HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/05/18 Additional Information
~~~
~
~~~~
CITY OF
CHUlA VISTA
Development Services Department
Apri127,201O
SUBJECT:
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
"CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN AND PORT MASTER PLAN
AMENDMENT" (SCH# 2005081077)
Enclosed please find a copy of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and CD Appendices, as well as a copy of the proposed City's Local Coastal Plan Amendment and
General Plan Amendment.
At a Special Joint Meeting with the Board of Port Commissioners, City staff will request that the City
Council, Planning Commission and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation conduct public hearings and
take the following actions on the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan:
a) Adopt the Final EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt a
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
b) Approve the proposed amendments to the City's Local Coastal Program (consisting of the land
plan and specific plan) and direct filing with the California Coastal Commission for Certification
c) Approve the proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan
d) Approve an amendment to tbe City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP)
The Final EIR and associated amendments, as well as any testimony given by interested government
agencies, organizations, and individuals will be considered at the following Special Joint Meeting with
the City of Chula Vista City Council, City of Chula Vista Planning Commission, Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation and the Board of Port Commissioners:
Datc/Time:
Place:
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 beginuing at 1:00 p.m.
City of Chula Vista City Hall
Council Chambers
A separate staff report and attendant exhibits and attachments will be. distributed for review prior to May
1Sth If you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 691-5002 or ghalbert@ci.chula-vista.ca.us.
;~: c/#0eQ
, GARYI.JLBERT (-
Deputy d~ Manager/Director of Development Services
Enclosure: Final EIR and CD set of Appendices for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan; City ofChula Vista Local
Coastal Plan Amendment) City of Chula Vista General Plan Amendment
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5101
www.chulavistaca.gov
jy\A-~-\-"UJ\'V""\ I"~V'l'-'C(\,~1\
From: michele ann mareck [ ]
Sent: Monday, May 17,20102: 16 PM
To: Donna Norris
Cc: Jcrry Harmon
Subject: CV Bayfront/Port Masterplan
Ms, Norris:
Please tind herebclow our organization's letter of concern to the officials responsible for
the Chula Vista Bayfront/Port District Master Plan, Please confirm receipt in time before
the joint hearing tomorrow in Chula Vista, [f we need to submit our letter indcpcndcntly
to the Port District Clerk, please send us that e-mail address,
Thanks vcry much,
M,A, Mareck
To the Chula Vista Bayfront/Port Master Plan officials:
As a regional citizens' organization focused on transportation, we at TR[P are following
thc Chula Vista Bayfront and Port Masterplan progress with much interest. We are glad
to note that the mitigation plan includes local developmeut impact fees that will at least
partially mitigate the project's impact. We do note with concern that it is quite unclear
whether the projcct will fully mitigatc its impacts, Those impacts will of course be
considerable,
[n several sections of the plan, freeway impacts are labeled as "Signiticant and
Unmitigable," To vote acceptance of such a situation would permit considerable room to
ultimately contradict the necessity of fulfilling the City and Port's responsibility to its
residents, Chula Vista has provided model leadership in the recent past with its inclusive
dcvclopmcnt impact fcc structuring; and its Bayfront/Port plan shows encouraging signs
of once again providing a regional model of responsible development.
Citizens throughout thc cntirc San Dicgo rcgion have a stake in every major project: over
time, rectification of any significant unmitigated cumulative transportation impacts would
fall back on constraincd regional transportation resources,
It is TR[P's hope that the City and Port District will remain committed to standards
which respect thc environmental neccssitics of healthful living, Our CEQA legislation
does provide clear guidance in this challenge; and the setting of specific levels of
acceptability in the plan's LOS ti'eeway standards could provide the impetus to creative
leadership which once again has Chula Vista showing the way to genuinely serve the best
interests of its residents and of its neighbors across our region,
Respectfully yours,
M, A, Mareck, for TRIP
5/18/2010
neJ ar.d~
1 rib LIt &f71f'rf1lfS
SJI'DIIO - [r~
BY EMAlL TO: cityclerk@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
To: Chula Vista City Council via City Clerk
Mayor Cox
Member Castaneda
Member Ramirez
Member Bensoussan
Member McCann/Thompson
Bayfront EIR Public Comment /] p.m. May ]8, 20]0
I am disappointed that my schedule does not allow me to make a public comment in
person, and I am certain many other working residents are in the same situation. Therefore, I am
forwarding a brief comment by email.
First - I do not disagree with development of the Bayfront. Frankly, vacant lots with a
signs prominently stating "Currently Not Available" are not favorites of mine. My objection is
that every time a reasonable growth plan is jointly approved by the City and the residents it gets
re-written the very first time a developer wants an increase in density. This goes for development
in eastem Chula Vista as well as in western Chula Vista. I believe that less density for
development allows for adjustment in the future, if needed, while allowing a beginning to
development of our Bayfront. The proposal being approved today (everyone knows that it is a
done deal) cuts off the Bayfront from the rest of the City and creates an extreme hardshiplharrn to
the current residents of Chula Vista (and surrounding areas) for reasons that I have described in
my comment to the EIR on file with the Port District. Due to time restrictions I will not repeat
those comments here.
Next - The ElR is fatally flawed as it depends on a Settlement Agreement between the
City, Port and a "Coalition" of parties that does not include a single stakeholder from Chula
Vista, not even a member of the Nature Interpretative Center. I even question whether some
members of the Coalition have ever been to the area, for example, the Audubon Society does not
list this area as a place in San Diego for bird viewing (see the Audubon Society webpage) and it
appears that a driving force is the Coast Law Group from North San Diego County.
The Settlement Agreement, as drafted, is anti-human, restricting the use of the park
system by the residents to an unacceptable level; forbidding recreation except for walking. This
Settlement Agreement creates many forbidden zones and then surrounds the view with an
unsightly 6 foot black fence. Now you can go to the area and view birds, the water and the
flowers, how is this Agreement an improvement over that? I do not disagree with every terrn in
the Agreement but it must be re-drafted with input from local community residents and
organizations.
Respectfully,
Ned Ardagna, resident
Page 1 of 1
Leticia Lazo
From: ned@lawyer.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:45 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment to EIR approval
Please see my attached comment.
Thanks,
Ned
This e-mail communication contains
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and
which is intended only for the Recipient. If you have received this message in error please contact the sender.
Thank you
5/18/2010
drctJd::D heJJ (~
sf t~{LO ~~
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Honorable Mayor Cox and-CityCouncil, Planning Commissioners,> and
ChuJa Vista Rcdevelopment Corporation (CVRC)
Jim Samlova!, City Mana~'
Gary Halbe~:puty c~anager/DeveloP111ent Services Director
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
May 18, 2010 Joint Meeting regarding Bayfront General Plan Amcndment
Typographical corrections
Upon final preparation of the staff report and associated documents for the City Council,
Planning Commissioners and CVRC, minor nomenclature corrcctions were idcntified on
thc General Plan Tables 5-4 General Plan Land UI'e Designation and Zuning and 5-6
General Plan Land Use Distributiun in 2030 by Planning Area,
The following typos have been correctcd, and are attachcd herein,
. Tablc 5-4: Professional & Administrative should read as Professional and OHicc,
. Table 5-6: Professional & Administrative should read as Profcssional and Office,
'---yB i"\ Lek ""' ~ C\
~/\(/lD
~ f^1
San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
May 17,2010
District Clerk
San Diego Unified Port District
P.O. Box 120488
San Diego, CA 92112
I'm writing this letter on behalf of my organization, the San Diego County Building and
Construction Trades Council, which represents tens of thousands of workers in the region.
While the Building Trades represents working people and their families, we are concerned with
more than just johs. We work to ensure that we create safe and sustainable careers for our
region's construction workers and their families. We care deeply about the health of
our environment and the quality of life for San Diegans in our communities. Right now, local
workers are threatened by many things including the economic downturn, the mortgage crisis,
and the high rate of unemployment. Building and construction trade's workers have been hit
hard during this economic downturn. So, we arc happy to see the proposed Pacifica hotel project
take the next step as we have worked with the developer to ensure that it will be good for
workers and the environment.
Lastly we are concerned that the development on the Bayfront may never happen hecause of
Proposition G. We sincerely hope that the Chula Vista voters send a message that if they want
this project to move forward, they must send a strong message and vote "No"
on Proposition G in the upcoming Primary Election.
Sincer~~y,
,,--<;:;('.
/ ~._---------
Tom Lemmon
San Diego County Building &
Construction Trades Council
3737 Camino del Rio So. Suite 202, San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (61 Y) 521-2914 Fax (619) 521-2917
David Krogh, 712 East.1 Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910
~J QbJ
\}JYZ ~\^ ~ A- (\AirGk S
Ql1ll0 \r~
t.'
~...~
May 18,2010
Port of San Diego & City of Chula Vista
, c/o Clerks of the Port & City
via City Clerk
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Port Commissioners and City Council:
I, David Krogh, on behalf of myself and many other residents of Chula Vista, having a
vital interest in the successful planning and outcome of the Chula Vista bay front project,
am submitting this public input in the area of Traffic by the required deadline on the date
of the public hearing. As a citizen, as a taxpayer, as a member of the public concerned for
the efficacy of the planncd project and mitigations, I do hereby submit these statements
of concern and suggested recommendations and improvements to you as responsible
decision makers and request administrative reconsideration with modifications to the plan
either at or shortly after (within thirty days) time of planned consideration and approval at
the public hearing.
I am not opposed to a project in the project area. I submit these comments as my personal
good faith effort to help this project be planned and carried out in as effective a manner
as possible, seeing evidence that my past commcnts e.g. 2006 and 2008 may have already
contributed to that end to some degree, and hoping and believing that further
comments/action at this time may also further contribute to that end as well.
Public agencies have a duty to avoid or minimize environmental damage when feasible.
The plan has many admirable dimensions, as enumerated in many places throughout the
planning documents such as the culminating Statcment of Overriding Considerations, the
statement of rationales precluding the reduced density alternative, etc. It has many
strengths, including a vast number of mitigations in some areas outside traffic, and good
statements of commitment to rcduction of local street traffic impact mitigations to below
a level of significance. After analysis and a straightforward statement and conclusion
regarding freeway traffic impacts as being Significant and Unmitigable, it offers a
planned mitigation which embodies a degree of progressive and innovative intent which
may be lauded. However, I am going to question whether the duty to avoid or minimize
damage when feasible has been completely fulfilled in the area of Traffic.
Planned mitigations in this area are long on good concept, but short on track record and
specifics that can help engender confidence by the public that over the long time-frame of
Page 1
this project, or even in the first year or two of its execution, that it will be effective to
accomplish the unstated degree of partial mitigation intended. The public can clearly see
the degree of damage if project is allowed to proceed and no mitigations are undertaken
in this area. The public ought to have the right to clearly see and understand the
anticipated and intended lower degree of damage offered by the plarmed partial
mitigation. Moreover, the current and future staff members and decision makers of the
Lead and Responsible Agencies, and the other Responsible Entities binding themselves
under the planned mitigation need to have that clearly indicated in the plan and mitigation
monitoring program so that they can have a clear 'target' to be aiming for as they carry
out their analysis, planning and implementation. Otherwise only a lower-than-planned
(and necessary) degree of partial mitigation will ever be achieved, and the public interest
will be harmed due to waste via inetTective expenditure of public funds and loss of time
and opportunity by whatever later date the failure might be recognized.
The public ought to have the right to know that the planned partial mitigation measures
are potentially effective and not just pleasant words during the initial review and approval
period, subject to being lightly regarded after approval has become irrevocable, even if
the gcneral promise and statements of partial mitigation should come to prove hollow
after events even a mere year or two into the project.
To summarize briefly some of the specific concerns enumerated following about
mitigation plan:
I) Ambiguous terms,
2) clarity of sufficient degree is lacking,
3) clarity oflevels of service is lacking,
4) clarity of timing is lacking,
5) planned monitoring agencies lack sufficient independence.
Additional comments submitted pertain to feasibility and timing, also
6) Feasibility,
7) Timing,
8) Results pending from Sandag and Caltrans studies,
9) Economic justice,
10) Future projects to consider,
II) Traffic mitigation efforts contribution to other law compliance, e.g. GHG.
12) MMRP deficiencies.
See detailed discussion/notes following.
Respectfully submitted,
David W. Krogh
Page 2
Discussion of shortcomings of planned mitigation measures:
1) The planned partial mitigation uses terms with meaning/intent ambiguous. The
term "reduce congestion with Caltrans standards" is unclear to the public. The
term's meaning should be clear in the statement of planned mitigation. The
Mitigation Monitoring document should use clear and unambiguous terms also.
2) Clarity of degree is lacking -terms used in various places include "reduce
congestion", "avoid or substantially lessen". These statements collectively imply
the possibility of anything from complete mitigation (at odds with the statement
"unmitigable") to significantly mitigated, but does that mean FO/Fl/F2 are
reduced to D, to E, to FO, to (only) FI? In analysis sections, degrees offailure FO,
FI, F2 are distinguished, but throughout the mitigation statements, only the
generic "F" is used. Since the terms substantially lessen is used in the planned
mitigation, does that then therefore imply that the intent should be clearly
construed to be that LOS levels E or better are clearly the targct? Things are not
stated clearly enough; they should be stated more clearly or it is likely that
mitigations will not be carried out correctly to the intended degree.
3) Lack of clarity of intended LOS, see further comments immediately following.
4) Timing - mitigations are frequently specified in relation to dates certain or
conditions or circumstances correlated; e.g. "build driveway #2 by time building
B is constructed and before certification of occupancy is issued." There are NO
time frames for any certain events under the planned partial mitigation.
Convening to review or report something in one or five years is not the same as
saying something like "no more than 50% ofthe EDU's or square footage
contemplated by Phase I may be effectuated without an plan reasonably capable
of attaining LOS X being approved by the decision-makers of the Responsible
Entities", or "no more than 50% ofthe EDU's and square footage contemplated
by Phases I and II combined may be effectuated until planned freeway traffic
mitigation constructions have been completed and placed into service between
SR-54 and J Street", or "after ten years into the project, no further continued
expansion under the project may be initiated unless LOS 'E' service has been
measured and being consistently maintained during Peak Hours on 1-5 South
Corridor between SR-54 and Palomar Street at least 80% of the time," or "LOS D
or better is being maintained consistently with no more than two hours per day of
LOS E on any particular northbound or southbound freeway segment betwcen
SR-54 and Palomar."
5) The planned mitigation is relatively innovative and novcl. Effective monitoring
frequently requires review by an entity independent from the responsible parties,
in order to assure independence in mental attitude and objective evaluation and
conclusion. The economic interest of the monitoring agencies (Port and City), e.g.
in the project progressing at all times without restriction, could easily be
construed to represent a risk to their objectivity in monitoring effectivcness of
Page 3
freeway traffic mitigation planning and implementation. Therefore, for them to be
the only parties responsible for monitoring and determining a conclusion may be
ineffective. Suggest an entity independent from the lead agency and responsible
agency governing boards should be responsible, or at least involved to assure
adequate public profile of review and opportunity for public input. Possible
examples are: (a) state coastal commission, (b) staff of responsible entities
(Caltrans, or probably better, Sandag), (c) a traffic mitigation progress review
committee (e.g. of some type diverse membership including residents,
commuters, and other local or even regional stakeholders, c.f. other committees
planned in other sections of the mitigation plan, (d) a semi-autonomous
organization such as the Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Committee.
Possible drawbacks of the alternatives might be: (a) too remote and interest in this
project area over time too diffuse, (bl still not sufficiently independent, (c) would
need at least some staff support to have sufficient technical information to make
an informed judgment. Disclaimer: author of this comment is a member of
GMOC; howevcr, I assert objectivity in making the suggcstion, my term
irrevocably expires June 20] 2 anyway, and that body has a track record of
successfully performing a similar function. Suggest (d) or (c) as the best
alternatives.
A conclusion has been stated that freeway traffic impacts are unmitigable, but the
analysis is lacking sufficient information to support such a conclusion. An unsupported
conclusion is not adequate. Feasibility is an important component of CEQA law. The EIR
should examine elements of feasibility before concluding.
Economic infeasibility or timing infeasibility are considered in the commenter discussion
below. Technical feasibility of responsible entities such as Caltrans and Sandag is
accepted and presumed as being reasonable. Physical geographical infeasibility could be
inferred as a possibility but has not been demonstrated in the EIR. Supra-project
economic infeasibility might also be inferred but also has not been demonstrated.
