HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/01/09 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, January 9, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of September 26, October 24, November 12 and November 14, 1990
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five
minutes.
1, PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-10
Rohr Office Complex
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-91-03: Consideration to change the name of
Center Street, located in the Montgomery area,
to Reed Court - City Initiated
3. REPORT: Selection of Planning Commission to serve on the
1991 Growth Management Oversight Committee
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Workshop Meeting of Saturday, January 19, 1991
at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-90-10 Rohr Office Complex
A. BACKGROUND
The Draft of this EIR was issued for Agency review on November 20, 1990.
The State Clearinghouse (SCH) review concluded on January 4, 1991. Local
public review began on November 26, 1990. Under new State law, which was
effective January 1, 1990, State review of environmental documents must
conclude prior to local review periods. Letters of comment from state or
federal agencies include the following (attached):
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
From other agencies and committees:
3. Resource Conservation Commission (R.C.C.) -- John Kracha (to be
considered by RCC on 1/7/91)
4. City of Chula Vista Department of Parks and Recreation
5. City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works/City Engineer
6. Sweetwater Union High School District
7. Chula Vista City School District
B. RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing, take testimony relevant to the Draft EIR, close
the hearing and schedule consideration of the Final EIR for February 13,
1991.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Rohr Office Complex project site is an 11.6 acre site located within
the Mid-Bayfront area in the City of Chula Vista. Proposed is the
development of a 245,000 square foot office complex with surface parking
area.
The project site sits adjacent the "F" & "G" Street Marsh on the west,
the SDG&E right-of-way on the east, Rohr Industries existing complex on
the south, and "F" Street on the north. The "F" & "G" Street Marsh is a
component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The
NWR is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, Providing habitat
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 2
for many types of plants and animal species, including species listed as
endangered by State and Federal agencies. The project site is currently
undeveloped, though, historically it has been used for agriculture. The
site is presently littered with agricultural and household debris, and
contains an abandoned irrigation system which crisscrosses the site. The
site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL)
and slopes gently to the southwest.
The project will include the proposed building (of a maximum height of 42
feet), a drainage system, surface parking lot (to include 730 spaces),
road improvements to "F" Street and to Bay Boulevard, removal of 31
on-street parking spaces, and on-site landscaping. A berm and detention
basin will be created on the western portion of the property, to protect
the Marsh from runoff and to physically separate it from the project. A
6-foot high chain link fence will also be located near the toe of the
western facing slope of the berm.
D. IMPACT ANALYSIS
During the preparation of this Draft EIR for the Rohr Industries office
complex project, the CEQA review process revealed issues of concern to
the City and various environmental impacts of the project. The most
significant impacts are those related to biological resources,
circulation/parking, air quality, and drainage/groundwater/grading. The
mitigation proposed by the applicant and within the Draft EIR would
eliminate most of those concerns and impacts. Several Alternative
"Projects" have been discussed within the DEIR. One includes adding
parking structures to reduce the parking shortage; another includes the
reduction in the size of the building and adding additional parking to
eliminate totally the shortage addressed.
Implementation of the mitigation measures and approval of Alternative 3
{versus the Proposed Project or Alt.2) would eliminate the parking
shortage impacts by providing adequate parking to meet City minimum
requirements for the proposed use. However, none of those alternatives
would eliminate the impact to raptor foraging habitat, which is
considered a significant incremental impact. Alternative 4 discusses
alternate site locations, with the best potential site alternate being
the Port District-Chula Vista Marina site. This site would eliminate
potentially significant and unmitigable incremental impacts to raptor
foraging habitat, and appears to be able to provide adequate surface
parking, so there would be no need to excavate for structure parking
which could cause potential groundwater or footing problems. With the
alternate site, there would not be as many other environmental impact
concerns, such as potentially affecting a wetland habitat area or bird
flight or nesting areas. Traffic circulation may, however, be similar to
the proposed project (and Alt. 2 and 3) impacts.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 3
SIGNIFICANT, MITIGABLE IMPACTS
1. Drainaqe/Groundwater/Gradinq
Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant flooding
impacts may be associated with exceeding the capacity of existing
storm drain facilities. Significant impacts resulting from
contaminated runoff from washing of a paved lot with oil, grease and
other automobile-related solvent deposits would occur to the "F" &
"G" Street Marsh if runoff is allowed to flow in the existing
pattern. The proposed measures for drainage direction and
containment and filtering would be required of the project. Those
measures would reduce the impact to less than significant.
