:
• Mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND (summarized where appropriate)
• Mitigation monitoring and reporting activities
• Timing of monitoring and reporting activities
• Allocation of responsibility for monitoring and reporting
These elements of the MMRP are identified and explained below in Table A-1.
A-3
~T~
C7
z
a~
OO
~~~/
H W
W
.„
cam. O
~ ~ O
d ~
V
z~ z
~w ~
a4.
rO
~~
N.
v
O
P.
G
A O
~~
~N
~g
O t+
r+ ~
o ~
G
~~ U ~O
~ A .~.
`~ d d
N
~~ ~%~
~.v ~~'~
0
v d ^ ~~ a
o ~ w~o
p ,. ~, N d
.5 0
i°
7 7
o~
~~
_~ ~ N
G ~ `~ ~
~ o ~d..,
.-~ G m '"
o > ~°G -o o ;3
O ~ ~ . V A
W A ~ ~ ~' 7
O a R~ ~ "
~ ~ ~ v N
p °: ~° ~ s
~p ~ I
a~j ~ O
~ d~ ~~
~O ~
~, z
O~
O
°w H
d~
~~
Y
U
i~ V
U
N ~
d O
p a
~~
~ ~ ~ ~~
y °' ~ U
O ~ i Oy ~ O p ~ ~ bA
~ ^~,~ d p~~ d d~ A~ v~ o
~ ~~~~NdN^a~N~~~~~
(fl r' N N n~~j .~. .+ y~ ((JJ d f.. ~y
{S] N O N /^ 'O ~ i N y G N '~ V O
~C ~ G Q pp ... ~n U 'O .r+. ~ C' ~ r N
W .. ,A u
O ~~ d N y '~ ./ p d (~. ~~ y
O A i d^> ti N~ G~~
y d ~ V A O N" f+"
a ~ d s ~ A .. ~i r, 'D
O U i r, y U ~~ 7 N N~~ .~
o O m N y o P"p. Q,N% ~ a~/
~~1~ w ~U op ~ ~ ~ ~
b F^ '" V
d
[7 ~ -__
-'"~ o
a
d ao ~:
_ ~ U
R b N7'O ~6 j+
b d ~y 1+
N ~ 'd d `3 O '~ '~ d
W r d o O bfl v o
~ o ~ ~' a
a
N g ~" '°°r '° ~ ~°' ° w
~~~~~,~~N~R
w
p
Cl ~ ~ Y t°~, P. d 4= ~ G
N ~ d d Uj V y d
xp V ~ `~ 7 p ~.~ ~ ~ a
~C, o ~'iev G 'O ~ ~ O~ 7 .7 gyp.
d a, ~~°
.~~~
p_4
V
Q O
~w
.- G U
~~ U
~Z ~
ao
~ ~ O
U
W ~X.
~~ ~
r~ x
~Z
H
F
H O
rw
_ w
~wR ~
~,ad ~~
O
y w '2, H
A d~' ~d
N ~~ ~
2Z
~~
ox
~d
m
e~
W
2
H
H
O
I~
IG
G
o
`T
Y
A
°
IH
G °~
o a" R ~ a
" o
o ~ 0 3 p„ `~
.~ U .~ ~ ~ p
~ c,.' ~
is
~ ~ ~:~ m^'
~~ m ~ ~
.~ ra ~ O
p ~' ~ A N
d
0
~~
~ o
o ~'
o ~ i
I~ R
Nj
f.. OD v A
7 .~ G .~
~ o ~ ~
d~~ ~ m
0
~ G J
L °V
Y N x y jn
~ ,b °' v ~,
u ~ v -o G ~ '~ P.
o .6 0 ~ ~ ~ P
G rC '° ~ ° m '~ .r?
N
v N
~ i .` J ~ ~ N n '~
`~ Ly ~ v ~+ O+ d N ~
Q +' ~ O ~ ~ ° U ~ a
C ~ ~ v ,E G ~ G
Z O y d~ d R y~ bD
y (d Y
Y ~ ~ ~~
O " N ~ •~ ~ ~ Pc.
d ad ~,~ ~~„~~~
a~G~ ~ ~y
V °~' G ,~ bo m 7 ~,
~ ~ ' ~ $.' G d ~ d
.. ~ Pa oa
P~ ~, G ~
o d~~ Og o 0 0 0
4
x N ---
J o
~ 3 ~
Q. r' N A ~i 6J y '~. ~ O
Q' w w d r.
~ ~ m ao'a~ p.wm ~~
r. ° '~ ~ .~ o ? G A N .~
G~ G 4c ~ N O O d v `~~-'
O r' ~ ^ ~ O ~ C ~ ~ ~ T
T ~ id o ~ ,,
~bRx ~ N
~G N N~ d~~ 'i+ N A C~
e N ~ O "' ~ y O
O .« ~ O Y m v~ A A ~D
A N ° y v
'or ~p ~'3~ a v~ ~ a~w
y O/ry '~ ~ A N 0~ G~ ~ R v
C~ O e0 C ~ NO ~' ~, N N ~ v
A ~. .~ R F F' N T H m p ,° d
A-5
z
°~+o
FW
~k
~. at V
C7 ~
z
FO
F
~ ~ O
6
U
W Q
~' ~
~~ F
z
FF
~p
F ~,
W
o '' p C7
~oz z
^~a ~~
d ~ ~ O N
b C, ~ ~ Q
F ~ ~
zo
O~
z
~. `L
~ !'~
co r
Q,
W
~ o
'~
v ~
O ~
4.