Approval ofElR should not occur until these omissions are cured. Such omissions may
be cured if Sandag and/or Caltrans studies currently in progress give such issues
sufficient consideration and are documented in the planned reports and conclusions.
Given the timing of the EIR public hearing and the current status ofthose studies, there
may be an opportunity to request such information be included within the scope of those
studies, else further analysis conducted under auspices of further EIR addenda for this
project. Brief discussion:
I) Economic infeasibility can and perhaps should be examined on both the micro
and macro levels before a supported conclusion can be reached:
a. Micro-level economic feasibility considerations:
i. What might the cost be:
I. current WTDIF: $3.2K per EDU,
a. freeway mitigation component is $1.2K
2. WTDIF under currently planned mitigation
Page 4
a. Estimated by knowledgeable staff $5-6K
b. Additional freeway component: some fraction of the
approximately $3K increase.
3. WTDIF under additional possible mitigation, e.g. to level D, E
a. Estimated comparable marginal cost unknown,
b. but determinable.
11. What is project's ability to bear cost - if project can bear $1.2K, and
perhaps a similar amount on the revised WTDlF calculation which will
already occur as a result of this EIR's planned mitigation, additional
further freeway mitigation cost of$lK or even $3K is unlikely to
constitute economically infeasibility.
b. Macro-level economic considerations/approach:
i. A general order of magnitude approach might be to consider the
regional growth projection of total additional residences and regional
transportation infrastructure required to support over the planning
horizon. Example, if $60B of regional transportation resources are
likely to be required to support 300,000 new county residences over 30
years, and were half attributable to freeways and $20B attributable to
curing prior cumulative deficits, so perhaps $15-20B might be
construed as having nexus to new residences for new freeway
infrastructure, then $5-7K might be an amount reasonable to use for
consideration of economic infeasibility of the project to bear the cost.
Since the project will already be bearing at least $2-3K of this amount,
the marginal cost is likely to be only a few thousand more per EDU,
i.e. unlikely to be economically infeasible.
11. Commenter recognizes that the above thought process is no substitute
for project specific analysis; however, it is indicative of a general and
not inordinate level of cost in this area, and thus indicates unlikeliness
of economic infeasibility in the case of this project.
2) Timing infeasibility
a. Project's time-frame is 24 years. Even freeway improvements of major
magnitudes can be both planned and accomplished within that time-frame.
b. Project's time-phasing can be structured to result in a reasonable degree of
time-contemporaneousness over the project lifetime.
c. Cornmenter is accepting of an early project start, and some lag in delivery
of improvements, as long as there is a reasonable, binding long-term
phased timetable on the freeway infrastructure improvements, with Go-No
Go decision milestones to assure that project will not continue creating
further unmitigated cumulative impacts until the other side of the equation
can keep up.
3) Physical geographical infeasibility
a. 1-5 South is a space-constrained corridor with freeway, local roadway and
rail infrastructure considerations. It may be physically impossible to
squeeze in "everything".
Page 5
1. Possible "everythings" should be considered, prioritized, and
documented before an informed infeasibility conclusion reached
and stated.
11. Current mitigation plans clearly indicate an additional traffic lane
be constructed in both directions.
iii. If one more additional traffic lane might be sufficient to get LOS
up to a more acceptable level of E or even D, then that alternative
should be evaluated.
IV. Other possible alternatives that are speculative in nature, e.g.
routing of a state high speed rail project through the project area
that does not currently exist, may be considered, but probability
should be assessed and stated, and (higher) priority given to the
certain alternatives and needs, such as maintaining an adequate
degree of performance over the long term for the currently existing
uses, i.e. freeway, existing mass transit.
b. The tentative preferred alternative (by Sandag) for the planned mitigation
area to add a single lane each way already contemplates relocating the
existing freeway median and rebuilding multiple bridges (ref Sandag
Transportation Committee meeting May 20] 0). When conducting
modifications this extensive anyway, the marginal cost of the actual
construction of an additional lane may not be that great, if adequatc
consideration is given during alternative evaluation and planning stages.
c. The example of the 1-]5 corridor from 1-5 to 1-8 may be somewhat
comparable and instructive. Freeway decking and other extensive
modifications such as retaining walls and were made and long-tcrnl
freeway right of way staked out allowing initial planned lane capacities
and allowing room for construction of additional lane each way at a future
date.
1. This COllUllenter asserts that similar if not more compelling need
exists on 1-5 South corridor as for that corridor. Analysis and
planning should consider that cost before concluding infeasibility.
11. Freeway decking is not required in the Chula Vista context, and
thus costs lower; leaving sufficient as might be necessary for more
extensive retaining wall construction to provide similar width of
right of way.
4) Supra-project economic infeasibility:
a. Commenter recognizes that project can only be responsible for its
proportionate share of certain infrastructure improvements such as
freeway. This is not an issue, because e.g.
i. The WTDIF has already calculated Western Chula Vista's
reasonably attributable share of such total infrastructure costs at
8.2%.
]. Any minor calculation revision of this fraction is
immaterial to the feasibility or infeasibility of the proposed
project.
Page 6
11. Given a project-contributed local match: federal, state, and local
regional funds will be available at some point in time in the future.
1. Initial project start can be allowed.
2. Long term project timing can be phased for
contemporaneousness with delivery oflong-term
infrastructure improvements.
3. Local needlbenefit is not so great and compelling per sac
as to compel violation of the immediately preceding point
(reasonable contemporaneousness over entire project life).
b. C011lmenter recognizes that project cannot be held responsible for curing
of prior cumulative impacts predating the project. However, planned
mitigation subsections (f) already clearly indicate intent that improvement
required by project will be coordinated for cost-effectiveness reasons with
local and regional initiatives (long-term purposes of which include
mitigation of prior cumulative impacts). Thus, some reasonable joining of
timing is clearly contemplated (and reasonable), and thus not an issue; c.f.
i. "Entities shall also consider ways in which the Improvements can
be coordinated with existing local and regional transportation and
facilities financing plans and programs, in order to avoid
duplication of effort and expenditure...."
c. State and federal financial circU1J1stances occasionally become
problematic over certain shorter terms; however, over the longer-term,
funding opportunities usually come up within an eventual and tolerable
time-frame.
1. Local needlbenefit is not so great and compelling per sac as to
compel violation of the immediately preceding point (reasonable
supra-project matching funding opportunities will become
available within in timeframe allowing reasonable
contemporaneousness over entire project life).
11. sac notwithstanding, project's need for matching funding
assistance for its project-related impacts should not be construed as
superior to the general public's right and need for similar funding
for prior cumulative impact amelioration in the project area (see
previous section comments about coordination already implied and
anticipated in planned mitigation.) Thus the two needs can and
should co-exist on an equal footing during the project timeframe.
CEQA law precedents demonstrate that projects cannot be chopped into pieces "small
enough" to pass EIR or other scrutiny via immateriality. Nor is the public interest served
if a significant collective responsibility be avoided by attribution of some portion of
concerted actions necessary to other agencies. Although not attributed to the level of
responsible agencies in the ElR, the planned mitigation's inclusion ofCaltrans and
Sandag in the picture for this project as Responsible Entities is a good plan, and should
be maintained, regardless of how else the mitigation plan might be amended.
Page 7
CEQA law also requires consideration for employment of highly trained workers. The
comments herein in no way compromise or limit that goal. To the contrary, more full and
well-thought out plans to mitigate freeway traffic environmental impacts would probably
result in increased employment of highly trained workers than the mitigation plan as
currently fashioned.
Additional comment - Completion of Sandag and Caltrans studies: EIR is being
approved before consideration can be given to studies in progress.
Reference: Sandag Transportation Committee meeting, May 7, 2010, Agenda
Item #6, page 4, "Pending Transportation Committee recommendation, on May
28,2010, the Board of Directors will be asked to take action on the recommended
Alternative for incorporation into the 2050 RTP network development. The final
Study report is expected in fall 20 10. The recommendations of the Study also
will be carried forward and incorporated into the larger Caltrans 1-5 South PSR."
Additional references: accompanying presentation, pages N of 19 indicated:
2 Studies in progress (two): Caltrans, Sandag
8 Evaluation Criteria (CV Bayfront NOT indicated)
II Preferred Alternative #2 - includes: Addition of one lane (HOV) each
direction (only), Shift Center lane of freeway (I), braided ramps
14 Quantitative Evaluation Criteria (LOS (Level Of Service) NOT indicated)
17 Next Steps (Board, Sandag study, Caltrans study)
Additional comment Economic justice.
Additional comment - Future projects to consider:
Additional comment - Traffic mitigation contributes to other law compliance, e.g. GHG.
Additional comment - Not enough consideration given in EIR and for hearing to
represent concerns of 1-5 "customers", e.g. commuters. Ref: traffic oriented comments in
EIR public comment received, e.g. K. Colclasure(ADI AE), D. Krogh(AQ), N. Ardagna
(Z), others, including TRIP (W), etc. Time not allowed for additional comments at
hearing from 1-5 Class 1 users such as Colclasure, also additional input from Class I south
CV commuter "Loretta" (see email below), also Class II users in addition to Krogh, such
as Oscar Morales East J Street. These Class 1 (1-5 user daily) and Class II (1-5 user non-
daily) have to work during hours of public hearing and therefore could not attend and
submit oral comment, nor were hearing rules permissive of others speaking on their
behalf.
> From: Loretta ....
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010
> To: Kroqh, David
> Subject: Re: EIR process info - SOC, etc
>
> ... I'm sure you know that after 3 p.m. heading south on I-S,
Page 8
> you are pretty much guaranteed a slowdown anytime after the
> Coronado bridge, for sure in Natinnal City. Those of us trying
to
> get to C.V. were elated when they added the widened part, as it
at
> least guaranteed an increase in speed as one approached the 54.
> Whether Bayfront is approved or not, I anticipate that will
change
> eventually unless things are done to keep traffic flowing.
o
> ... it is worth speaking up
> ... you need to focus on things they CAN change.
>
>
Additional comment - See Sandag letter dated May] 7,20]0 (file Number 3330300)
from Susan Baldwin, senior regional planner, to Les]ey Nishihira, senior development
planner, Port of San Diego, cc: Chula Vista city manager and other Sandag staff members
notifying them that 1-5 Corridor Study to date does not comply with E1R planned
mitigation measure 4.2-8.
Supplemental disclosure concerning this commenter:
Besides being a 40 year Chula Vista resident, commenter is also a member of the Chula
Vista GMOC (Growth Management Oversight Commission) since 2003, with term
expiring 20] 2, and a member of the Sandag Regional Plmming Stakeholders Working
Group (RPSWG) since its inception last year and intending to continue through
completion of responsibilities in 20] ]. These and other community responsibilities and
involvements are sources of experience and information brought to bear on this topic;
however, commenter is expressing his own opinion, and not attempting in any way to
speak on behalf of those bodies. The GMOC does have cognizance over local roadway
traffic congestion monitoring and reporting, but does not have any cognizance relative to
freeways.
Page 9
Addenda: CEQA references (from EIR)
3.0 FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA
3.1 Purpose
CEQA requires the Port and the City to make wrinen findings of fact for each significant
environmental impact identIfied in the FElR IPub< Res. Codc sectIOn 21081: CEQA Guidelines
section 150Q 1 and 15096), The purpose of findings is t(} systematically restate the significant
effects of the Proposed Project on the environment and to determine the feasibility of mitigation
IllcasureS and altematives identified in the FEIR that would avoid or substantially lesseu the
significant effects. Once the Pon and City have advpted sufficient measures to avoid or
substantiall)' lessen a sIgniJicant impact, they are not required to adopt every mitigation measure
identified in the FElR or otherwise brought to their attention. If significant impacts remain after
application of all feasible mitigation measures, the P0I1 and City must review the alternati\<es
identified in the FEIR and determine whether they are feasible These t1ndings set l"nh the
reasons. and the evidence in SUPPOfl of. the Port and City's determinatiol1S<
32 Terminology includes:
For each si,mit1cant impact identified in the FEIR. CEQA requires the Port and City to make a
written finding reaching one or more of the following conclusions: (1) that changes or alterations
have been required in< or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant
effect (2) that the changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of anOThel
public agency and have been. or can and should be. adopted by that other agency; or (3) that
specific legal, economic, social, technological. or other considerations, including cOllsideraiiuns
for the prm<ision of emplovment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Puo. Res< Code section 21081(a):
CEQA Guidelines seetion 15001(uH<
A mitigation measure or an altelnative is considered "feasible" if it is capable of being
accumplished in a successful manner \".:'ithjn a reasonable period of time. taking into account
economic, environmental. legal. social, and technulogical facturs., 3S v\"ell as consideratiuns for
employme11l of highly trained workers (Pub. Res Code section 21061.1: CEQA Guidelines
section 1 ':;-;64).
Reasonable neriod of time:
I) Interpret reasonable in relation to the proposed timetable of the project
2) Two years - not unreasonable to:
a. determine acceptable LOS to mitigate prior impacts to, e<g< E
b< determine transportation configuration feasible to accomplish e<g< add two
lanes each way instead of one<
L Determine cost of that configuration, total cost to region, proportionate
cost to project and other local projects within the planning horizon.
Page 10
3) Five to Ten years - marshal financial means to design and implement needed
transportation infrastructure improvements.
a. Allow project to proceed to some proportionate point on that assumption.
b. No further progress allowed after that point until infrastructure
improvements actually constructed.
4) Years 11-24: see 3a, 3b.
a. Base project pacing on actual measurement of mitigation, e.g. LOS E
achieved, being maintained?
b.
Economic factors: (additional considerations)
1) Macro-impact (region): Economic trade-off analysis - entire region penalized
if significant major projects allowed to create significant major new
unmitigated cumulative impacts.
Section 5.0 Inadequacies:
sections 5.2, 5.2.1) (reffreeway Potential Significant Impact 4.2-12)
and similartly in sections 5.2.2-5.2.24 for similar freeway Potential Significant Impacts
(4.2-17-4.2-50) and so forth in any similar sections/impacts, in the document, if any)
The Pon and the City shall participate in a multijurisdictional elfort conducted by Caltrans and
SANDAG to a"ist in developing a detailed 1-) c,midor level study that will identify
transponation improvements along \\'lth fundingl including federal. state, regional~ and IoeaJ
funding sources and phasing that would rduce congestion with C"ltrans standards on the 1-5
South corridor from the SR-54 interchange to the Otay River (the ]-5 South COlTidor, hereafter
"reduce congestion" - meaning deemed clear, but phrase is non-operable -lacks clarity
as to degree
"reduce congestion with Caltrans standards" - phrase "with Cahrans standards" is
ambiguous. Is this a typ%mission? Is there a technical significance to the term "with
Cahrans standards" (if so, no definition or explanation given in EIR)
PurswlIlt to CEQA Guidelines section 15091 (a)( I ), changes or altclations have been rcguircd in,
or incorporated into. the Project which avoid or substantially lessen The potential significant to
freeway segments identitied in the FEIR: and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(0)(2),
additional such cbanges are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, not the City,
"substantially lessen" - meaning deemed clear("substantial = significant"), but phrase is
non-operable -lacks clarity as to degree - mean reduce FO to E (or D?!), F2 to FI, FI/F2
to FO?
In context of other places in section 6, where impact is identified as FI or F2 (in the
traffic study detail sections and tables, does it mean D, E. FO, or lesser degrees of F I and
F2?)
Page 11
"lessen the potential significant" -seems to imply "lessen the potential significant adverse
impacts", but meaning of phrase is ambiguous enough to wonder if it is intended to mean
anything else.
Particular reference from 4.2-47 (and other similar references in similar sections)
Implementatiun of rhe mitigation measures described above \Vault! :lvoid or substantially lessen I
the potential significant impact to freeway segments. However, because implementation of the
I) Phrase "would avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant impact"
implies substantially lessening, but neither E1R nor Findings, nor Mitigation
provide any objective evidence to support the assertion. Without study results
with committed LOS, the public cannot determine or be assured to a reasonable
degree of certainty the adequacy of the degree of mitigation, hence its degree of
harm from the project, hence its ability to defend itselffrom that harm.
2) Based on the limited evidence available as of May 2010, e.g. Sandag 1-5 South
Corridor Study recommended alternative approved by Sandag Transportation
Committee, it appears that the word 'avoid' is probably factually incorrect, or at
least an exaggeration, that clouds the public decision making process, the
preferred alternative entailing addition of a single HOY lane in each direction,
which per E1R-indicated lane capacities would be insufficient to accommodate
projected traffic volumes at Times O..n.