All recommendations regarding earthwork and foundations in the 1990
Woodward-Clyde Consultants geotechnical report must be followed.
The City Engineering Department recommended mitigation measures must
be a condition of the project approval and must be included on the
Grading Plan to avoid any significant affects to the groundwater.
With the mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Grading could create potential impacts of runoff, sedimentation to
the marsh, and impacts to the on-site wetland area. With the
mitigation measures required by the Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1990
geotechnical report and those required by the Engineering Department
and placed on the Grading Plan, impacts would be less than
significant.
2. Bioloqical Resources
Drainage patterns would be modified with the project, moving runoff
away from the wetland areas to the west. Site runoff is currently
the major surface watershed source for the wetlands.
Significant impacts could result from the loss of seasonal
freshwater input, resulting in a reduction in extent and vigor and
potentially complete loss of the 0.14 acre willow riparian grove
located in the National Wildlife Refuge. With the mitigation
measures set forth in the DEIR for a riparian grove within the
drainage swale and coordination with the NWR Manager for proper
maintenance, the impact would be reduced to less than significant.
Potentially significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff
from parking areas and trash from streets and parking areas may
inhibit behavioral response and/or even result in death of species
in the Marsh. Trash shall be removed from runoff and oil traps
proposed as part of the drainage of the project shall be cleaned
regularly, with the large drainage swale serving to capture any
sediments passing through the traps. With those mitigation
measures, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 4
Pesticides and fertilizers flowing into the Marsh via runoff could
result in significant impacts with direct death or the increase of
some species to a level either directly or indirectly harmful to
others. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides that might be used
must be rapidly biodegradable and noted on lists of chemicals
acceptable for use near wetlands provided by the EPA. They must
also be applied by a state-certified professional. With those
mitigation measures, the impacts to the Marsh and wetlands should be
reduced to less than significant.
Significant impacts could occur to local water quality with changes
in sediment transport. Changes could occur in erosion patterns or
deposition, as well as elevating levels of turbidity in the bay.
Those impacts would occur during grading and after grading with
drainage patterns changed. The project is proposed to include silt
fencing, sandbagging and erection of a protective berm with a
capacity sufficient to hold site runoff. Other steps have been
required if different situations occur during construction. Also, a
construction monitor (who is "biologically aware") must be present
for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems.
This measure shall also be included on the Grading Plan. The
monitor shall be employed through a three-party contract with the
City, reporting directly to someone in the Engineering, Planning or
Community Development Department. Monitoring shall continue on a
reduced basis during actual construction. With the mitigation
measures included in the DEIR, the impacts should be reduced to less
than significant.
It was determined that less than significant impacts would occur to
avian flight patterns. However, on an incremental cumulative basis
the impact to raptor foraging is significant. The only alternative
discussed within the DEIR that would eliminate the impact to raptor
foraging is Alternative 4, relocation of site. Otherwise, it is
considered an "unavoidable significant impact".
A potential significant impact -- the possibility of collision with
the building -- may occur should large amounts of reflective glass
on large windows be used. Design plans submitted by the project
applicant show that reflective materials or glass on the west side
of the building, adjacent to the highly reflective waters would not
be used, thus mitigating that impact to less than significant.
Domestic animals and people shall be kept from creating a
potentially significant impact on natural prey, nest destruction and
other noise or presence disturbances, through an effective predator
management program (described in the DEIR), by buffering of building
patios from direct views of the Marsh, and by limiting outside
lighting and direction of same. Those measures should reduce
impacts to less than significant.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 5
Maintenance of covered trash containers and use of only listed and
approved landscaping should reduce the potential impact of
attracting opportunistic scavengers {e.g., ravens, gulls, starlings,
black rats and opossum) and predatory or competing plant species to
less than significant.
The proposed building could potentially be used as a primary perch
for hunting peregrine falcons, and it may be perceived as a threat
resulting in avoidance of the area bY birds sought by raptors. This
would affect not only the prey species, but also the predator
population, and is considered potentially significant. With the
predator management discussed in the DEIR, and additionally,
allowing that no ledges for raptors to perch upon or nest be located
on the west side of the building, as well as roof crests exposed to
the wetlands being nixalite, the impact should be decreased to less
than significant. The project applicant would also be required to
commit to correcting problems which may be noted.