O .".,
c ,~
~, '~
o ~
~ ~ N
U
3
0
~ on
o ~ ' ~U
O H yj
.H ~~
I~' ~
.~
d
o ,4
o
5 ~
G „"
~ .~
~ R
O `~
Q
p
~ D
G ~ ~ 'a .~ m o
A¢ v~xa
L' ~ ...~ W
N ~ u~ d[ p 'x5 C
W '~ ~ 'p, ~o v N C a+
~ u O .-~ d A tH+ ~ b
W O.~ hooNia ~ d
z oN
o H P+ v d
F ~ s' ~ o c ° ~ %'z
y, o„~~c
u '~ ~ ~ ad~OU~
~O
z ~ ___ ---
U ~
ao ~
~ o
0
7 ~ o v y
O 'O ... '~., .d F
c ~o °'~$
V
0 ~'
0
~ o v
O ~ b
~
m b y
v ~ ~ 3
7 ~
o ~ ~ ~
p $
p
~---~__ ~ G ~,
~~ ~ c~ 3 m a ~' N
~ u v, ~ G ~~c~ ~ ~ ~ '~ A
p eo ~.~ o ~
r C ~
~ ~ id b~1) N ~ 6 ~d ~
~9 9 .N. ~ ~ N A ,~ Oy N '~ N
w
~ ~ ~ u ~ }C+. N u P. ~2 ~ O
iC CD
n G y o o~ v~ v ..+ ~ a
y d y r
.~+ ~ NH ty .~ .fl .C o ~ % v ~
,. d ~ 3 o a. ~ v ~
~+ N `~ N v N b y tC
o G'z~~.~3 ~,
v '~ ~' p ~ ~, °a' b p, o p ~ ~ y ~
•: o ~n ~
" z.
Q ~ ri
A-6
z
o~
wo
~W
~~
zz ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
0
~F
° ~
z o
a ~
x
u
~ on en oA ao en
~ ~ ~'a
~
a ~
z b~
~b ~~
~~ b~
~b v
~b ~~
o
~ '~"' O R O~ Q~ $~ Q
~z ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~
u~ ~ ~ b b ~
c0
.. ~ w ~ 'o v ~o
G r p ~' N O~ G
O O~ O
~
~z
z
~ 0A ~
y,
~ jr p .O. .~O •~'~v .~.~,0 •F ~~,0
0 '
" r
~ °o
~ v'a v °° v °~
1wz
_
mad F~
•.
zU i e
n
a
~ ~ ~
a
i
~'a
~ `~' ~
~'a. ~
~'a
F O O~ ° m ~ ~.~ ~,~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~.~
O~ ~ Q `~' Q'a Q ~ Q'n A~
d0 ~ ~ ~ ~
O~
~~ A v
~ w
~ v
~ ~ v
~Q
N v `~
O v v y
,..i v a~
o N 3 oD ~
• ~ 3 r, j o 'O
H~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ •~
P. ~ v v R.v ''~' v v
o ~ _ > C ~ v
b
F"
"' ~ ~
" ~ R 'B ri ~ wG ~ m C p ~ ,~ R.
~
m
~ ^ ..
d ro ~" eo ~ a v
~ ~ 0.a C"
R '~ ~ 3 '
C
fC
W
["~ '
W Xi N
y y Qi OJ
~l .~
Q r~r ~ ~i .t
VJ
F b '~ N O ~+.
b W
~ ~
O y w
N v .L1
z z °
a ~ G a
~o ~ a aG, a ~~
i
a
3 G C
0 'd ~
O N G ~ w~ w~ a: ~
00 ~ y
~ ~ a ~ ~ v ~ m
~ ~
C G
O O ~ ~ ~
O v ~ m
.n v
~
N G1. G .~
>.