Page 12
I 6.0
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA lequires a lead agency to evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a proposed project.
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more indivJdual eifects which, when considered
togethec are considerable or compnund or innease other eire-cts. The individual effects may be
ch~lng:es resulting from J singJe J)r(~eCt or a number of sep~~rate projel:ts. The cumulative impact
from several proiects is the change in the environment which results from the proposed project
when added to other closely related projects. In idcntit\ing projects which may contlibute to
cumulative impacts, the CEQA allows the uSe of either a list of past, present, and reasonably
anticipated future projects. ,,'ith related or cumulative impacts. The list of "'past, present and
reasonably anticipated future projects" should include related projects which already have been
constmcted, are presently under construction, are approved but not yet under construction, and
are not yet approved but are under environmental review at the time the draft EIR is prepared.
The list must include not only proiects under review by the lead agency. but also those under
re\"iew b)' other relevant public agencies.
"list ofreasonably anticipated future projects" - since 1-5 South Corridor scrves not only
the project area within Chula Vista but a direct broader 'watershed' within Chula Vista,
and is part of an overall network that serves an indirect broader watershed including all of
Chula Vista and points further south, and at least to SR-54, and possibly even to SR-94
on the north, the list of reasonably anticipated future projects should at a minimum: (a) as
to transportation projects include: all relevant portions of the Sandag 2030 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) as most recently updated and adopted, to draft 2050 RTP
information known as of the date of adoption ofEIR, and (b) as to growth include: all
future growth within those same areas of the county as has been or may be reasonably
projected within similar timeframes (2030-2050).
"Should include related projects" is/should be construed as not limited to only the
indicated specific categories. "those under review by other relevant public agencies"
should include as to agencies Sandag and as to timing its established and current planning
time horizons (2030, 2050).
All previously stated observations about wording and other deficiencies related to
freeway related Potential Significant Impacts apply equally to section 6.1 and its
subsections, pages 282-311.
Other thoughts:
New state law requires greenhouse gas emission reductions
- Traffic contributes significantly to GHG.
- Planning a new project which exaccrbates traffic rather than bcing mitigated
moves in the opposite direction from the law.
Page 13
Environmental Justice:
Chula Vista in the area of the project, indeed all ofCV, is an "environmental justice area"
as defined by law; EJ is a topic being studied by Sandag for its 2050 RTP update.
Points relevant to Chula Vista bay front project
Freeway traffic congestion is falling unduly on the shoulders of this San Diego
County EJ community (south county).
Other areas of county have had constructed already or being planned (e.g. 1-]5
North, ]-5 North) major transportation facilities that have mitigated or will
mitigate thcir prior cumulative negative infrastructure deficit impacts.
Chula Vista, because of the smart growth implications of its WTDIF program is
equally if not more deserving of similar investment of regional transportation
resource do lIars.
South county has not had comparable degree oflong-term planning effort and
implementation as other areas.
Mitigation expenditures to date have been limited, piece-meal and lacking yet in
signilicant impact, e.g. no corridor improvements, instead relying on limited
scope expenditures under categories such as Congestion Management Program
(CMP) whereby conditions are allowed to deteriorate to a distinctively negative
condition before amelioration, e.g. SR-54E/]-805S ramp widening project.
South county, e.g. 1-5 south deserves to have its fair share of overall resources in
order to avoid unreasonable negative EJ results.
Region level analysis (e.g. by Sandag, e.g. in conjunction with 2050 RTP update)
could indicate if regional investment is comparable on bases such as, e.g. (a) per
capita, (b) per % of vote for 2004 Prop A Transnet Extension, (c) per regional
resources generated by Transnet sales tax proceeds, i.e. to indicate any historic
imbalances/inequities which could/should be retroactively ameliorated by
temporarily stepped up allocation of resources which could be used to mitigate
prior cumulative deficits in the projcct area (thus expediting regional project
timing in the projcct area to correlate to an earlier project area timeframe).
Page ] 4
This sJgnificallt unavoidable impact is considered acceptable when balanced against the speciticl
benellts of the Project set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
8.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA provides that a lead 01 responsible agency shuuld not approve a project as proposed if
there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantiaJly le"en the significant envllonmenlal elfects oflhe project. CEQA further provides,
however, that in the event ,specifIc economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or mitigation measures, 3. project Illay be approH:'d in ~rite of one or more
significant impacts thercof (Pub. Rcs. Code scction 21002). A lead or responsible agency which
\yjshes to carry out or apploye a project that has one or more unavoidable signiticant impacts is
required to balance the unavoidable adverse environmental risks of the project against its
economic, legal, sariJ), technolo8icaL or other benefits, including region-wide and state\~:ide
environmental benefits If the specific benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse
cnvironmental risks, the adverse cnvironmental risks may be considered "acceptable" The lead
or responsihle agency may then approve the project and adopt ..l "Statement of Overriding
Considemtions:' \vhich states in writing the specific reasons to support the- lead or responsible
agenev's action based on the FEIR and other information in the record (CEQA Guidelines
section 15093 and 15096( h) L
Thc Pall has found and the City hereby flllds that the Proposed Project would have the following
unavuidable signiJicallt environmental intpacts: direct significant impacts on Land/\Vater lJse
Compatibility, Trame and Circulation, Aesthetics/Visual QualIty, Air ()llality, "nd Public
Services (Library Services,; and cumulative significant impacts on Trame and Circulation.
Aesthetics/Visual Quality. Air Quality. Public Services (Library Services), and Energy. The POll
has adopted and the City bereby adopts all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these
unavoidable significant impacts. The POI1 also has considered and the City hereby considers the
Not adequate consideration of mitigation measures feasible as to freeway traffic
due to lack of direction to Sandag/Caltrans TO DATE in the performance of their
corridor studies to consider alternatives sufficient to fully or more completely
mitigate LOS impacts to achieve any specific given leveL e.g. LOS E during peak
hours, or else to provide specific documentation that such a level is so
disproportionately in excess of levels that the state is improving other portions of
the state freeway system as to make it not "capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner with a reasonable period of time"
Because llft~1ese una:-'oidable ~igni~cant impacts, the Port has ~do~ted and ~11~ C~ty l.l1~lSt adopt a I
Statement ot Overnchng ConSideratIons pursuant to CEQA GlIldellnes section 1 )()93 III order to
Page 15
Project's planned mitigation includes freeway traffic mitigations. therefore they
arc not unavoidable. Moreover, even more effective freeway traffic impact
mitigation would further reduce unavoidability.
certain significant impacts identified in the FEIR l:lnd proposed mitigation measures and
alternatives may be the suhject of differing opinion among persons who have commemed on the
Project. Accordingly, the City wishes to make clear its view that the henetits of the Project.
described belov..'., are of stIch importance to the COl11l1lllJ1lt)' as to out\veigh all significant
environmental impacts described in the FETR or suggested by participants in the public review
process.
however, such being the case does not limit members of the public from asserting
their rights of requesting judicial review of that conclusion or the facts contained
in or omitted from EIR-documented basis for that statement.
Concluding paragraph of Statement of Overriding Considerations:
The City hClS balanced the specific economic., legal., social. technological, and other benetits of
the Proposed Project, including region-\vide and statewide ell\'irunmental benefits, against its
unavOLdable signil'icJ.llt environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. For
the foregoing reasons. the City hereby finds that. pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093.
the benefits of th~ Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and. therefore.
such impacts arc considcred acceptable. Tbe City fun her finds that each of the benefits and the
fi.J[fillment of the objectiyes of the Project is determined to he a separate and independent basis
for o\erriding the unavoidable signiticant impacts of the Project Accordingly, the City hereby
adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
comments:
Notwithstanding the Stated SOC, and not disputing the stated benefits, further
EFFECTIVE mitigation of Potential Significant freeway traffic Impacts would provide:
(a) further employment opportunities over and above those stated,
(b) reduce traffic congestion which would otherwise occur,
I. saving current and future city residents and visitors TIME in their lives, one of
every person's most treasured possessions.
2. contribute further to compliance with state Jaw regarding greenhouse gas
emissions, with all the concomitant pollution reduction and global
environmental macro-impacts.
Page ] 6
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MM 4.2-8
p. 96-98
Responsible Party and Mitigation City, other cities along 1-5, the Port, Sandag, and
Timing Caltrans
Monitoring Agency Port Board of Commissioners and City Council
4.2-8 MMRP Issues
Deficiencies:
No times certain specified.
No independence of Monitoring Agency from primary Responsible Parties
Suggested alternatives:
Add Sandag staff and Caltrans staff as counterbalancing monitoring
agencies, to provide independent source publicly available reports
to decision makers of Port and City
City Traffic Engineer to evaluation and report status annually to city
council, identifYing any areas of concern.
State Coastal Commission
Other appropriate independent agency, if any
Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission
Already an established Chula Vista commission of volunteers with
terms independent of elected officials and opportunity for
independent review and evaluation.
Project specific independent citizenletc review committee
No specific direction to responsible entities Sandag and Caltrans for the standards/goals
for their study efforts, e.g. Study reports to include recommendations/tradeoffs for
attaining Levels of Service F /E/D in the project area.
Page 17
San Diego Association of Governments
TRANSPORTAT~ON COMMITTEE
May 7, 2010
AGENDA ITEM NO,; 6
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
INTERSTATE 5 SOUTH MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR STUDY
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
File Number 3330200
"itroduction
SANDAG, in collaboration with the City of Chula Vista
and Caltrans, is conducting an Interstate 5 (I-S) South
Multimodal Corridor Study (Study) to examine
potential transportation improvements between State
Route 54 (SR S4) and Main Street in the City of Chula
Vista, This Study will complement a larger effort by
Caltrans to prepare a highway Project Study Report
(PSR) for a longer segment of 1-5 from SR 15 to the
international border with Mexico. The Study was initiated in February 2009. At its September 18,
2009, meeting, the Transportation Committee recommended three alternatives for further study,
This report details the results of this analysis and the alternative recommended for inclusion in the
2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) network development,
Discussion
study Background
The Study evaluated multimodal improvements to accommodate current and future traffic demand
including freeway and interchange improvements, light rail transit (LRT) and freight rail services
running paraliel to 1-5, and bus transit/pedestrian/bicycle circulation adjacent to 1-5. This Study will
propose capital improvements with estimated costs and a conceptual phasing plan for financing
and construction_ The study effort is being led by the City of Chula Vista and SANDAG with
collaboration from Caltrans, The consultant firm AECOM has been hired to perform planning and
preliminary engineering work for the Study,
An Ad Hoc Technical Working Group was established to provide input on various aspects of the
Study The working group meets on a monthly basis and includes staff from Caltrans, the City of
Chula Vista, City of Coronado, City of Imperial Beach, City of National City, City of San Diego,
Metropolitan Transit System, Port of San Diego, San Diego Imperial Valley Railroad, Sudlngton
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, California Northern Railroad - RailAmerica, and SANDAG,
Additionally, separate Rail and Traffic Working Group meetings have been held to focus on specific
traffic and rail operational issues.
Lilt .\w Jo'",,," ~\~ 'Nl1'1\l' ~ \~/lo\D
(ff) It,~ It, kiJ 1>. ~ \1)' h IJIf/1 d
i
"
@/
~
Next Steps
... ~
Pending Transportation Committee recommendation, on May 28, 2010, the 80ard of Directors will
be asked to take action on the recommended Alternative for incorporation into the 2050 RTP
network development. The final Study report is expected in fall 2010. The recommendations of the
Study also will be carried forward and incorporated into the larger Caltrans 1-5 South PSR.
~~~
CHARLES "MUGGS" STOLL
Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
.Attachments: 1. Study Concept Alternatives
2. Project Evaluation Criteria Methodology Summary
3. Project Evaluation Criteria Rankings
Key Staff Contact: Rachel Kennedy, (619) 699-1929, rke@sandag.org
4
5tth1-, Irq h( PDY-/a- ~'.. ~Iv.;.",'~ ~-r''<J A"1 7. to 10 l-ItA- t
','3.' '
. . ~. ,
1-5 South MultHnodal
,q()rri~.9rStiid}l,. ,
)~,:~:(~~'< ',.. <__i,~'-:;:':J. ' ,"- '-.(~ '"
'Ma '7,'2010
",' ," y, "
"
.. ,'~'
.:' .
", - _'l,.
.
, .....,'
.., ."
.. " .
, ;,'
",.'
~ '.
. '. '
':_':':~r~'"
" '
, ,
" -,
. "'01TCI' ':
QiUA,YIStA.
':~.r:" ",
" .' ~ t;~';" _ _ ~ -:_
~~'i'~""
.,.--;,:_-..'.'.... ."., ' t1sItriIrttr
'". '.
"
.'project StUQY Area
~~' .
1-5, $outh
,M.lJltimod~I, ,
'Co6-idor.Study ,
,'. .' ,.', : ~:: ;./ ',;. ," .
,<, \,.. -" '" ".
Cciltrans 1-5 Southc, '
PSR/PDS,' ,':: ,"
San,Ysldro 168Ff15" " , ,
@
.-..::. "~"-
;, ~, .
.-, -
-
'," , "
,'-,- ..
. . '"':" "~".-. .~:~.; -:~:./""';', . '1'-
',SANOA'G/Chula,Vista 1-5 '
. ,,,. .~ - . . - _', '"'" w
" :CbrridoiStudy/:', '
,,, ,,"'" --'. '. "t, .
Mair{S'treeti6 SR54',.
1,;,-;
@
II-J 5a~IhCW1lQ(>fStudr
_,.,_"'_c....>..-"'""
-
e.o._.'~_"""_....
',.'~
"
~:: ...''''' ,
',:/:<J '~,'~. . ;~, :,;,~:;,,~~
,,~~,\~>' ">.:~~,~~~"~:y#-,t
1:-)
rfi)~ Hj 4;Jkh n l4tyl 006
>112-, ~(II,I1( n
::;.
{l\qy~ ~v lD;~ 6\~ h(i<v/~ M.'1 I 1, u~~
'.;,"
",..'
, Initial AiterJiati"ves Evaluated
. . ,,/, ;.::';:;, ~., ~
'..
"'
~~;.
'.'
..;~:.
<"~
lhlli.?1 Screening Evaluation Criteria
".
',.,;.
, \',.'.<~'
';'r ".~,
,..,ji.,'~",;-:,:,
\\
~.
r.
cJ
&,~41
~~ rJic~{J)
". (:
C9Qcept AI,ternative 2
i
/-0':;
;:~i:.~~~~~:~~t,,:.'."1;~~~~~1.~~~~~: ;:",
"TCI~"'all'Il,~Tl""!'klmp,.gIl.m.nb. -; .~"ri;'I,lm~rO~"",;'ta:-;::-:: "~ > ,
",,, .,',{ '." .~.I
<;:i,,,~'
'I'Iif
,o:uA._
";c,..>,,,
~; "'~:-~' ,,"
, ~~','Efff,
'~"~:"'.: >"~~~
Concept Alternative 4
I
~~.
;,..
","'~f;"
"""ii!- l ,'.-
:;~ '"
" "'. ..F...illhtShll.;;d'ihJtdM~ln~T;;";k7':MQ~n~I~TId.1I1l~.(I/I"'HD-~.':
;~~~:~:;~~~~;~oC"~'~;."
~e+eyye1)
~~
-l I l,,<IL ~01
e}Lv~ w~7 ~lIl~)
5~ifr leddtLr#(\)
8~,; Jd Y7{l>\f"
""
~~~1!~~4~~~?~:~~;';r.;}~:~:~~;,'::~'~ ~~.~:: ~ .' .
1:~,I~~~jm.~'snrj'~!?:~l~~iJ '9' ~"I)y!ro n men ta I.
U';.:~EYamfatioh;:ahCf~Studies. '
~i~~~~~.
f..f'i' v;.:~.
Ii' ~'" ,-",
~",,; ~.~ ,~:' ;r~;,n~-
~. , ~1'~j' ~~.J ~ 't?
" '
;~
~;:~~~Qiuantltative Evaluation Criteria
~~!;f~'~(~~~~;:.;:Z'.' .... ..,: . '. ...: .