A beneficial impact that the presence of the proposed project could
have is that of decreasing current acts of vandalism, illegal
dumping and habitat degradation on the site. Illegal off-road
vehicle use would probably also decline.
Potentially significant impacts are expected to occur to the
light-footed clapper rail (a threatened or endangered species) from
further inhibiting their re-establishment in the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh. Potentially significant impacts to the Beldings savannah
sparrow (a threatened or endangered species) would occur from
enhancement of predator activities. The predator management program
and restrictions on human and pet presence must be implemented to
provide for a less than significant impact to occur.
3. Aesthetics/Visual Ouality
The Proposed building would be visible to residential viewers as
well as to short-term viewers traveling along roadways, dining at
area restaurants and/or staying in a project area motel. In some
cases, the proposed building would partially block existing views to
the bay. Overall, views in the direction of the proposed office
complex are light industrial to industrial in nature, consistent
with the Rohr Project, and the impact has been determined to be less
than significant. However, further screening is inherent in the
project design's vegetated dirt berm along "F" Street. In addition,
trees and native shrubs would partially shield the building and
provide some continuity with the adjacent Marsh vegetation.
4. Circul~
With the development of the proposed project and inclusion of annual
growth, operating Levels of Service (LOS) on adjacent and area
roadways would decline to as low as LOS F. A number of street
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 6
improvements would be required, with the applicant responsible for a
percentage of the funds, as discussed within the DEIR. Streets that
were studied to be potentially affected by the project are Bay
Boulevard, "F" Street, I-5 northbound at "E" Street, I-5 southbound
at "H" Street, I-5 northbound at "H" Street, and Broadway and "E"
Street. Some of the improvements would just require restriping,
where others would require obtaining additional right-of-way and
widening of the road, adding bike lanes, turn lanes, etc.
Approximately 31 parking spaces along "F" Street west of I-5 and Bay
Boulevard in the project area would be eliminated. Some of those
spaces presently provide Coastal Access parking for viewers of the
wetlands areas.
A significant parking deficiency of 79 to 115 spaces (10 to 13
percent) under the proposed project, or 49 to 85 spaces (6 to 10
percent) under Alternative 2 would occur. In order to meet just
minimum parking requirements for the proposed use, Alternative 3,
requiring a reduction in the size of the building, would have to be
the approved project, or Alternative 4, relocating the project to a
larger site, could be approved. The least environmentally affected
site would be the Chula Vista Marina-Port District site discussed.
The use of this site could effectively eliminate all environmental
concerns (except the traffic and access problems) and allow for
adequate parking spaces and area.
5. Air Quality
Incremental contributions to a cumulatively significant impact would
result from build-out project traffic. Less than significant
impacts would occur from emissions at the large surface parking lot.
Less than significant impacts would result from equipment exhaust
released during construction activities. No mitigation is
necessary, however, measures should be incorporated into project
construction permits to reduce interference with existing traffic
and prevent truck queuing around local receptors. Operations should
be limited to daytime periods of better dispersion so that localized
pollution accumulation is minimized.
Incremental contributions to potentially significant regional
impacts resulting from the clearing of existing site uses,
excavation of utility access, preparation of foundations and
footings, and building assembly creating temporary emissions of
dust, fumes, equipment exhaust and other air contaminants during
project construction would occur. Construction dust is an important
contributor to regional violations of inhalable dust standards.
typical dust lofting rates from construction activities are assumed
to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. If the
entire 11.6 acre project site is under simultaneous development,
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 7
total daily dust emissions would be approximately 1,200 pound/day.
Dust control through regular watering and other fugitive dust
abatement measures required by the APCD can reduce dust emissions by
50-70 percent, making the impact less than significant.
NON-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The following issues were evaluated and determined not to be significant
in their impact:
6. Parks and Recreation
Rohr employees are anticipated to use surrounding park/recreation
facilities. The actual number of persons employed at the facility
and expected to use park/recreation area is not considered
significant, however, the applicant should contribute funds for
improvements to existing jogging/walking paths or to new paths.
7. Schools
Employment-related population increases to the area would increase
enrollment in schools. The project could potentially generate more
students to the school system then the amount of money the
State-mandated fees required of non-residential development would
cover. To comply with the District's needs, the applicant must pay
the State-mandated school fees, and is currently in negotiation with
the Districts to establish fees to be paid and a method of financing.