P. cAtl v v
~ ~' K v~ 00
~ p
~ u
" X G v w~ O LL ~
~ Go +
w a 'b ~ ~
~' ~ H N ~ v N a > CL ~~' p G O
~ v G~ A y v~ ~~ ~w G O 'O w v o
~y1 ~ v
m
v
A-7
c~
z
o~
w0
V
U
~~ ~
W ~z
Z
Q
V
AML
7" ~V~
y ~ H
~ ~ T"'
'Q H
N O
^~ F
OU
O
u
c6
~ ~
~ {~,
G ~a G
~~ ~
~~
m
o '~
P ~
U
o'a
U
K ~
G
O cra
O
O .6
i ~
d~G
~%
o~
z ~ ~~
~p o ~
dWZ "'~j
d ~' O `r'
f' ~ ~ ~
o ~'
Z
dQ
~ H
d~
W
"~ o
o a
.- ,a ~ d d o0
~oc d d K~ d ~'~ y
ai `~ o. N ~ ~ ~s ~ v .d ~ y
~ :~ r+ N m d N O~ p, U yd, O
.1+ . ~ .~ A ~' Q W ,,,, d
bD ~ d d O d ~ y N~ M d d~ d d
u a m a p ~, ~, d o .. m d~ =, o, v `~
`n ~ ~ m ~ m A ~ y. ~ ti ~ ~ U y n ~ A ~ o .~' d
N o ~ H N^ O N ^~ ..+ ip
d ~ ~ p...~ d ,d ~' ~ 0 0 0 oA ~ ,C ~ ~ r .+q. N ty
Fil, ~ ~ " c~ d d '" d -~ :~~,1 .~7. '.3 w~} H ui `° N o
pia ~" w ~ ~, 7i y ~ '.'~ a 'd,,, O+ ~ v a'j, uO~ .N+~" '.G `~
Z, N~~ N d 7 F'i+ d G~ bin N A~ N~ L+ 6' N ,'~ Ki d
Q 00 y n p ~µy 'C ~O ~ ~ ~ a ~ ,N.. ~ ~f6 ~ N N ~ ~i 'CJ
~ 7` N d N ~ ~ ~ .~ O ~, w ~ d M ,Ny ~ U ~ y ~ ~CC
N ~ / xy+ ~ O+ V E '^~ u N ~+ P+ id
C7 .- `~{ .°-' d O m d d ~ d m •°' m H 'a •°' 'C ^d ~ d p,
'uJ ~ d T a :~ ~ ~ ~ A .d. V ~ O~ d :~ 4. Q+ A
~ ---_~
A-S
z
w0
~, w
~~
~ '~
m~
z
Fo
'~ H
~ ~O
Q ~
V
W
H ~ ~
~ Y
Qz
F
.V. Q
F F
Y' ~
V V
~ ~
----~ °°
~
~ ~ A
.ry
~ N
O
A
O O
o.~ F~
~ _ ---~
'~
~ O
~ ~i
Q ~ O O
y
.~~.~ ~.~
m
~
`~
a~
~ ~' ~
O
~
~~
o ~ ~ m 9
co
o'~
F
A
o r,
O
^r
O
A N
d
3
P
a c7 II
~OZ z~l
~,~Q ~~
O '~
W Z r U
md~ p~
F ~p ~
'z o
~~
F ~
Q d
°,,o Y
Q~
y N
A ~
3U ~°3=~ ~ ~ ~ N~ ~ ~ d ~ ~
m c~ ~ N a .y v o b o, y, ~ ~, 3(r
v i i ~,. N~ A A ~ y A N~ N O~ ^~ G R
'ay
cJ1 w O N N 00 N W 'U N N~ N N .~ F O
w O~g1~r ~Q 3 P ~ ~ °'d~ ~~d~..go
7 a~~~~~~w xV~ ~~ya^,y~o~r
~ W m ~ ~ ~ u A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~~ U ~ d
N
~' 0 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S+ 3 v ~ 3 ~ y. U ~ v ~''~
x r£n F r d Ks ~ v C. ~ p a A~ •• A U p A
Z m A~~~ F~ A~~ 'o I m o .~ O oo m~ d
~' ~G F ~ lJ N ~ ~~• A .J O_ M ~ ~ OJ A N A ~' H O
G id O ~ N O W .~ 7 +~" ~ 7 '~ ^Nti' ~ u '~ Qia ~i. '~„ a~i P~-~
'y m > ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ ~ ~ A d c+i
~ ~
p,_9
H
O
`y_ F
H ~S
z
°o
~~
~ ~o
c '~
v
~/
y14
Q O
H
d H
..~
~~
- o
~
,~ V
.N N
'O ~ R O G
~ ~ % O
~ OA
~
~ ~~
~
0. ?
,b
~
is
~~
bD
.~ N
G 'p
v
~
m
~ ~ 3
~d O
? ~,
G ~ Cyy
~~d G~I
dWZ. ~~
nd0 O`ff'
H ~ H
~~
~ y
dO
O
d~
emu,
W
M
N (~(~ ~
~ ~ ~'a
~ ~'
Y ~ O
9 ~ R. o o R ~'
'
W °~~
~ `a '~ w U
C ~~o~ O~ G
~ y ~
'~ ~
~
`
-' m .~ v
~
~` U y y ~ .n A
O d.53° ~ moo.
°', U ~'
a ~ a, ,
~ .
wa~9~ ~~d
J
,L^ ~ }y t~ /
X Y
V / ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f
~~~ o ~~ ~
..~ 5y+,'d~ro
d
~ ~
r ~ X P+
~ ~~ ~ p ~ 5
s N
N
o .~
_.
~ N
~~
O r,
O ~
.~ ,~
O
G
A '~
G '~
p
.~
rr
F ~
A y,
U ~ U
A
~
CJ y 7
TS ^' ~ p~
~ o N v d
r^ on ~ , : ~'
O
~~ O G.~~ $' f,
[[
y
L'a F
' ~ i p UI '~ F
N
N W
~ O ~ V [bfl ~ ~N
~
~ '~ m ~
N
y ~ .