;;'f~S~;:Fr~e.Y!'c,tYr.~~g "lent.papac I ty an al ys I S
~fu~~:t~~rR~:tri:':~~1g~~;'.f'"~81t::':'Y~';ri~ifi!'~'f~~. :, '.: ,,' .
l-r:ii ""..-t~"P f~"."-J;:t,,'''''co''~!iY:'''-'"'''''''''''''Y~"''~ ~. ~, '. '.
~,:::,~"{ ",.,:i,~':::-;..::~.~~r;~:r'E;<"'~I:f.:~t,.~:.;:~ ::':~"',;:_[-.;, :; ::.",--',~,~. ", .~.' .
" ,,,,,>..Wea.vmg. al1aIY~ls.'/, <'d,''';: 1';"<--:.,,-:.. c.... ..,C:. ,," ,,: ,,'
/"Jr~ ,-,/';JJ,'$'ri. "%;j:~"t}~~ '. '~Jj,',,""~:f.~"lb;t;;.;:"2;; ;:-'~:..! ~ .~'-',:t"""';J"" -~r' ~c'.:'
>:"'i:~<lntersecti'61'l'capaclty:arialysis;:~ .>;.; 'J; Y.; ';, .' :.:,."'
''l\~f.if,~~~:::,;?:::!':';,t~'""9\m "..ttt;"T' ~"t' ":.l{>~,., ";F'" "\'.",~..:I~"')"~ ".',. i!k:,' < ,
:,'<"i.tiN:;v'Z"I">t~~' 'J.";'-"Ii"~.!J.. '\ ~ .:0"'~ill ", ~."'u" ~0'" '$.: ','-~:I>h;.:.;:-;~ !:y:~:~,~;-:, ::~~;'l :/....~; ''..}~
':" ,'>' IJ .~r;C.~,.~ng~ SR~j::IDgr, '. . ;;-;r,'. ,.;.... ';,;7", ,..,~..,.",,,,;...I, ;",",
f'. -...-....,j;I~~5:....--.;,;l;"y..)~~.h'~f!J<,'::.-. 'It .v ,'" .t:"""'lJ;,' 1l~'I\."'~"'" "
r". '" iF-'~~'~~i;;-r'''';''' --;:. '-".J..~;'>!i-.~'''' .J' ..",,11 ~ _ ,.1',,:' :t<-".... .,~ ' .;~~. ',. .;<
, 'e;g~~~~U.:;g~U~~:9~~:;~JiPr,~,~.;~:~~;::~;j\,~\~~w ~'[:;'~':r~ 'j~,~ ~;::.:,',J~1,;,~rl:",
"~,;~>:<:'l'.;(~\r,rJr"r'L - . t""V;:-U;te;'L:~) ::';-';/'/~i.t.->-lrS J;....;:/' ";'.::';. :, 1\),,11:.1";0), ... "~..,,:h. '''~',.i;fiL;{;!>>.~.-.mf'",,,<~} ;',."~lji
. e'giorfaWTIralis' "0' rta" tio'''n'Mo''del''~'.'''+:.,.i.i;:A.,'':''':i''~l,~'"..'i.
"".".:J .' <-t.''''' .~.. """ ,.. '".,~,. ) ~ ~". ...J,~ .~," _' '..:, .'~....,__" ~ __ _ .,'~T: .;>,tV.',;. ',:. ,. \'~- ;-~~.' ;;. ';~; ':t .~I~,. '... .
~>." r)':~PJi>'m~.'!7';''''1 rt''''m'''"'o'--':.J;n.a'I'!''''''~ ....;.;:~ 'i;};.~}<: ,f')~ :......,~..r' i ';;:';;'.;:':'1' ;,' '(\; ",;;.::~;;);-'J.~~:J:,,~-;f ..' ::-:
~ff,...'~'i";:' I _u tr ;",~!(\".":,,,^,,~.t:":;"':'~~~'-~."',i-~...,l'jd'~;_:;::;'~.:J."'<iJ:;f-'
r?'t.~~~:1' . '.~,~~~~}~f~;>'~"~~~4~;i';i .';~' ':
""-' .--,,,,,,.,"v" "., 1. ."'~,_~._,.,~, "'~ ~n-4
I-':,:,Jt. "~~"" 'f~ ,,: ~ :: -,,:.,'~..,~>",,~'~L!::. "'::",,:..j,! ;,
. 1
L..tvJ o {5(vV1i!.. .
LN5 f"Ji cA~
11
. ,"'. ",
........ Next?~e.ps. ,.
(iJ
, "" '';:' ",
,w. " . --..' ,'" , \-. .,~:, ' >.-, "." ~ ..,', " _,
.:..~Request 'actionJ)y'~'oardp.tDirect()rs' . .
"5/28110' '. "",'..":",:.' :.
,,' ".~ ':. " ':c..=^ ':: ; .". n " ': ''''>, ',: " ,: "'.. .- ,,: ,^
, . ." '. !11c,prgClrate into2Q50'RtPnetW6ik~ ,....
, ';development <>',>" ',. ....
":;;'..::;:::: ' " ".-,- -:.: - '.' _ ' ':'...;",;.t" . " ',".' , '.' .'
. ,..',.:.Caltra.n.~s. :.Fs 50.lJt. h. 'PSR/POS,' ""
. . '<J.... ' <.-,.f ....,'z' H . ,,';/,
f' (P~yeloppriofitizatioii,,"', . ....
'i:ecom!U~iidations for Alternative
.,,'COrnPQrierits,', ..' , .., . . . "
~, ""
. .'
.".'
, ~",
> ;; ,>. :
"'..
" "
'. ~ \ ~' " ','
,'. ,"
....,.:.i,;:, .l::~~.~.P~,.:;; \
'" .' " (,1)
':)~l~c~mmendation
" ,
";,' "
.: ';.' The Transportation Committee is asked
,';..;.torecofnrriend that the Boaidof Oire'ctors
,'_ ,. ',..': .' T'..", - "I "'. . ',,,-"',',. ' ,
'..', apl:>fo:ve 1,~5:50uth rJlllltimod.a,lCorridor
...$tudy,Alt~rn.ative 2fpr incl:usi()~)nthe ' ,.'
'deve!Qpment .of the20.50':Flegional' .
'.Transpbrt?t.i~n P'lar'. " .\"" :, '.' ;"
\ , ',,'.' <'
" '-',
. ,"'.r,
','
>,.' '
:\'..
',"""
."
", . "
,. .
.",:,';';,',
,_ '~w,
:::.'1:-"
",::-~,:~rt.":r~:'~ :::"~:, ".
"-'~r'" '....,..
_~..~.... "...,." :,'''' Ifr!b-',::
-l-lo.
c
ro
-
c..
!..... b.O 0 ro
OJ ~
C M Vl
.-
-I---J .- 0 >
V') '- ...c ro
ro ro N ttO -
0 ~
~ OJ !..... ...c
, :::.:::: U
I 00
""0 ...
+J M .- ~
u > c
C ro OJ
.- >- 0 ""0
0 - .-
..c ro Vl
!..... OJ
4- ~ ~ cr::
>- a..
ro
CO
>
U
,
Pre-existing Conditions
TABLE 4.2.17
J'hase I CnllllitinllS l'l'ce\\a) Se[;I11('lIt Lewl nf Scnkc SlIIllll1al')'
, - Phase I Baseline Phase I Baseline PIllS Proiect
(; ll. .0-
J! 'C
-;~ ...'!..
c S _c
,2 j '" "'-
- a. .:!! u u ..
\l ~ e l'! Pe a k-H our Peak-Hour vIe a.'1!. .!!'. ~
." .. V,'C e ~!!;
Fr..wav S""menl Q 8: .~ .=i ADTI Volume' R<Jlio' LOS ADT Volume Ralio LOS a. IMPACT?
Inle"lalil 5 /" '"
S\a~ l{,:JJ11 54 1) E St1!l1 N9 AM 4M li;1;JOO 7.990'\ 0.993 E 173.736 8.448 1):)56 FO 9.438 5 DIRECT
SO PM 4M 8557 1.0PJ Fa 9.048 1,131 FO DIRECT
E St1111'J 11St';11 N9 AM 4M 184.ao' 8.9.17 1.118 Fa 188.595 9.171 1.146 FO 4.595 2 C UMULATfIIE
SO PM 4M 9.583 1.100 FO 9.822 1228 FO CUMULATfIIE
H Sh,)\ lJJ St1!l1 NO A'~ 4M 100.00' 9.045 1.131 Fa 189.526 9216 1.152 FO 3.526 2 C UMULATfIIE
S9 PM 4M 9.687 1211 Fa 9.871 1234 FO CUMULATfIIE
J St'J'lI1) L Slr'))1 NO A'~ 4M l00.1Of 9.050 1.131 Fa 191.414 9.311 1.164 FO 5.374 3 C UIlULATfIIE
S9 PM 4M 9.692 1212 Fa 9.972 1246 Fa CUMULATfIIE
L SI"J1IlJ ?Jcrr~r St111 N9 A\~ 4M 176200 8568 I 1.071 Fa 181.574 8.830 1.104 FO 5.375 3 C UPWLATfIIE
S9 PM 4'~ I'\.. 9.Wl' 1.141 Fa 9,456 1.182 Fa CUMULATfIIE
- . . .. - . - .'
An. A.'e";q> '-"I, Tnp;.LOS - t.o..!o. e......Ul.IB . Nc.-..xw'd. 5~. "".m>>.nd&:)U~"~, iOmw,.fbm.rd A",oo.r.es 2m8,
90~ 'i;Jt.BS in:le<ra fre(!h-i1f;~err.s C9e:'ajrga~LOS E <<F, Bo~ and sMded'/a"R; nd~':e rti~~;i '~Ca"l': 'rnp.a.;t
'TneA,:n,."O" , ' J'.. ::oe:c.~jrg'.ou~pn:r" b'/TIe r0.11a' €?3m1a-r.o, 1'3n5pX41o.1.
.. (.-ror ',ou-ne ca'oJ . . " ,~ \A:' .
'TMca;>.",-i! caol .. 2.0')J AJ1 r<< .11.rine. iiI)) AJT pe-!-I:)I/ I.... .&)) AJT per II_.rd 12)) AJT per ....;131.'...... i~1: ,1"nlno;A:.',IJ~; HOV: H9'>,Ooo~<1' Ve'icl.; M.:~" I
:X.' "'" - . . ,. ,,,,
'p,yCl>Il".i>}ed.1cr;; fr".a'/ip! geni>l3!od by no P"l<101
. Peak Hour Volumes - indicate need for an additional lane
· LOS's -FO goes to F2 by end
. Project Trips: incrementally Phase I significant, but entire project over it's entire
lifetime, does represent a significant proportion
Ultimate Conditions
TABLE 4.2-32
Phasc I V Conditions Frct'way Scgmcnt Lcvcl of Scrvicc Sunllmlr~'
I '"
I c. b-
I 'E:: I E::
>- '"
'" t; u
'" I ~
c I '" '"
'" Phase IV '0 n.
...J ~ C.
0 5 Baseline Phase IV Baseline Plus Pro'eel n. ! .;:
E:: ~ 0 ~ >-
:8 '" :c Peak. Peak. '" U
.0
<..> E -'" '" '"
~ '" Hour VIC Hour VIC '" '0
=> '" .<= ~
Freeway Segment i5 z n. ADT' Volume' Ratio LOS ADT' Vol ume' Ratio LOS n. n. IMPACT?
Interstate 5 - - ./ .........
State Route 54 to E Street NB 4M A.M. 223,900 , 10,~ 1.361 F2 It26,532 11,016 1.377 F2 2,686 1 / DIRECT' "
S8 4M P.M 11,661 \ 1.451 F2 11,7 98 1.475 F2
E Street ta N8 4M A.M. 216,200 10,513 1.3 4 F1 ;11 8,432 10,622 1.328 Fl 2,232 1 DIRECT'
H Street S8 4M PM. 11,260 1. 7 F2 11,376 1.422 F2
H Street ta N8 4M A.M. 229,900 11,179 1. 7 F2 2 1,852 11,274 1.409 F2 1,952 1 DIRECT'
J Street S8 4M P.M. 11,973 1. 97 F2 12,075 1.509 F2
J Street ta N8 4M A.M. 236,000 11,476 1. 5 F2 ~ 7,854 11,566 1.446 F2 1,854 1 DIRECT'
L Street S8 4M P.M. 12,291 1.5 6 F2 I 12,387 1.548 F2
L Street to Palamar Street N8 4M A.M. 224,100 \ 10,897 J 1.3 6\ F2 1'225,954 10,988 1.373 F2 1,854 1 " DtRECT' /
S8 4M P.M. 11,67.1' 1.459' F2 ~ 11,768 1.471 F2 '- 7'
- -
SOURCE. Klmley Horn and ASSOCiates 2008.
ADT = Average Daily Trips: LOS = Level of Service: NB = Northbound: SB = Southbound
Botd values indicate freeway segments operating at LOS E or F. Bold and shaded values indicate project significant impact.
1 The capacity is calculated as 2,000 ADT per Mainline, 1,600 ADT per HOV lane, 1,600 ADT per ML and 1,200 ADT per auxiliary lane 1M: Mainline, A: Aux., HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle, ML:
Managed Lanes Ex. 4M+2A=4 Mainl ne + 2 Aux). Capacity for all segments is 8,000.
'The ADT volumes were estimated by applying a growth factor to e~sting volumes provided by Caltrans.
'Peak.hour v~ume calcutated by: (ADT'K'D)/Truck Factor.
4 Percentage of total freeway trips generaled by the project.
5 In an effort to be conservative, the impact determination is a product of Phase I, II, 111 and IV project trips.
. Peak Hour Volumes - up 40-50% indicate need for two additional lanes
LOS's - F2 VS. FO at beginning
Project Trips: over entire project lifetime, a significant proportion
.
.
(~DAlG,"" .
. , .~,\........~~~-r_
4018Street. Suite 800 Mav 17, 2010
SUBJECT: Chula Vista Bayfront Master PI~n and Port Master Plan
Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) received the Final EIR
for the Chul~ Vista Bayfront Master Plan in April 2010, and Vlould like to thank
you for the responses to comments made on our original comment letter
(August 17, 2008) on the Draft Em. In our review of the Final EIR, however, we
have identified some mitig~tion language th~t we would like to clarify, which
is contained in Table 1-9 of the Executive Summmy in Traffic and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 4.2-8 and is related to the Interstate 5 (1-5) South
Multimodal Corridor Stud
Mitigation Measure 4.2-8 lists the 1-5 Study as a mitigation measure for some
of the project's traffic impacts. The description of some of the items outlined
as Study components are inconsistent with the method in which the Study w~s
conducted.
SANDAG appreciates the participation of the Port of San Diego in the Study,
which identifies tr orridor within the City
of Chu a and analyzes different multimodal transpor alternatives
prove the mobility of people and goods within the study area, tudy
does not, "however, address the specific impacts of the Bayfront Pro)
While" the 'Study does Identify ,a number of transportation projects for the
corridor, it does not include parameters for fair-share contributions, as
suggested in 'Mitigation Measure' 4.2-8, Also, it does not include each
participating entity's responsibilities at)d commitment to mitigate the impacts
created by the proposed" Bayfront Project, as is stated in Mitigati
ure 4.2-8. projects identified in the Study will be considered the
nctwor lopment of the 20S0 Regional Transportation PI tlitionaily,
these improvemen y the Cily of Chula
Vista into their Western Traffic D~v~lopmenllmpact Fe~.
File Number 3330300
Observation:
Study is a
work in
progress and
further work
is required for
it to fulfill
planned
Mitigation
Method
4.2-18
Crossroads
II
RESIDENTS WORKING TOGETHER TO KEEP CHULA VISTA A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE
May 18, 2010
r fe-fer uJaJr- y
ffAhler: ~omvY1&'\-fd
6/1 <6(1 'D f fM
Board of Port Commissioners
Chula Vista City Council members
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
SUBJECT: Final EIR, Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
In addition to comments submitted verbally at the public hearing, Crossroads II
submits the following comments as part of the public record. We do not believe
the Final EIR satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act in several respects. Among these: The EIR fails to describe feasible
alternatives to identified significant adverse impacts in meaningful detail and/or to
adopt mitigation measures or to justify their non-adoption. A couple of examples:
Public Library Services: The EIR fails to identify feasible mitigation
measures to provide adequate library services, such as
constructing a new library or adding space to existing city libraries.
Nor does the EIR justify or explain why such mitigation measures
are not included as part of the project.