8. Public Services
The effect to fire and Police services would be incrementally
affected by the project. Certain development requirements (as
described in the DEIR) must be met in accordance with Chula Vista
Fire Department requirements. The Police Department has not
required any measures to be taken by applicant.
The additional issues that were evaluated and found to be of less than
significant impact were: agricultural resources, noise, cultural
resources, land use, utilities, human health, risk of upset, and
potential for on-site hazardous substance.
WPC 8791P
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 335
Imperial Beach, CA 92032
Dec 6, 1990
City of chula Vista
Engineering Department
276 Fourth Avenue
chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: LETTER OF PERMISSION TO GRADE AND PLANT WITHIN SWEETWATER
MARSH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH 850
LAGOON DRIVE, ROHR INDUSTRIES OFFICE COMPLEX.
Gentlemen:
The property identified by the Assessors Parcel Number 567-010-27
Lies within the Sweetwater Marsh National wildlife Refuge.
We have reviewed The Grading and Planting Proposal as shown on
City of chula Vista DrawiNg. Numbers 90-991 and 90-1102. Because
this effort is viewed as habitat enhancement, consistent with
Refuge objectives, we hereby grant permission to grade and plant
on our property (± 200 Square feet area} as shown thereon. As
agreed, all revegetation actions will involve coastal sage scrub
species only. Planting maintenance must comply with provisions
as outlined in the appended Landscape Specifications, sheet 10~'
By: Marc Weitzel
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sweetwater Marsh National wildlife Refuge
Title: _~ Manaaer
\
cc: Kelly L. Birkes, Rick Engineering
- 'THE PLANTING PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC, ALL PLANT MATEPdAL LOCATIONS SHOWN ·
' ~.' ARE APPROXIMATE. PLANT SYMBOLS AND/OR 'ON CENTER' SPACINGS TAKE ·
:: ' PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT QUANTITIES LISTED. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE ONLY FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE -.
" CONTRACTOR :
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND ROCKS IN ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS. FINISH PLANTING
SURFACE SHALL BE SMOOTH AND EVEN.
WEEDS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THEIR ROOTS, INCLUDING BERMUDA GRASS.
· .' WEEDS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ALL PLANTING AREAS. WHEN NECESSARY TO ..
DISCOURAGE REGROWI'H, THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD APPLY A SUITABLE'
':' HERBICIDE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. (ROUNDUP -:
HERBICIDE BY MONSANTO OR EQUAL.)
REMOVE ALL GRUBBED MATERIAL FROM 1'HE SITE.
DELIVERY AND STORAGE
WHEN SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT INCORPORATED INTO TOPSOIL PRIOR TO .
· .: DELIVERY, SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN THE O~,IGINAL. '
-, -.~' UNOPENED CONTAINERS BEARING THE MANUFACTURER'S GUARANTEED
' i .,'"...,,:i'~i CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, NAME, .;~R.A~ E MARK OR TRADE: NAME AND STAT. EMENT' i ,
; ~,!.::,.' INDICATING CONFORMANCE~TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. IN LIEU OF
· ' ..'.i,-;' CO TAINERS, SOIL AMENDMENTS MAY BE FURNISHED IN BULK AND A
"' ~ ': . CERTIFICATE INDICATING THE ABOVE INFORMATION SHALL ACCOMPANY EACH
'.y........ LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE'TO
·' CERTIFY ALL UNOPENED FERTILIZER PACKAGES ON SITE AND PACKAGES SHALL':.
NOT BE REMOVED FROM SITE UNTIL AFTER INCORPORATION INTO SOIL AS PER
SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDED HEREIN AND ONLY WHEN DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE.
STORE SOIL AMENDMENTS IN A DRY PLACE AWAY FROM CONTAMINANTS.
SOiL TESTING
THE FOLLOWING SOILS TESTING LAB WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE FERTILITY OF
THE SITE SOIL AND MAY BE USED TO DETERMINE THE FERTILITY OF THE TOPSOIL:
SOiL & PLANT LABORATORY, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 6566
ALL-' FILL sLOp. ES 3:1 OR STEEPER SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE CUBIC YARD · -~'
· PER ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENT
INCORPORATED IN TO THE TOP 3u AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLANTING OR
SEEDING. -
]..-IYDROSE EDING MATERIALS.