-~ r;
c
tG6 N O ~ :d
s' P~ G ~
o d °; °' G~
b
~~ ~ w ~ ..,w~ ~
r
N
~ ~ ~ m
o
~~+ ~ ~ .
y
y
~ r aU A i ~"
8 m ~
`~ air ~ ~ 3
,iy ~ ,a '. ~ ~
O
N .+ p N N O 7
~
O v 4~? 4+
G W
p d
N
~~
~~
~ w
m v
n
~~~~
~
o v E
o ~n.5 ~
C++ N CO A ~
d 3
' ~ m V •••
X
v ~ 3
'° °' 4
v
~ .~
p,_10
w
c7
z
d
x
V
Q
~ c,
~z
F
U~
C. ~
,~-. ~ w
G .~-1 ~
~~z
'; d
'~Wz
F, d ~
F
Fz
dF
~d
~n _~
F
¢' ~
f""
.,
z
~H
00
~ ~"
a
m~ ~ ~ ~ ~
zz
00
w~
xz
0
°
..
.5
~ m v G
~
~
z a~
~
~ ~
o o a o 0
.,
F
o~ 0 0
0 0
(~ ~ p. O O
T1 Cam. CC.
CC v o
o bD O~ V ~ O
O ,b O~ v d O V
~ O
m ao m 3 ro v ~
~ a "CC ~
~ ~ .~ ~ ~ p .. O
N
a v G
cFj ~
ta
p .
+
o
~
::
d .o
~
y
~
a.ti ~
7
vG oro
G
(~~ Q~ v ~ Q
m
d
w
z
d
F
a ~ ..:
N ~ b w
0 3 ~ a
~
,
,
v ;y "p, ~ ao m
v i m '~ v y
O ~ OD Oq N
'O C w
~'
v
,v, G ~ 7
b
N ttl O N
~ .
~ ai~~ v
p ~ v ~ ~° w
m O a
.. a
~
~°
m ~ a
v~v~~
~ ~
T
aoPUb
+
o °'
~
C b
'" `
° y o
~
.~ .N.
v v >
N
O °'
'
-' 'u
~ p
OJ 4r1. 'LS
~
Oi 'O
~
r' G m F~
~
~
.
>m~°.dc.,w u
v
x
v
d
H
vb
b. C ',~ td
tdd O
ro
a
v
a
~
p
,
'y
v
m v v
O ~ i 'U
v a. ~
C Q
atl
O
v
N
3" "b.~
O N
,~
~
„ ~ ~ ~ a
0 u
~
N A ~ H .~
y
~
7b,j
b ... ,,.
y ~ o ti
ro
N N ~
y
v
~~
v a.
r-1
°' v
'6n
Q. O
~ O
.~
a ;:
m o
G p~
N
~vv
~ ~ O
~ o ~
0 0 0rD
y O .N
G Q
v ~' o
R.
v
w
O
.O
G
0
d
b
v
'o
a
G
i
m
.~
N
,~
~~ .z
O +~
O y
G ~
v o
~ .~
aZ
d
'o
fy o
a.
N
A-11
~ ~' o
~. ~
U
F~ ^5~'
~~
O ~n
'~'^^ r
V
U Q
a
'~ w
v4?Q C
d w 'z F
HQ~ i
~~
zz
a~
ox
~o
~~
~~
~.
{L7
N
d
A
V
s
0
.~
IN
U
0
W
Q.
O
Q
l"'
U
V v
~,
JY
/ N~
N
'~ OU
0
d
d
Q"
V
Y
~ 0
0 C
6
V
,,, 0 7
~~
~~
`.~ ~~ ~ O
I U '.~
4
d o
~ o ~ o ;;
p'
~,
CAA Y ~ ~ ' N p w
~. rr
O F
y
~ N O
~
p 'u G O cJ~ G+ w
E a i° ""
~, ~ a
~~~o
d
u~ p ~
fi d o
°~ ~^a
f
.O Q
~
N
P-
f
~
O A y Sit ~
C O
~ 0
,~ ~~ o~
~
~
~ V O N H
V
~ N W
V'
bD O ~
rr [-` N ~ ~, Q" O. d O
> a O
NO .y Np .~
~ P. ~
J ~ ~ ~ '" d l3 O
~~
~> ~'
ti
,or~N 'b
'
~
OG
dv ~~
~
,
,
m O N N G d T9 ~~~ d
d
~ ~ ~ r~
d
N A ~ N
~
~ P.