Public Fire protection Services: The Harbor Park alternative results
in significant impacts to fire protection services only because the
city will not commit to acquire a 2-acre lot at the comer of J St. and
Bay Blvd from the Port. However, the city does commit to acquire
this property in connection with the preferred alternative. No
justification why the city will not commit to the same fire protection
services for the Harbor Park alternative as it does for the preferred
alternative is given.
In addition, the Parks and Recreation analysis is faulty in that it counts only the
proposed residential units and the proposed number of hotel rooms when
calculating the need for new parkland. The report neglects to count those living
on boats in boat slips as generators of the need for parkland. Just because the
city has no municipal code park dedication requirement for people living on their
boats doesn't mean they don't generate parkland requirements. At least some of
the boat slips should be counted as permanent residential or transient lodging
because people are permitted to and do live on their boats.
Further, Section 15088 of the California state CEQA guidelines requires that in
responding to our comments on the Revised Draft EIR your ...written response
shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g.,
-... _..
~c;\ ~q,[-
PlA1iJ\ L~ Co)o/1 mvtt s
Llll(\>
S/t'B;J 0 lf1vr
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Port District board and city council, David Krogh, 40 year
resident ofChula Vista, residing on East J Street. Seven year member ofChula Vista
Growth Management Oversight Commission, annually monitoring traffic and other
things; member of the Sandag Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group for the
20 I I Regional Transportation Plan Update. Speaking for myself, not for those groups.
We have an excellent project, but let's face it, we have a major issue here. I'm here to
speak to you about the elephant in the room, and that's freeway traffic; the EIR says it:
Significant Adverse Impact, Unmitigable.
Unmitigable, but we have a plan to mitigate it; that makes sense somehow under CEQA I
guess. The plan reads pretty good, if we follow it. Might even win an award, but we're
not following it too well so far. More on that in a minute.
However, if you just sign off on this project today, you will be doing the residents of
Chula Vista a disservice, because the EIR is inadequate. Yes, you can tell that if nobody
does anything, the traffic situation will be absolutely terrible. lt will be so terrible that we
have to have grades to distinguish degrees of Failure ... FO, FI, F2. But NOWHERE can
you tell if the planned mitigation has a serious hope of 1-5 in the project area ever having
a decent level of service.
If you would be prepared to accept a partial degree of mitigation in return for a nice
project for Chula Vista, shouldn't you be able to tell what that partial degree is, so you
can at least have some degree of assurance that it won't be worse than you might fear?
Yes. Can you tell? No. Does the public deserve to be able to tell? Yes.
I prepared the following comments a couple of days ago: The mitigation, the planned
study? It's already been done and brought to the Sandag Transportation Committee a
week and a half ago, and it will go to the board later this month. The preferred option has
been picked, but years from now, when it ever gets done, it will be barely adequate to
well serve the traffic we have today, much less the 50% increase that will occur over the
life of this project.
But how can that be? Well, seven alternatives were considered, narrowed to three, then
one. But the study's not REA LL Y done. Do we know what level of service that
alternative will provide to Chula Vista and this project in the short and long term? No.
Shouldn't we have that information before we choose to blindly rely that the degree of
mitigation will be sufficient? Yes. And there is an over-arching Caltrans study in process
too. Is it done? No. But both are supposed to be completed in the near future, and then we
could make an informed decision. So why are we rushing today?
I've provided a copy of a recent Sandag agenda item which indicates all this.
r j>",\ Hh, i'_j Ul':~. ,;::"L
5/18/1 0 - CVBMP ElR hearing - Comments - Krogh
Thc study status highlights are:
# What Highlights
1 Presentation, #2 Sandag & Caltrans studies
2 Prcscntation,#8 Evaluation Criteria (CV Bay Front NOT included)
3 Prcsentation,# 11 Prefcrrcd Alternative #2 incl udes
Add I Lane HOV each way (only
Shift the freeway center line (!) (requires rebuilding bridges!!)
Braidcd ramps (magic, hopefully)
4 Presentation,# 14 Quantitative Evaluation Criteria (No LOS included)
5 Prescntation,#17 Next Stcps - Sandag Board 5/28, Sandag, Caltrans finish studies
6 Item #6, page 4 Sandag Transportation Committee May 7, 2010, Itcm #6
1-5 South Corridor Study Recommendation of Best Alternative
At this point, 1 need to modify my prepared remarks for some late breaking news. A
letter was just sent from Sandag to the Port ycsterday indicating that the Study to date is
NOT in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.2-8.
Now some civic boostcrs have been saying: "This is not the beginning, this is the end,
we've bcen working on this for ycars; now we need to just get behind it amI get going."
No, we are still doing our due diligence, or should be, about traffic.
Pleasc do not too hastily approvc things today. Ask harder questions about freeway
traffic. Finish doing your due diligence, so that Chula Vista and South County will not
have to endurc siguificantly worse traffic for years and years to come.
Make sure the plan that will come out of the Sandag study will do enough on the freeway
to sufficiently mitigate, so that new development will pay enough to cover its fair share
of the infrastructure investment we really need to achieve tolerable Levcls of Service, so
we don't create more cumulative infrastructure deficits.
5/18/1 0 - CVBMP ErR hearing - Comments - Krogh
: .
San Diego Association of Governments
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
May 7,2010
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
INTERSTATE S SOUTH MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR STUDY
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
File Number 3330200
"'Rei:orjJm"i,naationcj~=cccc:;i.o';~.2'"ct=~'~
_.. . _. ._~-.~~~~~-_."~.~-,,~.=t---,_~,_~-;'i'-"-'----~"_~;';~~~~~__~-~'~~-'~~._-._~_.=~=~_~
=i'-;::;;-~ ~=_o'~=_~_"_~_~",,~_~_.=--..~;o=_;~_"_~~.~"~."="~_=~=~"~~"__~~,__.=,~~~,.==
~::.:;::;:~;;";:~~~::~:i'?--:~:'-==~~=~~'-~:~:?:~~~~~~-;:~~-:'::-~~~
llt~~ii~~~ll\if~~f~~;{~
~~Q~(ii6"ci~:5t-g~y;:i~6li~llii:i\t~IJI~1~~.
li~i~1i~tll1Ji!J~~
Introduction
SANDAG, in collaboration with the City of Chula Vista
and Caltrans, is conducting an Interstate 5 (lc5) South
Multimodal Corridor Study (Study) to examine
potential transportation improvements between State
Route S4 (SR 54) and Main Street in the City of Chula
Vista. This Study will complement a larger effort by
Caltrans to prepare a highway Project Study Report
(PSR) for a longer segment of 1-5 from SR 15 to the
international border with Mexico. The Study was initiated in February 2009. At its September 18,
2009, meeting, the Transportation Committee recommended three alternatives for further study.
This report details the results of this analysis and the alternative recommended for inclusion in the
20S0 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) network development.
Discussion
Study Background
The Study evaluated multimodal improvements to accommodate current and future traffic demand
including freeway and interchange improvements, light rail transit (LRT) and freight rail services
running parallel to 1-5, and bus transit/pedestrian/bicycle circulation adjacent to 1-5. This Study will
propose capital improvements with estimated costs and a conceptual phasing plan for financing
and construction. The study effort is being led by the City of Chula Vista and SANDAG with
collaboration from Caltrans. The consultant firm AECOM has been hired to perform planning and
preliminary engineering work for the Study.
An Ad Hoc Technical Working Group was established to provide input on various aspects of the
Study. The working group meets on a monthly basis and includes staff from Caltrans, the City of
Chula Vista, City of Coronado, City of Imperial Beach, City of National City, City of San Diego,
Metropolitan Transit System, Port of San Diego, San Diego Imperial Valley Railroad, Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, California Northern Railroad - RailAmerica, and SANDAG.
Additionally, separate Rail and Traffic Working Group meetings have been held to focus on specific
traffic and rail operational issues.
C'li1w J,j",," f,~ Nkl'ljI.' ~ \~llo\b
@ ~,h Ii; k15 1l. ~ 11>' h f/lf/Jd
Initially, seven build alternatives and a no build alternative were evaluated utilizing quantitative
and qualitative criteria which utilized SANDAG transportation modeling data and evaluated each
alternative's ability to: serve peak-period trips, provide congestion relief and travel time savings,
serve goods movement, support Smart Growth plans, as well as minimize environmental impacts
and capital and operating/maintenance costs. At its September 18, 2009, meeting, the
Transportation Committee recommended that Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 move forward for additional
study (see Attachment 1).
. Alternative 1 contains many improvements included in the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected
revenue scenario including the addition of two 1-5 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes;
freeway access improvements (auxiliary lanes and ramp metering); bus rapid transit (BRT)
Route 640; increased local bus frequency; South line rail track improvements; rail grade
separations at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street; increased transit parking facilities,
and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. This alternative has an estimated capital cost of
$221 million and an annual operating and maintenance cost of $610,000.
. Alternative 2 builds on the improvements contained in Alternative 1 with the modification
of shifting the 1-5 centerline to the west and the addition of a braided ramp system to
improve interchange spacing and function. Alternative 2 has an estimated capital cost of
$430 million and an annual operating and maintenance cost of $650,000.
. Alternative 4 offers additional transit improvements. This alternative includes the two
HOV lanes, rail grade separations, increased local bus service, and freeway access
improvements included in Alternative 1 but also adds a third main rail line which would be
used for peak-period, peak-direction express Trolley service and freight rail at night. This
alternative also includes two additional arterial rapid bus routes which would provide
east-west bus service. Alternative 4 has an estimated capital cost of $416 million and an
annual operating cost of $2,761,000.
Alternative Evaluation and Ranking
A number of technical studies and an initial environmental assessment were conducted for the
no build and three build alternatives. The SANDAG regional transportation model was run for the
years 2020 and 2030 to obtain travel and mode share data. These results were extrapolated for the
2035 study horizon year. The Traffic Technical Report analyzed this information and provides
detailed traffic analysis for the freeway, interchanges, and local streets within the study area.
The initial environmental assessment analyzed the potential effect of the build and no build
alternatives on air quality, biological resources, community access, cultural resources, geologic!
seismic hazards, hazardous waste/materials hydrology, land use, noise, paleontology, visual
resources, and water quality. Information from this study was integrated into the qualitative criteria
utilized to rank the alternatives.
A detailed LRT/freight rail improvements project initiation document (PID) was prepared to analyze
the proposed third rail line for LRT/freight rail included in Alternative 4. The PID also studied grade-
separated rail crossings at E, H, and Palomar Streets, both with and without a third rail line. The PID
provided the recommended third rail configuration included in Alternative 4.
2
Cost estimates which include capital, operating, and maintenance costs were prepared for the three
build alternatives.
A more detailed second set of criteria was utilized to evaluate the no build and three build
alternatives. The quantitative and qualitative criteria analyzed capacity of various components of
the transportation system, cost-effectiveness, natural resource and community impacts, promoting
smart growth and multimodal balance. The criteria methodology and alternative rankings are
detailed in Attachments 2 and 3.
Summary of Findings
The alternatives were evaluated, scored, and ranked utilizing quantitative and qualitative criteria
with data provided from the recent technical efforts. The alternatives ranked as follows, from
highest to lowest: Alternative 2, Alternative 4, Alternative 1, and No Build.
Alternative 2, which includes the addition of two HOV lanes, freeway access improvements
(auxiliary lanes and ramp metering), a braided ramp interchange system, BRT Route 640, increased
local bus frequency, South Line rail track improvements, rail grade separations at E Street, H Street,
and Palomar Street; increased transit parking facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
scored well in all categories and outranked the other alternatives in the areas of freeway ramp
capacity, weaving, and interchange spacing.
Alternative 4, which contains the addition of a third main rail line which would be used for peak-
period, peak-direction express Trolley service and freight rail at night as well as two additional east-
west Arterial Rapid bus routes, scored well in most categories. It ranked lower that Alternative 2 in
the categories of ramp capacity, weaving, and interchange spacing, but scored higher in the areas
of multimodal transportation, increased potential for goods movement, and promoting smart
growth. While Alternative 4 performed well in a number of categories concerns remain as to the
feasibility of constructing and operating express Blue Line Trolley service both within the study area
and along the remainder of the route. Operational improvements are planned for freight rail
through the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) Program, which are anticipated to satisfy
capacity needs for the foreseeable future. Projected increases in Trolley ridership and freight rail
demand within the study area analysis did not justify the addition of a third line within the horizon
year of this Study.
Alternative 1 scored highest in cost-effectiveness and natural resources and community impacts but
would not result in the same level of benefits in systems capacity and performance.
Staff met with management staff from the City of Chula Vista, Caltrans, Metropolitan Transit
System, and SANDAG on March 24, 2010, and with the Study Ad Hoc Working Group on April S,
2010, and shared the results of the analysis. Both groups supported the recommendation of
Alternative 2 for inclusion in the 20S0 RTP network development. It also was agreed that additional
transit routes serving the study area could be added as per the recommendations of the ongoing
Urban Area Transit Strategy. The arterial rapid bus routes included in Alternative 4 also could be
incorporated into the recommended alternative.
3
(i)/
~
Next Steps
-
Pending Transportation Committee recommendation, on May 2S, 2010, the Soard of Directors will
be asked to take action on the recommended Alternative for incorporation into the 2050 RTP
network development. The final Study report is expected in fall 2010. The recommendations of the
Study also will be carried forward and incorporated into the larger Caltrans 1-5 South PSR.
~~~
CHARLES "MUGGS" STOLL
Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Study Concept Alternatives
2. Project Evaluation Criteria Methodology Summary
3. Project Evaluation Criteria Rankings
Key Staff Contact: Rachel Kennedy, (619) 699-1929, rke@sandag.org
4
+-'
C
"
E
.r;
u
'"
+-'
:;(
'U
=='
o I?='
d
m
o
z
I
;i I
/I;
i
o
z
w
c.:>
W
...I
GI
~
fI~
~
c(
olS
U
I-
!:!-
a.
o
+-'
'"
.5
III
?:-
u
:;::;
III
E
o
+-'
::l
c( Q;
"C i!!
c +-'
III '"
~
III
E
.2
III
0..
l.f)
(/)
+-'
C
Ql
~ e
> +-'
o C
~ 0
a. U
.E .>:
u
~
I-
"C
Ql
.!::l
m
~
+-'
C
Ql
U
.>:
u
III
~
I-
Ql
~
C
'0;
:2:
!!:
u
I-
<<
<<
r----u. -----
(C(Q)0I1~~[P)~ A~~~[fOl1@~~~~ ~
I
'~'-
-.-......;::, '
-,. "-"'~,.~" "'-,
-~'--- :,~.
.""".
k.:'-.:.-~.' :~T "t.~".... :' -
~. .,.
~" ' . tI'!:/ \ _. .
-I-'~~:--' - ,
~ p ',,.
.2J ~ ~ ~
0::1 _,r
~I<
o
.Q
<>
;<:
U
-
Cll
:;:
LEGEND
.SF + 2HOV
'Access Improvements (Ramp
. . Metering and Aux Lanes)
~~separations -~.
=
.TCIF Mainline Track Improvements-
'Increase Bus Frequency -
.Mean High Tide Line (MHT) - -
'BRT Route 640 (2 In-Line Stations) =
. ~I~
'Increased Parking Facilities ~
C11l'Of
CHULA ViSfA
'Arteriallmprovements
6
~ m flP,BFiRJ1lJ:iWj~
~~~~
@{)
IMlmJriil
1---
~'"", '-
Concep~ P\Jternative 2
I
~,
--"'-~
";,~
-'-
NOflCAl!i
LEGEND
.8F + 2HOV (Shift CL 1-5 West)
.Braided Ramp System .'
.Grade Separations '--
=
-Increase Bus Frequency - -Mean High Tide Line (MHT) - -
-BRT Route 640 (2 In-Line Stations)=
-Increased Parking Facilities ~,!~
'Arteriallmprovements - ~
CHULA VlSl'A
~
~~
',,~JCIF Mainline Track Improvements ---'
.'r.
'.J;.,.,
7
. ~- .~.
--.----... ---- .---.... -,---_._- -- - -- - --_.~
Concept Alternative 4
I
:~
. ~~ - ;..~~.