~ S, ~
.H
d ~~+ d o~ ~~
y C
h0 ~ H ? t-
p O O O
d 'Y p' ~ C N ~ 7 .'".N
~ ~ aid ~"' OCC ~
.
r
a+ v ~ H R HO 3 A G Q F N
p ~ ~ P~ ~ w iti
A
~
F ~-
/~-1z
The Department/City of Chula Vista
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
Q Compliance
I-805 /East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange ~ Noncompliance
DATE: REPORT NUMBER: MONITOR:
WEATHER CONDITIONS:
PROJECT/LOCATION: DISCIPLINE:
Q Geology/Topography
/Water dualit
drolo
0 H MONITORING
PLAN NO.:
y
gy
y
Biolo
ical Resources
g
Noise
0 Aesthetics
Paleontology
MITIGATION MEASURE:
COMPLIANCE: Q Acceptable Q Unacceptable ~ Follow-up Required
OBSERVATIONS:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
BY PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION (RV): REPORT APPROVAL (MCC):
RECEIPT BY:
Signatures:
~eparlmenl Engineer
Clay Engineer
Date:
Date:
COMMENTSIACTIONS:
COPY ISSUED: ~ MCC 0 DEPARTMENT ENGINEER Q CITY ENGINEER Q CONTRACTOR 0 OTHER:
BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE MEMO
MEMORANDUM
date: March 17, 2000
t0: Dennis Mazcin
fl'OI'1'1: Deborah Pudoff
SUbjeCt: I-805/Orange Avenue improvements
job number: RIC-03
meSSage: This memo presents information to evaluate the potential for
significant impacts to biological resources from the proposed I-
805/Orange Avenue improvements. A reconnaissance ]eve] site visit
was conducted within the project study area on Mazch 17,.2000, with
the results of this investigation summazized below.
The improvement area consists of pavement and ornamental
landscaping surrounded by residential and commercial
development. There aze no native habitats in the project azea. The
presence of eucalyptus trees suggests that raptor nests could occur in
the azea to be improved. According to the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, active raptor nests can not be disturbed. If construction
would occw during the raptor breeding season (approximately
December through June), a survey should be conducted by a
biologist to determine if there aze any active nests. If an active nest is
detected, it is recommended that construction activity remain at least
300 feet from it. Once the nest is determined no longer active by the
biologist, construction can move into the area of the nest.
Other than the potential for raptor nests, the lack of native vegetation
and highly urbanized setting of the project area indicates that there is
no potential for any other significant impacts to biological resources
from the proposed improvements.
8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6476
e-mail: admin@helixepi.com
phone: (619) 462-1515
fax (619) 462-0552
NEPA MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING RECJORD
J
V
z
o~
{w7.. O
i-+ CJ
rab
~ H
c0- O
~ ~ O
6 ~
U
W
O
O ~
dW ~
~~ ~
Q
G
rU-~ Q
a
"s
U ~
G. i
Y0J O
u
H V
A N
a' o
a
~U
z
n
~ ~
0
0
r+ y
'~ -
oz z.~,
Z'Z EO"7I
QO OQ
F
dO~,
O~
O
Q
o~
m
d
u~
W
' V O
d d
0 0 ~ ~ N
a'~, b~F'
~"c~'~m
°' ~ G
o
o7~d~'
P v."cfl'd
i o
W
d
O
Y
d
.~.~
H
~J
M
0
O
o.
00
0
a 0
c, _-~
m
~a ~
~ i
~ ~~~
o ~ G pN, ,°3
.~ Q ~ d V ~
W G ~ J
v Q• Y
~ ~~(. O~
3 w ~ ~ ..
d ~
O ~~ ~D~~
y l
G ~ d` P ~ .U w
m +~ a +~
r O y Oy ~ 7 0 a ~u ~~
~" a~ v
~~o~~r~'~~~~~"~s
o, a 3~ .`~ ~° ° G r
~O i N P ~ ~ ° ~ d~ ~ N ~ PO,,,//
N~ N~ 'O ~~ N pj O N Q N W
yo o U o.,,.yw ~~ d
o~o a z ~°pS~ Q^cdm X~
~" F HO ~.' ~ A N ~+ ' H ~O V ~ t+
}~i ~ N G~ d ~ ~ ~ ~~i+ ~ u O 't' v
o ti d d °~°'Q,S.~%°x ~.6
~0,~'8~.~6do,'~Av
~ ~ ~ d ,~ U o P ~ ~
N
w
;e~ °Am ~'U
A ~ m
G y ^, ~ 4 `~ v
~y
v d 'x ~ N ,p ,a ;~
d o a F~ a Cd F °'
ai '4 w p„y° G A~
o~ v o eo dG O
'C a ~ ~ i' ° ~~ n
o ~ ~ v CJ o ~ a
~ o ~ ^~ ,6 'c ~ a4 o.
i^'C ~' yN ~ G m V A
.H~'~ ~ d~ ~ ~ ~ G
a G~~~~p3 ~~y
~+ o ~ y ~ v ~ ~ i K~ Yy"'
N Y m `° N P~ `' 7G m3 N
ode%%W d"w7.°~~ w
y. H ~ ~ ~P ~? ~ " ~
O ~ ~~ B A H "•} O p r.
c ~ ~ ~ s z W
x ~
C-~
c~
z
o~
wo
U
~~ ~
Z~
a O
~ ~ O
d
V
A
W
O
W
a t'"
U
d ~
F
d,
F
O
a
z~ 05
GO O~
O '"'
V~
eG
N
F
d
N
'ii
v
0
y
0
~'o
0
a
O
V
1
j O
Y
R
'O y .~
~~~~ °.
sa o ~ ° G
~.~~ o ~~
d ~ a o
~ ~9~.-
r/
~U ~ ~ r• Y
V
O ~ O
P~~ R".
00 0
.~ '~
O Y
`}/ry
la N O
V
aC~
°~' Dp ~ A
? H G .
d ~ V
R o ~ y
%~
~ o
I
+' V9 ~ CD
d ~ ~ ~
G o ~0 ~ Fi ~m
`J' ~~~va~'o
7 ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ G bD
O "~~' N
V1 a^1 ,~ r. ^ RCS o°.~
~ ?~ 'A ~ ~ A
N
n `" .6 ~ ~ ,~ ~ O
6' d D~ L` ~ C~ ~p ~n G m ~ G
~ u ~ W N GPP~ ^U ~G
j° .v v ~+ d
r+. ~ 'O ~ A ~ p .~ O O A
y. rr O
OII P+ V F Cy O~ d~ p
O d a'G ~ N GO ~ V
~ ~P
xN
~ m o
C N m .ey m
~ d v ~ a 'on
r' H N.>N ~ d d r N~
fa W~ .~V N '~ O Q 9 Uf
G ~v.~ ~%'6 mar ~'~
O +~i ~ 'GG ~ "' O VO y y N r.
d ~~ N N ~ P~ f~NU/y~ y O
Y "' N O y k N N~~ ~ V
O p p T'~ T w 7 ~. ~ Q, ..a..
d / i~~~ N d~~ N~ N
ff+ O bD 6 1', ~ O~ cfi~ N u -~ N
YO . ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ Sy, .r
~ W ~
~ ~
c_i
Z.
w0
F
~Y L
H ~! ~
I
G
l^ ~
Y
U
a y.~'
O H
W ..+
~ ~
az
F
F
a
i ~
~ O
~~
7
~ O
~ u
.. ~.
r ~
O .std
V
N
'~
N
a
w ~ o
0
o ~"
y
~ ~
y ~ O
~~ ~ I
~Za, O '~
F E.
aO O d
~O ~
O ""
N
~N
~~
4
W
O
W
6
O
d
bD ~
° ~ R
°aa
~" .,~ ~
I ~ r-'
3
V
O
p ~~
.~
y o
~' G y Y+ N .~. ~ N
G ~ o ~ ~ "" 7 ~ p ~
Y
y .°-~ u A 'a O m
o ~ `~° ~ ~ ~ ~ Q, ~+
~Q ~ ~ ~~ O
s ~ ~ -.~ d ,~ ,.
Q'o~CC> d d9T'P
O N ld N O R d~ ~
~a 2 ~~ ~i N y F~ a
~,n o,.°~ °~' mQ
o W p .
oy~' ~~ ~j~ ~ ~'
O'N N D P+x R~ Z
~ 'f. A ~ A ...i
y~ G
z ~ --`_
U
O
0 V
~'' ~ O
O
.~ N
v w
~v
O 9
p
b~ O
O
U
P ~ o
U
O
O N
A
Yr ~
G
p N
-'"
----
„ m
~~ O ~ ~
°~ `L
H
d 3
~
r' ~a c4o•~
~6
N ~
y
~ "
3 0 ~ ~
0 ~.,
'~ d
N N
.
y
-a y ~^ ~
G '+' G N N
A N
3 ~M
~ "' Nj
r, ~ v ~ ~ d G ~ ~~
~'
~ r. A N y A
~
~ 3 ~ p r
~ ~
O
~
o
~
N
m y ~' N H o
O
a N y N v~
v~ ~ N'~ P' d~
G ~ H G ~+ ~ Y
d ~id ~'~~ ~
~ ~ ~ 3 ~
+
ay~~~ o3g 9
d ~ ~
a.~%~~o
~a+ a m edo `r° N -da v
d~ '
H ~y OJ ~ 9 G W
i
1
7
N ~+~
p A~
am
O ~ V O W S
i r_
G N O d A R
c
,
~ ' ~ ~' 9 ~ o.
A 4 o W ~ `~ -p^ ''
,
~ m o ~.°'. T d~~
•~ .~ C
N~
d o ~ o ~, 9 ~
Z' N
v
~ {'
C-3
z
o~
wo
~W
a~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z
o~
~o
w
N
`!'
° ~
z o
a ~
x
V
o0
G on
fi on ea co
fi
ZZ "n.
o . o .
n. o .a o .a a .
n.
}~Ni ~
z G h
~ b vi
~b ~ h
~ ~ h
~~ ~ m
b
ao
V ..