~
'No8CM1:
,;,~~~~~;~:~~;~',~~~1_:~?:~~~~t
0'.0,..0","- 'Rf' . - ~o,
~~~~~t+.:~r".;, .,~4;;-
'oaF + 2HOV (Shift CL 1-5 West)
oFreight Shared Third Mainline Track - oMean High Tide Line (MHT) - -
oGrade Separations
LEGEND
olncrease Bus Frequency-
oAccess Improvements (Ramp Metering and
Aux Lanes) oART Route 627 and Route 635 c~L:
~
~. hird.LR. T ,1\'I,~inlineT.ra.ck (Express Trolley) ~ olncre~sed Parking Facilities ~
. ,,'" ',. ""_ oArtenallmprovements - CHUlAVlSl'A
, . '.,,, ':. '-.' '. '. . a
~~
[ff{)
fiJ:ftrtrns
Attachment 2
Quantitative Criteria Methodology
Freeway segment capacity analysis: This criterion evaluates average a.m. peak, p.m. peak, and
daily freeway volume to capacity (vie) ratios. The freeway segment capacity analysis methodology is
outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. The inputs to the procedure are as follows:
One-way total volume on freeway
. Number of lanes
. Hourly capacity expressed in passenger cars per hour per lane
. Percent Trucks
The procedure produces a vie ratio for each alternative. The build alternative vie ratios are
compared with the no build alternative to determine which alternative achieves the optimal level of
service.
Ramp capacity analysis: This criterion evaluates average a.m. peak, p.m. peak, and daily vie ratios
for all freeway ramp junctions along the mainline of the study area. The methodology used is
similar to the freeway capacity analysis procedure described above. However, the hourly capacity
proposed for ramps is 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane, which corresponds with guidance from the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
The procedure produces a vie ratio for each alternative. The build alternative vie ratios are
compared with the no build alternative to determine which alternative achieves the optimal level of
service.
Weaving analysis: This criterion evaluates average a.m. peak, p.m. peak, and daily vie ratios for all
auxiliary lanes and outside lanes in the study area for 2035. The weaving analysis methodology is
outlined in Topic 504 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. The inputs to the procedure include
the following:
Hourly traffic volumes for the freeway mainline, on-ramp, off-ramp, and for through traffic
traveling from the on-ramp to the off-ramp
. Percentage of through vehicles in the outside mainline lane within the weaving section
Percentage of on-ramp and off-ramp traffic present in the auxiliary lane and the outside
mainline lane at various points along the weaving section, based on figures and tables in the
Highway Design Manual
. Hourly capacity expressed in passengers cars per hour per lane
Percent trucks
This procedure produces a vlc ratio for each alternative. The build alternative vlc ratios are
compared with the no build alternative to determine which alternative achieves the optimal level of
service.
Intersection capacity analysis: This criterion measures average a.m. peak, p.m. peak, and daily
delays for the current and maximum possible intersection configurations in the study area. The
delays are compared with the no build scenario to determine which alternative provides the
greatest reduction in delays at intersections.
9
Interchange Spacing: This criterion analyzed all freeway - to - freeway interchanges and local
street interchanges in the study area to determine which alternatives meet the mandatory design
standard for minimum interchange spacing (2 miles) per Section S01.3 of the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual.
Cost-Effectiveness Index: This criterion weighed the total expected project cost against the total
expected benefit for each of the alternatives. The annualized overall cost was measured as
annualized capital cost + operations and maintenance. Project benefit was measured as:
1. The change in annual person hours traveled compared to the no build scenario.
2. The change in daily average speed compared to the no build scenario.
Regional Transportation Model-Multimoda/: Average Daily Traffic forecasts were obtained from
model runs of the SANDAG Regional Transportation Model for the no build and build alternatives.
Travel analysis for single occupant vehicles, high occupant vehicles, transit, school bus and non-
motorized modes was conducted for existing (2009) conditions, Opening Year (2020) conditions,
and Horizon Year (203S) conditions to determine which alternative contributed to the greatest
reduction in single occupant vehicle trips and greatest use of alternative modes.
Qualitative Criteria Methodology
Natural Resource Impact: An Initial Environmental Assessment (lEA) was conducted to identify
the potential impacts of the no build and build alternatives on air quality, biological resources and
cultural resources. Each alternative was ranked under each category on a scale of 20-100 based on
the following potential impact levels:
. High potential impact (20 points)
. Moderate potential impact (40 points)
. Low potential impact (60 points)
. No impact (80 points)
. No impactlbenefit (100 points)
The totals were added for each category and weighted (100 points possible) for each alternative to
determine which scenario has the least potential impact to natural resources.
Potential for Increased Goods Movement: This criterion evaluated the potential that each
alternative provided for increased goods movement. Projects received a High (100 points), Medium
(80 points) or Low (60 points) score based on the following criteria:
. Low = Enhances goods movement capacity through additional freeway capacity. Includes
TCIF South Rail Freight Improvements.
. Medium = Provides measurable improvements to current goods movement capacity (through
higher freeway capacity due to freeway and braided ramp improvements)
. High = Provides significant improvements to current goods movement capacity (through
additional freeway capacity and additional third rail mainline track)
10
,-
Promotes Smart Growth: This criterion evaluated each alternative's potential for promoting and
supporting Smart Growth principles. Projects received a High (100 points), Medium (80 points) or
Low (60 points) score based on the following criteria:
. Low = Supports smart growth
. Medium = Promotes smart growth via freeway improvements and enhanced transit,
including Bus Rapid Transit
. High = Significantly increases smart growth potential via freeway improvements and
enhanced transit, including arterial rapid transit and light rail transit (Express Trolley)
Community Impact: Similar to the natural resource impacts, the Initial Environmental Assessment
identified a variety of potential land use and community impacts. The no build and build
alternatives were ranked under each category on a scale of 20-100 based on the following potential
impact levels:
. High potential impact (20 points)
. Moderate potential impact (40 points)
. Low potential impact (60 points)
. No impact (80 points)
. No impact/benefit (100 points)
The totals were added and weighted (100 points possible) for each alternative to determine which
scenario has the least potential impact to land use and community.
11
.
Attachment 3
1-5 South Multimodal Corridor Stud v
Alternative Evaluation - DRAFT
SUMMARY
QUANTITATIVE
OUALlTATlVE
Freeway Regional Potential for
Segment Intersection Cost Transportation Increased Goods
Capacity Ramp Capacity Weaving Capacity Interchange Effectiveness Model Natural Resource Movement Promotes Smart Community
Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Spacing Index Multimodal Impact CapaCity Growth Impact TOTAL
11OOPoinl'PO"bel {lOOPOintspo"ible) IIQQpontspo..iblel llOOPoint'Possiblel (100 Points Po"iblel (looo,><"Uoo");,(o\ \100~oIm.Pc..;b'.1 !100PoinUPo"iblej 1100 Poi"tlI Po"ible) l100PointsPo..lblel (100P~ntsPo..lbl.) 11,100 P",nts possible)
No Build Alternative 0 0 " 0 0 0 46 " " 60 " 324
Alternativel-Modified 60 " " go 0 ,"0 77 73 60 go 66 676
!ill
Alternative2-Modified
RTPwlth Shifted I-SCt 60 60 80 100 67 80 70 62 80
andlnterchaneeScacing 80 57 796
Imcrovements
Alternative 4. Modified
RTP with lRT Third Main 60 40 40 100 0 80 81 70 100 100 63 734
UneTrJCk
BEST A.lTERNA.1WE FOR Alternatives 1,2, Alternative 2 Alternative 2 & AJternative2 Alternative 1 Alternatfve4 Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 No Build
., Alternative 2 Alternative 4
EACH CRITERIA Alternative
Pr<p"edB"AfCOM
1011
4/6/10
12
5"ln1.-, In l4 pav-/..-1l.. tPlwv,/f/-a.- ~fi"J A~ 7. Lo ID l.Jo..- t
1-5 South Multimodal
Cor,ridor Study
May 7,2010
~I~
- /.........
= '-..........,'~AG
""'"
0flJlA VISTA
Li6'
lirItmns
Project Study Area
1-5 South
Multimodal
Corridor Study
Caltrans 1-5 South @
PSR/PDS
San Ysidro to SR 15
"
....:~
'SANDAG/Ghula Vista 1-5
Corridor Study
Main Street to SR 54 @
!'=
I~SouthCDmdOl"Study
_'5"""'" M",,""~eoo-Sbj,
-~
_C""","Sou",PSR"""",.",
~\,,!;.. .~
'~ (SANDAG'" %
--
(l\4vl.., ~v JDlwf 6\~ ~V<V/~ Flo.o; 11,14'0
l')
~= t+'jH;j~h :b.1~l1'!){)
ojIZ-,~( 1\,11(\1
1-5 South Corridor Study limits:
Main Street to SR 54
I
.""""'~.
~~
o
..>>"t- ~
_ CSI".NWIG: ~
Ot.'tl.~ fNtmn#
~'-, ;>;.
~!I,-- r;;r!"
_CSlINIMG' ';;';!E_
o.:n~ -----
Challenges and! OIPPoB'ti..lIniitUes
'-:-~---""'''''''''=''''''''''''~
-l1~~~'t:~.::J~i~~~~...~"~~,
:t:.;;,_:'?":~, ';~...;~t'" -"~~"-::;-"'Jl~;~-" " ".
"-;."'t
. i
-'" ,41:i:;,.
f~.<.Y'-'~';- ~~~~j"""":{t.,
~ .....AJF"_',.(, -,... _-<lr'.-d..o#
.,.->..~
.:.\,~
-
o.TI.~
CS4N~'u'"
[FfiI
......
Study PlllB'pOSe
--"'.... :lo.;'If:"_.".
.~\lft- ~
-(- ~-
o..n~ .............
Initial Alternatives Evaluated
,-,~.."....,"""",,-.."... ..-..
,~.st_it. ;;_::::
--"- .,.""'-.......-
:=~;:;::' ,~~ .9 .ft
~(s.tINIJAG.Elt
am~ ~
-Initial Screening Evaluation Criteria
~ Network
Performance
~ Multimodal
~ Environmental &
Community
Impacts
~ Cost -
~~
~(...........-
~-
GII
--
...... .
(;.j
fl..t~~
~~ 1J~~~tJ)
\)
Co'ncept Alternatives Narrowed for
Secqndary Screening
" Alternative 1
(reasonably expected RTP-modified)
Alternative 2
(RTP-modified with interchange
improvements on 1-5)
Alternative 4 .
(RTP-modified with enhanced transit and
third rail track)
.. '1......."
~!~ r:&.
_ (SAND.lIG'. ""lIlt
om~ lb/&rsIw
'r;;
.
" ~
'~
.
Concept Alternative 1
I
~--i;o...
----
LEGEND . 'T~IF Mainline Track Irnpmvements-;- -Mea" High Tide Line (MHT) -:-
o8F+2I-!OV = .' .in"r63~..BusFrequency""'"
.Ace"'"s Imi>rovements (Ramp 'SRT. Ro~t" 640 (2 In_Line Stations)=-
M"tenngandAu~Lari"s)'- olncreasedParkingFacilities -.. _ ~,(S4NJIllIG.:' CiII
'~r~d,::.~~:rauons - 'Art"rlallmprov"m..nls~ oili'W;a c tbItm1w
Concept AlternCll~ive 2
I
~,~.
,.---...
L;-~r
(i)~i'
..1.... .'," ^~
if":' .
.1
.
.
l
LEGEND
oSF+2HOV(ShlnCLI-5Wesll.=
oSr'a:idadRampSystem "
oGradaSeparations-
.lncreoS<l Bus Frequency - -Maan High Tld<i Line (MHT) ,.,.
'BRT Roula 540(2 In-Une Stalions)=
.lncr9asedParlongFacilities.....
*Arterial Improvements "--"
"'''-
-
~~
<- . fit;
......
Concept Alternative 4
1
-.'
..:.~
~ oFreight Shared Third Mainline Track- oMea",HighTideUne(MHT}_...;
'SF.. 2HOV (Shift Cll-5 West) _ oGrede Separations"""
oAcc"ss Improvemimts(Ramp M&lerlng and 'Increase Bus Frequency-"
Aux Lmllls) 'ART Route 627 and Route 635=
;'rd LflTMainJinIlTrack{ExPrl,ssTrolley)_.lncreaslKlParking Facilili 99'-<';
_~. 'A~llriallmprOvllmllnts
.....
-
oUA~
CSANIMG'.,
t!!.
~eterYe.l)
,
~~
1 I Lc.V\L ~~
V<v~ /)4.7 enl~l
5~\ft ~tLo.~\\'
6..~; Jd rltl'.\fS
~
Technical and Environmental
Evaluation and Studies
'.....,
\
\
,,"1"-
, I',
.'.~.
\ ~~\
"" \
~!f?
-
o.TI.~
(SANDIIG; .
ff6
.......
Quantitative Evaluation Criteria
~ Freeway segment capacity analysis
~ Ramp capaCity analysis
~ Weaving analysis
~ Intersection capacity analysis
~ Interchange spacing
~ C<;>st effectiveness index
. ~ Regional Transportation Model -
multimodal
.\0-".
~<J;t,. .. .~.
_ {SAN"""'.. ....,
rnW.~ . _/11ItIUnI
( . '1
!.-tilL I Di 5('1'111(... .
L~~ :1~Jj Ul0)
I~
Qualitative IEval8JIation Criteria
~ Natural. resources impact
~ Potential for increased Goods Movement
~ Promotes Smart Growth
~. Community impact
.s.!fJ;.
~(-"
~-
BfJ1
--
Evaluation lRal11l~dngs
1. Alternative 2
(RTP-modified with interchange
improvements on 1"5)
2. Alternative 4
(RTP-modified with enhanced transit
and third rail track)
3. Alternative 1
(reasonably expected RTP-modified)
:\,
....,.
~'fJ;. r:?J,.
_ (SIIN_ ~
00:1"" --
Next Steps
~ Request acti.on by Board of Directors
5/28/10
.~ Incorporate into 2050 RTP network
development
.~ . Caltrans 1-5 South PSRlPDS
~ Develop prioritization
'recommendations .for Alternative
..- _ .components
(2J
.,
,~!!-'... ~.
OM .CS/WDAG;' ~""
-<> -.. - )
~-
L,1
. -
Recommendation
The Transportation Committee is asked
to recommend that the Board of Directors
approve 1~5 South Multimodal Corridor
Study Alternative 2 for inclusion in the.
development of the 2050 Regional
Transportation Plan.
~!".... .~'.'
OMCSlIIVDIIG' ~.
~':-' ~
~'''_.... +.' .
1~5 South Multimodal
Corridor Study .
May 7, 2010
~II?- Iiiii&.
C5AN.DAG L.::7"
rntn ~A lir/tn:uv;
~--
~
Unified Port
of San Dief(o
~(f?
~
CR~Of
CHUlA VISTA
April 27, 2010
Peter Watry, Acting President
Pat Aguilar, President (on leave of absence)
Crossroads II
81 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject:
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
Dear Mr. Watry and Ms. Aguilar:
Thank you for your continued interest in the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
(CVBMP). The purpose of this letter is to respond to the five changes to the
. Sweetwater Park Plan requested by the Crossroads II Board and submitted to
the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port") and the City of Chula Vista ("City") on
March 3, 2010, and which were also discussed in our meetings on February 10,
2010 and April 2, 1010.
1. Maintain the view corridor of the Bay from the 1-5 J Street over-crossing.
Consistent with your discussions with Pacifica, the development proposed on
parcels adjacent to J Street (H-15 and H-13/H-14) are being specifically designed
by Pacifica to reduce visual impact and preserve view corridors. Design
measures that aim to preserve the view corridor of the Bay from the 1-5 J Street
over-crossing include:
. Minimum building setbacks of 50 feet from J Street on parcels H-13/H-14
to accommodate viewing opportunities from 1-5
. Building setbacks and step-backs from J Street to provide a 70-foot-wide
minimum street section at podium level and 95-foot-wide minimum street
section at tower level
. Increased building setbacks from 35 feet to 65 feet from the north curb of
J Street on parcel H-15 to permit a wider view corridor from 1-5
. Gradual step down in height of towers from north to south, reflecting the
more intensive proposed land uses to the north and the environmental
preserve to the south
Crossroads II
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
April 27, 2010
Page 2 of 3
2. At the "choke point" area between the two segments of the park
designated areas, a separate bridge will be built to handle pedestrians that is
separate from vehicular traffic. It should be of an attractive, welcoming character
that invites people flow from one area of the park to the other.
The Signature Park in the Sweetwater District is separated from the park in the
Harbor District by the inlet to the F & G Street Marsh. Currently the proposed
design of the E Street bridge, which crosses this inlet, provides a 16-foot wide,
multipurpose trail for park uses to travel between both park areas. We concur
that this important park linkage can be enhanced by providing a welcoming
pedestrian environment and a clear separation between pedestrianlbicycle traffic
and vehicle traffic across the Marsh inlet. Prior to final design of the E Street
bridge connection, the Port and City commit to evaluating the feasibility of a
separate pedestrian and bicycle bridge crossing that will be separate from the
vehicular bridge crossing. The Port and City acknowledge that the design and
materials used for this separate pedestrianlbicycle bridge are critical to the
success of this park connection. As engineering designs proceed for the E Street
bridge crossings, we will solicit your input and feedback to ensure the pedestrian
bridge achieves your stated goal.
3. Development of park parcel H-1A will be changed from being scheduled
for Phase IV to being scheduled for Phase I. (This may require an easement
across Port property leased by the Boatyard.) In addition, we wish to go on
record again as preferring that the Boatyard stay in Chula Vista.
Parcel H-1A includes approximately 5 acres of park area proposed for
redevelopment in Phase IV of the CVBMP. In order to strengthen the connection
between the park areas'in the Sweetwater and Harbor districts in Phase I, the
Port and City commit to analyzing the reconfiguration of E Street around parcel
H-3 prior to initiating development of the Resort Conference Center. The goal of
the roadway reconfiguration will be to achieve Phase I park improvements along
E Street that are equivalent to the park acreage proposed on H-1A at Phase IV.
Design options for this roadway section will require consultation with traffic
engineers and may be result in interim solutions until Phase IV build-out occurs.
If the street reconfiguration is not feasible, other options for strengthening the
connection will be explored, including the suggested easement. A refined plan to
address the linkage between the parks over the F & G Street Channel will be
included in the concept approval for the Signature Park on Parcel S-2. The
design will ensure that the linkage between the two parks is easily accessed,
obvious, and allows visitors to flow naturally and safely between the two parts of
the park.
"
Crossroads II
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
April 27, 2010
Page 3 of 3
4, Language will be written into the various Bayfront agreements assuring
that the designated hotel/conference center will be a First Class hotel, similar in
nature to Gaylord,
The Port and City have agreed to include the following language in the Financing
Agreement currently being negotiated for the implementation of the CVBMP:
"The hotel portion of the Resort Conference Center will meet or exceed
the service quality standards of a four (4) diamond, AM standard,"
5, Language will be written into the various Bayfront agreements assuring
that the opportunity to provide for civic uses in the area that is designated Y, hotel
and Y, civic area will not be usurped by the hotel use,
The Pori and City have also agreed to include the following language in the
Financing Agreement for the CVBMP:
The Project Description included in the Final EIR provides for up to
200,000 square feet of cultural/retail use on Parcel H-23 in Phase II of the
Project (such culturallretail use is hereinafter called "H-23 Cultural/Retail
Use"), The Port and City agree that the opportunity to develop the H-23
Cultural/Retail Use will not be usurped or impaired by development of
hotel uses on Parcel H-23,
We value the input and feedback you have provided on the CVBMP to date and
look forward to collaborating with you on these issues in the future,
Sincerely,
(Plt/pu;,G
~L
I tiff,
John Helmer, Director
Land Use Planning Department
1'4-; 'l
, / ! Ii
, ,\ ",'--
~[.(AL'.~. ',/ /,fA'\[/
",' I ~p- . I
Ga~ffalbel't
Deputy City Manager
\.J
CCI Denny Stone
Marisa Lundstedt
Chris Hargett
Michael Kennedy
Charles Black
Allison Rolfe
Leslie Wade
Lesley Nishihira
I! ,~..
'f.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
and
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING AGENDA
May 18, 2010
1 :00 p.m.
City of Chula Vista City Hall
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California
PLEASE COMPLETE A "REQUEST TO SPEAK" FORM PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING AND SUBMIT IT TO THE DISTRICT CLERK.
Agendas are available in alternative formats upon request. If you require assistance or
auxiliary aids in order to participate at public meetings, please contact Office of the
District Clerk at publicrecords@portofsandiego.org or (619) 686-6206 within 24 hours of
the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting
agenda and distributed by the San Diego Unified Port District to all or a majority of the
Board of Port Commissioners, including those records distributed less than 72 hours
prior to that meeting, are available for public inspection at the Office of the District Clerk,
3165 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California and City Clerk's Office, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California during normal business hours.
1. Roll Call.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
.".,
- 2 -
~
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
3. Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
A) Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution which (1) Certifies the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the "Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
and Port Master Plan Amendment," (2) Adopts the alternate L-Ditch
Remediation Alternative, (3) Adopts Findings of Fact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, (4) Adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and (5) Directs Filing of the Notice of Determination.
B) Adopt a Resolution which (1) Approves the Port Master Plan Amendment for
the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District 7 and (2) Directs Filing the Port
Master Plan Amendment with the California Coastal Commission for
Certification.
Driving Directions to the City of Chula Vista Council Chambers:
Take Interstate 5 to the "E" Street exit and turn East onto "E" Street. Then turn right on 4th
Avenue. For information regarding the City of Chula Vista visit their website at
http://www.ci.chula-vista.ca.us/
For the agenda online and more information about the
representation; and future Board meeting dates,
http://www.portofsandieqo.orq/
Commissioners' names and city
please visit our website at
As a courtesy to all who attend these public meetings, please turn all cell phones to off or vibrate
before entering the Board Meeting.
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
,
't SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
AGENDA ITEM 3
DATE: May 18, 2010
SUBJECT: CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
A) CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION
WHICH (1) CERTIFIES THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE "CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
AND PORT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT," (2) ADOPTS THE
ALTERNATE L-DITCH REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE, (3) ADOPTS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, (4) ADOPTS A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (5) DIRECTS FILING OF THE
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
B) ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH (1) APPROVES THE PORT
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT
PLANNING DISTRICT 7 AND (2) DIRECTS FILING THE PORT
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION FOR CERTIFICATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2002, the San Diego Unified Port District (District) and the City of Chula Vista '(City)
began work to create a master plan for the approximately 556-acre Bayfront area. The
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) represents a collaborative effort between
the District, the City and the community in developing a comprehensive plan that
consolidates the respective planning visions of all. Pacifica Companies (Pacifica) joined
this effort in 2003. The CVBMP (Proposed Project) promotes public access to and
engagement with the water while enhancing the quality and protection of key habitat
areas. The ultimate, goal of the CVBMP is to create a world-class bayfront reflecting
strong planning and design principles, economic feasibility, and community benefits,
The project area is divided into three districts referred to as the Sweetwater District, the
Harbor District and the Otay District. Development within these districts is expected to
occur in four phases and involves a land exchange between the District and Pacifica,
Redevelopment of the Sweetwater, Harbor and Otay Districts are proposed with a
variety of uses, including parks, open space, ecological buffers, residential, resort
conference center (RCC), hotel, retail, cultural and recreational space; a reconfigured
marina basin and boat slips; a new commercial harbor; and a realignment of the
existing navigation channel. The Proposed Project also involves redevelopment of the
existing roadway and infrastructure system to serve the proposed new uses, as well as
the demolition and/or relocation of existing uses to allow for redevelopment to occur.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Proposed Project. A public review of 105
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18. 2010
"
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 2 of 13
1
days was provided for the Draft EIR commencing on September 29, 2005 and ending
on January 11, 2007. The District prepared a Revised Draft EIR for the Proposed
Project, which was circulated for a 50-day public review period from May 23, 2008
through August 7, 2008. The District received 53 comment letters, including nearly
1,000 individual comments, from various agencies, organizations, and individuals. The
Final EIR, which contains the District's responses to these comments as well as
associated revisions to the EIR text, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. The
Final EIR and the proposed Port Master Plan Amendment (PMPA) for the CVBMP have
been provided to the Board for their consideration. Staff recommends that the Board
conduct a public hearing, certify the Final EIR and approve the PMPA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan:
A) Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution which (1) certifies the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the "Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Port
Master Plan Amendment," (2) adopts the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation
Alternative, (3) adopts Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, (4) adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
(5) directs filing of the Notice of Determination.
B) Adopt a Resolution which (1) approves the Port Master Plan Amendment for the
Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District 7 and (2) directs filing the Port Master Plan
Amendment with the California Coastal Commission for certification.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this Board action. The District, City, and the
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (RDA) anticipate entering into a Financing
Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding relative to the development and
implementation of the CVBMP. These documents will establish the framework for the
eventual formation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Revenues from CVBMP
development projects, including hotel occupancy taxes paid to the City, property tax
increment paid to the RDA and ground lease payments paid to the District, will be
combined within the Distr.ict/City/RDA JPA. With these funds, the JPA will finance
CVBMP infrastructure, such as roadways, utilities, and park amenities, as well as
ongoing operations and maintenance costs, including costs for the mitigation and
monitoring of impacts. To the extent permitted by law, the above new revenue sources
will be used by the JPA to fund costs associated with implementation of the PMPA and
are expected to be sufficient to fully fund these costs.
In addition, the District will receive contributions from Pacifica per the terms of the
Pacifica Land Exchange Agreement in the amount of 0.5% of the initial gross sales
price of residential units. Pursuant to the terms of the CVBMP Settlement Agreement,
to the extent permitted by law, these funds will be transferred to the JPA and placed in
a community benefits fund committed to Natural Resources, Affordable Housing,
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
,
AGENDA ITEM 3
.,
Page 3 of 13
Sustainability/Living, and Community Impacts and Culture within the Project Area and
Western Chula Vista.
Prior to formation of the JPA, upfront costs are anticipated for the creation of a Natural
Resources Management Plan (NRMP) and CVBMP landscape design guidelines.
Anticipated expenditures are estimated in the amounts of $100,000 for the NRMP and
$50,000 for the landscape design guidelines. These expenditures have been budgeted
for next fiscal year by the Environmental Services and Land Use Planning Departments,
respectively.
COMPASS STRATEGIC GOALS:
The completion of the CVBMP EIR will help to bring to fruition a long-awaited vision to
develop a world-class waterfront that will benefit the citizens of Chula Vista and the
region. The proposed redevelopment of the Bayfront will enhance and revitalize a
presently underutilized waterfront area with land uses that include commercial
development opportunities, new residential uses and' public space amenities. Securing
entitlements for the Bayfront will serve as an attraction for future developers' and
businesses, which will ultimately result in increased revenues that will strengthen the
District's economic performance. Additionally, sensitive wildlife habitat will be better
protected through the creation of buffers and enhanced natural resource areas.
This agenda item supports the following Strategic Goal(s).
o Promote the Port's maritime industries to stimulate regional economic vitality.
[8] Enhance and sustain a dynamic and diverse waterfront.
[8] Protect and improve the environmental conditions of San Diego Bay and the
Tidelands.
o Ensure a safe and secure environment for people, property and cargo.
o Develop and maintain a high level of public understanding that builds confidence
and trust in the Port.
o Develop a high-performing organization through alignment of people, process and
systems.
[8] Strengthen the Port's financial performance,
o Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
BACKGROUND
In 2002, the District and City began a collaborative planning process to create a master
plan for the approximately 556-acre Chula Vista Bayfront area. This process included
an award-winning public participation program with the Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC), which established three primary goals for the master plan: to develop a world-
class waterfront; to create a plan that is supported by sound planning and economics;
and, to create a plan that has broad-based community support. Pacifica joined this
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18. 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 4 of 13
i
effort in 2003 in response to the CAC's request to join the planning for Pacifica's
proposal in the Midbayfront with the master plan being conducted for District properties.
The CVBMP represents a collaborative effort between the District, the City and the
community in developing a comprehensive plan that consolidates the respective
planning visions of each. The Proposed Project promotes public access to and
engagement with the water while enhancing the quality and protection of key habitat
areas. The ultimate goal of the CVBMP is to create a world-class bayfront reflecting
strong planning and design principles, economic feasibility, and community benefits.
PROPOSED PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project Location
The project site is located within District tidelands and the City of Chula Vista in San
Diego County, situated on the southeastern edge of the San Diego Bay and located
approximately 1.5 miles west of the City's downtown commercial area. The project site
encompasses approximately 556 acres, including 497 acres of land area and 59 acres
of water area. The project site is bordered by the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Reserve and the jurisdictional boundary of National City to the north. Interstate 5 (1-5)
and the commercial development along Bay Boulevard are to the east. Palomar Street
and the South Bay Unit of the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which includes
the salt evaporation ponds at the southern end of San Diego Bay, border the project
site to the south (see Attachment 1, Proposed Project Boundary).
Project Components
The Proposed Project, which is also referred to as the Sweetwater Park Plan, includes:
o Amendments to the Port Master Plan (PMP); the City of Chula Vista General
Plan; the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP), which includes the Land Use Plan
and Bayfront Specific Plan.
o A land exchange between the District and Pacifica Companies (a private
developer).
o Implementation of the CVBMP through redevelopment of the Sweetwater,
Harbor, and Otay Districts with a variety of uses, including parks, open space,
ecological buffers, residential, RCC, hotel, retail, cultural and recreational space;
a reconfigured marina basin and boat slips; a new commercial harbor; and a
realignment of the existing navigation channel.
o Redevelopment of the roadway system and infrastructure serving the Proposed
Project area both on site and off site.
o Demolition and/or relocation of existing uses to allow for the above
redevelopment to occur subject to existing District lease agreements.
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
.
.
Page 5 of 13
As shown in Attachment 2, Proposed Project Illustrative Plan, the Proposed Project will
extend Chula Vista's traditional grid of streets to ensure pedestrian, vehicle, bicycle,
transit, and water links. The Proposed Project also proposes an open space system
that is fully accessible to the public and connects the Sweetwater, Harbor, and Otay
Districts through a shoreline promenade or baywalk and a bicycle path linking the
parks. Significant park and other open space areas in each of the three districts are
proposed along with a "signature park" and the creation of an active commercial harbor
with public space at the water's edge. The Proposed Project would also enhance
existing physical and visual corridors while adding new ones. Approximately 238 acres
(or 43 percent), of the project site is proposed for open space, either in the form of
natural habitat or public parks and approximately 258 acres (or 46 percent), of the
project site is proposed for development. The remaining 59 acres, of the project site
consists of water area for the marina basins and new commercial harbor.
Proposed development is planned to occur in four phases over an approximate 24-year
period. Construction of Phase I project level and II components would begin upon
project approval and conclude approximately five years later. Phase I project level
components are envisioned to consist of high-quality development and public
infrastructure improvements that would be concentrated in the Harbor and Sweetwater
Districts and 'would be a catalyst for surrounding public and private development. The
phasing schedule represents a best-case scenario and will be contingent upon many
factors, such as availability and' timing of public financing and construction of public
improvements, the disposition of existing long-term District leases, actual market
demand for and private financing of proposed development, and the relocation and/or
demolition of existing uses.
Proposed Project Features
For planning purposes, the master plan area is divided into three districts-the
Sweetwater District, the Harbor District, and the Otay District. For ease in referencing
the proposed uses, each development component has been assigned an individual
parcel number that corresponds to the project site parcel plan map. A parcel map of the
Proposed Project, depicting the districts and their individual parcels, is provided on
Attachment 3, Proposed Project Parcel Plan and Development Phases. This is
accompanied by tables describing the proposed land use and development programs in
each of the planning districts (Attachments 4, 5 and 6). The following is a synopsis of
the key elements proposed within each district:
Sweetwater District: The Sweetwater District (approximately 130 acres) proposes the
lowest intensity development of the three districts and focuses on lower scale,
environmentally sensitive and environmentally themed uses, including a large
ecological buffer, an 18-acre signature park, bike path, pedestrian trails, other open
space areas, uses such as office/retail, hotel, parking for the Chula Vista Nature
Center, and roadway and infrastructure improvements.
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 6 of 13
J
Harbor District: The Harbor District is most directly accessible to downtown Chula Vista
and would be redeveloped to provide a significant link from the City to the Bayfront. It is
composed of approximately 223 acres of land and approximately 59 acres of water.
The Harbor District proposes the highest intensity development of the Proposed Project
and encourages an active, vibrant mix of uses, including: an RCC, hotels and
conference space; bike path; park and other open space areas; a continuous waterfront
promenade; residential uses; mixed-use retail, office, and cultural space; and new
roadways and infrastructure. Also proposed is a reconfiguration of the existing harbor to
create a new commercial harbor, and realignment of the navigation channel.