'~" R
O~
O R ~
O R
O~ ~
~
O
W rr
F
O
O
O
O
o
a~ Z
w .. ~
.. •C ~
.. •w ~
.. Z
w
~.z G~ ~"~ ~"~ ~"b ~"b
U
~
F,
~ ~ ~
y ~u
~
ec ~nCC v
"~ FC
~
~
o v
G~ w
o Cc
C an w
o 6n
v w A
o CC
G m w
o G
G e~
]z ~~ .~ ~ G
L'v o a
~v G
~'v o ~'v o
~ m m
~
az z
oa ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ a ~.~ ~ ~.~
z~ ~ o.~ A~ Q~ Q~ o
~
~z
°
o
H
a :~ ~ ~ b ~
'
~F v x
O o .3 ~ G~~
~ b
7 p 3
~~
~ ~w R.O ~ ~
N.
3
" b
[W.
W x a"i ~
~ b .~ ;° ~
~
a y
v
v~ ., a. p
~ v m e
r P
v
~ ti . .
~ o v
O p w ,Y
pp ttl ~ ~
O p.'~
~ O R
3 `Ly.
W m ~ ~ .b ~~~ '~ p~ O.. h~ 7, d P p
~ z w~
p ~. 4 N h O N t. ~~ C ~ p
,
3 L" x
TJ ~ '
a
O
~ w
0
_
y
~
y w .O
y O
A
G F
OD O
G~
y
'
OD~
i ,y
TJ
,O ~, C
F N ~ t
tl
~+ ~ +'
w
N
~
~v 3
° r av ~ a~.3 ~~
,~ .
a~
\ b ~b
,
(C X 71 w
'O
~ G V~
p
~ y N N « y,
''.~+ P"
v
aG > ~ > A C
r
r .ti b
w i u
~
~ v ~
u _
O~ A v~ -- '.>C v 4i 0
v d O L 0 'O N ~~ G
a
a ~ ~ .~
C-4
z
o~
w0
U
'~. aS U
~~ ~
FO
~ ~O
C ~
V
4~s]
~a z
3 ° '~
a~ r
F
=a
0
~~ ~
~ z o~
O O~.~++
~ 0 G
dZ
O
O~ ~+
Q
W
U
ofl
o a.
U
~ N
~r~ 'CS
G
O P+ Q ;a
'~ % O G
id ~
~~
o ~ ,~
~~
G
~ O %
~ ~~
a ~ ~.5
o ~~ o
,, v
~~ ~ U
y ~~
d ~ Ja P ~+
N
R
o ~ Q
l' .~ ~ m ~;
d y u o .
d ~ ~ ~F >
W ".~ O~ N '~ ~ N N O
~~ ~ ~, H o T A 3~ a y ~ P: o v~
'~. m N
~ O TJ N N S~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ '^' d A A ~ ~ A ~ ~
.N r+ / ,r
a: v p '~ ~' '~ 7+ ~ p~j w0 '"' O ~' y d ~ O w ~ N v w ~
~ .. o o ~ A m ~ ° ~ n ° ~ ~ ~ ~~ T~ ° T d o
W ~•0 ~ v d dU d ~~~~~.~? v~7 :% d N.o ~ Q:~ ~
O fy d ~ y 'y y ~ '•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~,a 'O C~-+ W ~6 N
id N v. p~
Z' N y G m ~ Xj N Gp A ~ v+ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Sy, `~ u O
v ~O 7 r y p u
V y N~ ~ ~J G 'C A"'w V ~Q F V fG A N U H
N d o o v d A~'i.'m A v .C d~ aC.o d
~ N '" q1 ~T ~ ~ o ¢,'~ ~ X ~' a ~ d y a
~~d ~v~dmyd~GA o
0
m
d
~ °'
C-5
z
m~
00
~w
x
r e'b V
~ C7 ~
a~. O
O ~ O
d ~
U
{CW
1~1 V y
d0
1/Jp ~.1
!~^j WV
U
F" O
r~
[iT ~
ca
~O
~O
~~
dZ
Q Q
~F
m
F
d
.-~
v ~
~ ~
°p
00 ~
on o ~P .
~
R
. .
J 0
H O
N H
q
~
OY ~ O G ~
r
r
v •~•
7
r
G
C~ ~
H ~
~
~ o ~ o
G v o
C7 C ~'a G ~ ~ ~ v
Z i ~ ~
~,~ ~b n y'P, ~..
z p ~ r.
_ ~ N
b A OA ~ ~ .~ b !4 -AU. ~q yGi L
G OV G N a' ~ >d., y d id i IIj ~ 'd app O~ O P„
W AOv~ba~.~~~ ~ ~dGG o ~~~^^.~G~,~~ o
N ~~~ O b '~ m O w F: O Y F N ~ Q '^C O
c~i~ ~j m ~~, ~ u ~ v ~ d m ~ drr '~ 8 0. d ;., ~ a G
~+ yp A •y w ,~ .~ ~ ~ N ~ X ~ ^ ~- pg~ u OVA N V ~ N
O ~ C. ~ pia G w ~~~'~yt ~~ ..~ 0 O ~r O ~ O op U `~' ap+i
Y N S VVi a G r^ Y Y d
E.r N ~Vi ~ N rC ~~" y b~ '~ a V P..p N N u~ Q
j _~°~'wmd'~.~~ ~~p ~o~xmx~o~b
~~Q'~VU~ ~ 7 Ned ~~"
d 1 ~
C-6
z
wo
~W
a ~
~~
~~
Z
a0
m
~ cz
x ~
a
..a
O
a.