Otav District: The Otay District is composed of approximately 144 acres, and proposes
medium intensity development that will consist of industrial business park uses, low
cost visitor-serving recreational uses, other open space areas, an ecological buffer,
stormwater retention basins, bike path, pedestrian trails, and new roadways and
infrastructure.
Recent Proposed Project Revisioos
Since the Revised Draft EIR was distributed, two changes occurred as a result of recent
activities outside the scope of the Proposed Project. These two changes involved a land
sale from the District to SDG&E and initiation of a remediation effort on parcel HP-5
within the proposed Pacifica land exchange area. These recent project revisions are
further described below along with how they are reflected in the District actions on the
Proposed Project.
SDG&E Land Exchanqe: On January 6, 2010, the District approved a Real Estate
Exchange Agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E Agreement),
which provides for the relocation of an existing SDG&E switchyard; the extinguishing of
easements in favor of SDG&E; and the transferring of ownership of 12.42 acres, from
the District to SDG&E. The District's PMPA was originally distributed for public review
showing these areas included within the CVBMP boundary. The land acquired by
SDG&E, as well as an additional 6.08-acres adjacent to this area (see Attachment 7,
SDG&E Land Exchange Map), will now remain in the City's LCP and graphics in the
draft PMPA have been revised accordingly to exclude this area from the Port Master
Plan boundary.
L-Ditch (Parcel HP-5) Remediation/Preferred Proiect Alternative: At the time the Draft
EIR and the Revised Draft EIR (DEIR) were prepared, the District had not yet
formulated a work plan for remediation of the existing contamination in the L-Ditch
located on Parcel HP-5 in the Harbor District, which is considered a wetland and is
subject to Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) No. 98-08 issued by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Revised DEIR therefore analyzed two
potential scenarios for Parcel HP-5: 1) the Proposed Project, which assumed the
existing contamination would be excavated and removed and the L-Ditch would remain
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 7 of 13
a wetland on which no development would occur; and 2) the Alternate L-Ditch
Remediation Alternative, which assumed that development would occur if the existing
contamination were remediated in place by filling the L-Ditch and the L-Ditch were no
longer considered a wetland. On March 2, 2010, the District approved a work plan,
pursuant to the CAO, which proposes to fill the L-Ditch and remediate the existing
contamination in place. This is. consistent with the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation
Alternative which was analyzed in Section 5.7 of the Revised DEIR.
This Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative proposes to construct the Pacifica
residential development on a larger footprint that includes development over HP-5. All
other elements of the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative are identical to the
Proposed Project. This increase in land area will allow for a reduction in height, bulk,
development density and visual impacts, while simultaneously affording an increase in
useable public open space as compared to the proposed Pacifica project.
Because the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative is consistent with the proposed
work plan for remediating the existing contamination in the L-Ditch, staff recommends
the adoption of the Alternate L-Ditch Remediation Alternative as the development plan
for Parcels H-13, H-14 and HP-5, in place of the plan for development of those parcels
described in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the Final EIR.
PORT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
The Proposed Project site is located in Planning District 7, Chula Vista Bayfront.
Planning District 7 includes approxirnately 4.8 miles of the Chula Vista shoreline,
including approximately 1,690 acres of tidelands and submerged lands, on!y a portion
of which is located within the project boundary. Planning District 7 is further subdivided
into nine planning subareas. As part of the Proposed Project, a PMPA has been
prepared to update District and City coastal jurisdictional boundaries and to facilitate
proposed development. Please refer to the proposed Precise Plan (Attachment 8). The
proposed amendments to the PMP Precise Plan for Planning District 7, Chula Vista
Bayfront, are more fully described in Attachment 9 and include the following changes to
the PMP:
. Incorporating approximately 97 acres of land at the north end of District 7,
formerly under the City's jurisdiction, within the District's trusteeship and
jurisdiction and removing up to 33 acres of land from the PMP that would convert
to City jurisdiction (and be included in the City's LCP). These land use changes
are contingent upon the State Lands Commission's approval of the proposed
land exchange with Pacifica.
. Revising the Precise Plan concept for Chula Vista Bayfront, Planning District 7 to
reflect the Proposed Project development and land use components, including
revising the precise plan text and map, acreage tables, planning subareas map,
and project list.
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18. 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 8 of 13
. Revising the allowable uses under certain land use classifications.
. Updating other portions of the PMP as appropriate to reflect the Planning
District 7 changes, including incorporating an additional 176 acres of land area
previously not included in the PMP, resulting from past land acquisitions.
As a result of the proposed PMP Amendment, a total of 1,962 acres of Chula Vista
Bayfront will be allocated to commercial, industrial, public recreation, conservation and
public facilities activities. The changes to the PMP land use and water allocations for
the Chula Vista Bayfront as a result of the Proposed Project are summarized below:
Land and Water Use Allocation Summary
For Chula Vista Bayfront: Planning District 7
Commercial 82.5 84.2 +1.7
Industrial 93.6 123.6 +0.0
Public Recreation 24.8 150.1 +125.3
Conservation 1,268.5 1,372.4 +103.9
Public Facilities 220.1 231.6 +11.5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Final EIR
The CVBMP Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEOA (Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEOA Guidelines. The Final EIR consists of
three volumes, organized as follows: Volume 1 contains the comment letters regarding
the Revised Draft EIR and the District's responses to those letters; and Volumes 2 and
3 include the revised version of the Revised Draft EIR and the Appendices to the Final
EIR.
Draft EIR: The Draft EIR, dated September 2006 was circulated for a 60-day public
review period from September 29, 2006, to November 27, 2006. In response to
requests for additional review time, the public review period was extended to January
11, 2007, bringing the total public review period for the DEI R to 105 days. The District
received 59 individual comment letters, many of which requested more information and
project-specific data, specifically for the project-level components (i.e., the proposed
RCC, Pacifica Residential Site, and the Signature Park).
Revised Draft EIR: In response to the numerous public comments on the Draft EIR and
substantial additional information concerning the Proposed Project, a Revised DEIR
was prepared and circulated to the public. Because the revisions described above
were substantial, the entire Revised Draft EIR was re-circulated for public review and
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 9 of 13
comment. The Revised Draft EIR was circulated for a 50-day public review period (May
23, 2008, to August 7, 2008) to further make project description refinements and
revisions that were analyzed throughout the document. Fifty-three (53) comment letters,
including-nearly 1,000 individual comments, were received on the Revised Draft EIR.
Public comments on the original Draft EIR are included in the administrative record, but
the District was not required to provide written responses to them in the Revised Draft
EIR. Instead, pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(f)(1), the District
advised the public that new comments must be submitted on the Revised Draft EIR and
that the District would respond in writing in the Final EIR only to those comments
submitted in response to the Revised Draft EIR.
In addition, a number of events occurred since the Revised DEIR was made available
for public review, which resulted in changes to the Revised DEIR that are reflected in
the Final EIR. These eVents include the following:
1. In November 2008, Gaylord Entertainment withdrew its proposal to develop a
RCC on Parcel H-3 in the Harbor District. The specific RCC proposed by Gaylord
was analyzed in the Revised DEIR at a project level. Although the Gaylord RCC
is no longer part of the Proposed Project, the technical studies conducted for the
Gaylord development are still valid and applicable to a RCC development.
Parcel H-3 retains its land use designation for a RCC and the future
development of an RCC on Parcel H-3 is analyzed in the Final EIR at a program
level.
2. The Proposed Project includes a proposed land exchange between the District
and Pacifica, which was analyzed in the Revised DEIR. On February 2, 2010,
the District entered into an Exchange Agreement with Pacifica, which provides
for the transfer of approximately 97 acres of land in the Sweetwater District from
Pacifica to the District in exchange for the transfer of approximately 33 acres of
land in the Harbor District from the District to Pacifica.
3. In response to comments received on the Revised DEIR, the District and the City
engaged in outreach efforts with Rohr, Inc., operating as Goodrich
Aerostructures, (Goodrich), to address its concems regarding the potential
impacts of the Proposed Project on Goodrich's ongoing and future
manufacturing operations and contamination remediation activities. As a result of
these outreach efforts, entered into an agreement with agreement with Goodrich,
which addressed all of the concerns expressed by Goodrich to its satisfaction.
,
4. In response to comments received on the Revised DEIR, the District and the City
engaged in public outreach efforts with many interested persons and
organizations, including representatives of the Bayfront Coalition (and its
member organizations). The outreach effort resulted in an agreement with the
Bayfront Coalition, the City, the District and the RDA. As a result of the
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 10 of 13
I
agreement, additional project design features and mitigation measures above
and beyond those required by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations
were added to the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP).
The Final EIR reflects these events and responds to significant environmental points
raised in the public and agency comments by making changes in the Revised Draft EIR.
Errata to the Final EIR: After the issuance of the Final EIR in April 2010, an Errata to the
Final EIR was prepared to clarify and address the following items:
. The inclusion of additional design features and mitigation measures in the Final
EIR, above and beyond those required by CEQA, resulting from an agreement
with the Bayfront Coalition (and its member organizations) approved District and
City of Chula Vista City Council on May 4, 2010 and May 11, 2010, respectively;
· Minor clarifications and corrections of the text of the Final EIR; and
· Minor changes to the City's General Plan Amendment resulting from the
Alternate L-Ditch Alternative; and
. District and City boundary changes resulting frorn the recent sale of land from
the District to SDG&E previously described
The Errata has been prepared to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the. Final
EIR. It corrects minor errors in the Final EIR and provides additional protection for
natural resources and the environment in the project area. The District has reviewed
the information in this errata and has determined that it does not change any of the
findings or conclusions of the Final EIR and does not constitute "significant new
information" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Accordingly, the
District finds that recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.
Findings of Fact
CEQA requires the District to make written findings of fact for each significant
environmental impact identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091).
The purpose of findings is to restate, systematically, the significant effects (or "impacts")
of the Proposed Project on the environment and to determine the feasibility of mitigation
measures and alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effects. The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect
significant environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Project. Some of
which can be fully avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, and others
that cannot be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels by the adoption of
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives.
Siqnificant and Mitiqated Impacts: Potentially direct significant environmental impacts
which have been rnitigated to less-than-significant levels include land/water use
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
I
Page 11 of 13
compatibility, traffic and circulation, aesthetics/visual quality, hydrology/water quality, air
quality, noise, terrestrial biological resources, marine biological resources,
paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials/public safety, public
services, public utilities, seismic/geology and energy. Potentially cumulative significant
impacts that have also been mitigated to less-than-significant levels include traffic and
circulation, air quality, marine biological resources, public services, public utilities, and
energy.
Siqnificant and Unmitiqated Impacts: The FEIR concluded that the Proposed Project
may result in the following significant impacts, which would not be mitigated to below a
level of significance even after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures:
. The Pacifica project would result in significant direct impacts on Land/Water Use
Compatibility because it would be inconsistent with the City of Chula Vista General
Plan objectives regarding aesthetics and visual resources (LUT 11) and library
services and facilities (PFS 11).
. The Proposed Project would result in the following significant direct and cumulative
impacts on Traffic and Circulation:
o The addition of traffic from all phases of the Proposed Project would result in
significant direct and cumulative impacts to freeway segments of 1-5 between
SR-54 and Palomar Street during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours
o The addition of traffic from the Proposed Project would result in a significant
direct impact in that E Street and H Street intersections affected by an at-grade
trolley crossing would experience additional delay along the arterial and at
adjacent intersections
o The addition of traffic from Phase III of the Proposed Project would result in a
significant cumulative impact on the roadway segment of H Street between
Street A and the 1-5 ramps
o The addition of traffic from Phase III of the Proposed Project with the extension
of E Street would result in a significant cumulative impact on the intersection of H
Street and 1-5 southbound ramps during the p.m. peak hours and the intersection
of J Street and 1-5 northbound ramps during the p.m. peak hours.
. The Proposed Project would result in the following significant direct and cumulative
impacts on AestheticsNisual Quality:
o The Pacifica project would result in significant direct impacts in that its proposed
buildings will exceed the scale of the existing waterfront development and will
block existing views of San Diego Bay for motorists on portions of 1-5
o The Proposed Project would result in a significant cumulative impact in that it
would add to the intensification of land uses and further change the character of
the area and result in the loss of views of significant landscape features and
landforms.
. The Proposed Project would result in the following significant direct and cumulative
impacts on Air Quality:
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 12 of 13
!
o Emissions from construction activities in all phases would result in a significant
direct impact because they would exceed the federal and state standards for
criteria pollutants
o Emissions from Proposed Project operations in all phases would result in a
significant direct impact because they would exceed the federal and state
standards for certain criteria pollutants
o Construction activities associated with the program-level components of all
phases would result in a significant direct impact because sensitive receptors
located on site would be exposed to emissions that would exceed federal and
state standards for criteria pollutants
o Construction activities and project operations in all phases of the Proposed
Project would result in significant cumulative impacts on air quality because of
the San Diego Air Basin's existing non-attainment status for the federal 8-hour
ozone standard and the state ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.
· The Pacifica project would result in significant direct and cumulative impacts on
Public Services (Library Services) in that it would worsen the existing shortfall in
library square footage and books per capita until new library facilities are
constructed or existing facilities are expanded in the City of Chula Vista.
· The Proposed Project would result in a significant cumulative impact on Energy
because of uncertainty regarding long-term energy supply.
Alternatives: The Final EIR examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the
Proposed Project that could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the Proposed
Project's significant impacts. The alternatives considered in the Final EIR are the No
Project Alternative, the Harbor Park Alternative, the No Land Trade Alternative, the
Harbor Park Alternative, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, and the Alternate L-
Ditch Remediation Alternative. In considering the feasibility of the alternatives, the
District examined the ability of the alternative to avoid or substantially reduce significant
unmitigated impacts and it relationship to the project's objectives. The District has
determined that none of these alternatives is feasible and would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the unavoidable significant impacts, except the Alternate L-Ditch
Remediation Alternative, which will be adopted with the Findings. Based on the
evidence contained in the record, the District finds that the other alternatives analyzed
in the Final EIR that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the unavoidable
significant impacts of the Proposed Project are infeasible.
Statement of Overridinq Considerations: The Board is required to adopt Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to address those impacts which
cannot be avoided or reduced to below significant even after the incorporation of all
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The District has balanced the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Proposed Project,
including region-wide and statewide environmental benefits, against its unavoidable
significant environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Proposed Project.
The District finds that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the benefits of the
Proposed Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and, therefore,
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3
Page 13 of 13
such impacts are considered acceptable. The District further finds that each of the
benefits and the fulfillment of the objectives of the Proposed Project is determined to be
a separate and independent basis for overriding the unavoidable significant impacts of
the Proposed Project. Accordingly, staff recommends the District adopt the Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP has been prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097.
The MMRP identifies certain changes or alterations (i.e., mitigation measures) required
for implementation of the Proposed Project to reduce or avoid significant environmental
impacts. Specifically, the MMRP identifies the environmental issue area, mitigation
measures, and party responsible, timing, and procedure for documenting the mitigation
implementation. For this EIR, the Project Design Features and Best Management
Practices, which are components of the Proposed Project and not mitigation measures,
have also been included in the Mtv1RP in order to track responsibility, timing, and
procedures for their implementation.
Copies of the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and MMRP have been provided to the Board for their consideration.
Port Attorney's Comments:
The Port Attorney has reviewed and approved the requested documents for form and
legality.
Environmental Review:
This proposed Board action completes the CEQA process for this project.
Equal Opportunity Program:
Not applicable.
PREPARED BY: Lesley M. Nishihira
Senior Redevelopment Planner, Land Use Planning
Attachments:
1. Proposed Project Boundary
2. Proposed Project Illustrative Plan
3. Proposed Project Parcel Plan and Development Phases
4. Proposed Land Use and Development Progra.m for Sweetwater District
5. Proposed Land Use and Development Program for Harbor District
6. Proposed Land Use and Development Program for Otay District
7. SDG&E Land Exchange Map
8. PMP Precise Plan for Planning District 7
9. Draft PMP Amendment
San Diego Unified Port District Board Meeting - May 18, 2010
" ;,
,,;:.~
',,',
..,
'~ .~,
".', >
,
,--
,~.
. .:;~~,
::;'r~;~~~:~
_ t Uu ,~
-\-:f~~;
"",,' ~..},..
<~~~:~<<
',~.-.(t;
-::~tr
/f:"~~:~~
':~~\::~Gt~.
,.,.. ~,-~.~
'., .'~ .;l>~:~";...:r....
...,""
.".:"