~~
az
~a
~O
as
r^
Vz
QO
~" O
~~
z
o°
~Q
C7
F
N
wF
H
c~
z
z
H
0 ~
~pd
W
z
O
d
H
i
U IU
- ~
~
o ° ~ .
~~
~ ~
~
~
a
N o0 0~
Q G 'C w u ~. OD
c. F
~~~ ~ %
5
v
° o °
~•~ o~ ~~
O~ b ry N ~ d
~ ~
d v ~ '~
a ~ 3 0 ~
v ~, ~
p A
p o
G
~
~ ~
~ a~~
: o
H ° v
~ N~ b
.
.,~ U ~
~ G o
C
b R.'6 b ~ .fir. ~ A ~ N `~ P+ A Y' m ti '~
~
'6 CA V N C~ d
.Q ~ a ~ .N y N~
~ i ° ~'
V
~ m ~ o ~
G .N ~ ~ m ~ p P. v ~'~ ,. w
N
d Ei
d
.~ ~L'p
3 C ~ G ~ v
°
'" '~ ~
° ~ `
~
U ~
° °
~ ~
~
v
3
N~Na~a
y 3~wo 0
~,
~~~0
N o
~
r
R3 a G m
a'C
bn
b
o i .
p y
o.c~
~
.
~.. oC on
s ~ y
C a N~ O~ v
N p
d
N °
~ W
m .~
~i C G ~ U ~O m~
~
r,
y a
i c
a
°a°
~o ~ a%v3 d d y
x~~
.
N ~ N
d ~ ~
C-7
~ ~ O
d
~.~
{i1
~a z
3~
a, r
u~
~^ o
o~
] Z f
w0
dH"
WO
~~
Qz
O
~6
~H
d
~Z
U
U
~~
U
V
~ o
V
m 0.y ~
b °
~ o~
og
:~
~ .~
;~
b
O
0
o~
d
- ~ 4
~%
Q ~
W
d
Q
~o
o~
G~~d
D ~ ~ ~
A ~ tC N
9
L~
~ ~ G %
Q ~
U
~g
~"
~ a~
O y ~
w0 rt N
d O ~
0
V
V
0
0
F
0
oa
~~
a
a~i ~
'} A
P
~~ ~ ~ ~~
TG '~ ~A~i
H
~ O N
o.~~N
Q+ ffl6 N N O W
a ~ ,~° ° ~~
v -O ,° m
..^ p ~. p v
m
O ,d ,O
~.O `~ ~ `" Oar
N y. ?
O O N H V y
Vi N d ~ y ~ U
..~
y o ~ a' ~
N
r`. C N .-.
~ G1 .O 6 .~
v ~' ~ m d
N ~ ~
G w~ v.~
d N v
~~ ~ ~
y~,ob
y w d n
O F V
3 ~ ~~.~.1
~ > `q ~ N
:~~~~~~
d ~ ~ ~ o a
~ m U v '~" p,
O y
~~~ y ~ ~ A
N
N o V A'~ ~
y ~ N e~ O vy
~ ^+ A ~ ~~ b
~ 4a~`~•.
u
r• __~-~
d
A
O ~
O Y
.~ ~ N
;? d ^~
;; p, n ~ ~
A O
O G p, N
N
m ~ ~ 'Sh o
m m d v o .~
~ ~w> o~
y>~v ~?
~ ~°'~ ~G
~ UN~ a°
V
O 'r+ ~
~9 ~ O ~ ~ ~
c ~~ ° a~
o U v '~ ~ 'o
d~o.~
~' N
F r -_---~--_"""._
Gg
cJ
d
V
Cd
O
a+ H
d~
~, z
~~
a
~ ~ C
w0 ~
Q ".i
Wp
c7 ~
Q2
O~
~~
F
d
N
~
~
U1 Nr+__
W
~p O
O O
~ O
9l
a
~~
'~ O
~ ~
O H O
I~ ~ to ~ O
1 O ~ ~ O a
/ N
~' O V XWWW
O A N i ~ O w
bt7 N
w A ~ ^ y
in O
V
'Y. ~ C
~~ O N n 9 v O
U ~ O
V
P
O ~ N
r' G N ~'
O O 2s
O ; i ~ O
W O N O A
d no ~ '~
n d
c'7l1 ~ ~.~ ~ H
W O O ~O O
~~+~ ~ Q+
W J ~ i
p ~ o o~
F o a~ ~~
~ °/ a ~ G
b ~~ ~ R G
r
o ~'~ d ~
r
ti ~i ~-
o ~
N ~ ~
U
~ O~ ~, P~
5 .~ ~+~
N "' N W ~ V
d i ~ P+ ~ d
d ~ ~~ p.
~ O ~ .r.1 O v
N m v .~' aUi Q
w Y 'V N H
da id~$~
-C ~ P ~ A O ~
~ ~~ ~.~ d~
9.
~a~ d~N3
~ ~ N
C-9