ALLHYDROSEE~-APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE FIBER MULCH WHICH HAS BEEN
DYED GREEN. THE FIBER M. ULCH SHALL BE WOOD CELLULOSE WITH NO
INHIBITORS TO GERMINATION OR GROWTH, AND IT SHALL BE A HOMOGENEOUS
UNIFORMLY SUSPENDED SLURRY WHICH WILL ALLOW THE ABSORPTION OF
MOISTURE AND PERCOLATION OF WATER INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL. FIBER
SHALL BE NONTOXIC TO WILDLIFE.
WHEN A WE'i-I'ING AGENT IS CALLED FOR, IT SHALL BE 95% ALKYL POLYETHELENE
GLYCOL EITHER OR EQUAL, APPLIED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
SEED SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN SEALED CONTAINERS, LABELED BY
GENUS AND SPECIE. CONTAINERS SHALL NOT BE REMOVED FROM SITE UNTIL
DIRECTED BY OWNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. MIX. SHALL CONFORM TO
SPECIFICATION FOR PURE LIVE SEED; BULK POUNDAGES LISTED FOR THE
· CONVEI'IiENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTF~ACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH
SEED SUPPLIER FOR PRE-SOAKING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SEED WHIGH ARE
DIFFICULT TO GERMINATE AND SHALL ALSO PROVIDE SCARIFIED OR INOCULATED
SEED WHEN SPECIFIED. INOCULATED SEED MUST BE DRY BROADCAST.
HYDROSEEDING PROCEDURES
PRIOR TO SEEDING, THOROUGHLY MOISTEN THE ENTIRE SURFACE TO BE
SPRAYED.
PREPARATION OF THE SEED SLURRY SHALL TAKE PLACE ON SITE. FIBER MULCH
SHALL BE PREPARED FIRSTANDSEED SHALL BE ADDED LAST. THE SEED SHALL NOT
BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE MIXING TANK LONGER THAN THIRTY MINUTES.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN
ADVANCE OF SPRAY SO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY AT[END SPRAYING AND
SLURRY SAMPLES MAY BE TAKEN FROM THE TANK.
STABILIZING EMULSION SHALL BE A NONFLAMMABLE, NONTOXIC~?:*_.:.':
cONCENTRATED LIQUID CHEMICALWHICH FORMS A PLASTIC FILM AND ALLOWS:':'I~i~
AIR AND V~ATER TO PENETRATE. THE EMULSION SHALL BE REGISTERED WITH THE ·
AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS AN
DEPARTMENT. AuXiLiARY. SoiLOF CHEMICAL.FOOD AN STABILIZING EMULSION' SHALL BE MISCIBEE.WITH.·
WATER DURING APPLICATION, AND ONCE CURED, SHALL NOT' BE'.'
REEMULSIFIABLE.
' HYDROSE~D NATIV~ MIXES.
MIX A: UPLAND COASTAL SCRUB MIX
LBS/AC ' SPECIES PURITY% GERMINATION %
2 ARTEMISIA CALIFORNIA 50 60
1/2 ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS 90 70
10 ERIOGONUM FASICULATUM 10 65
','i ~.: -" "-"'
8 LOTUS SCOPARIUS 40 60
ss
2. MIMULUS PUNICEN~.. 2
75 " .....
30 PLANTAGO INSULARIS 95
~4 STfPA LEPIDA 40 30
60.5 LB/AC --
TEMPORARY HYDROSEED MIX
LBS/AC SPECIES PURITY 0,(, GERMINATION °,5
60 PLANTAGO tNSULARIS 98 40
, 4 S~,, A LEPIDA 40. 30
6G5 LB/AC -' ........ '-- - '
! TEMPORARY HYDROSEED MIX
.~ LBS/AC SPECIES PURITY' % GERM NATION %
60 PLANTAGO INSULARIS 98 40 :
· ~YDRO$~ED SLURRY MIX: ':
WOOD CELLULOSE FIBER 2000 POUNDS/AC ..
~ 20-20-20 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER 400 POUNDS/AC "' ' ":
... BINDER 160 POUNDS/AC '-.
:
~J~d~, OFF£ CE
Why is the building being const~_~t~fl P~ge 4-.
]~c,xt,~t. i ~p,,ct is S~ctinn c.~ nirculatlo,/k~rf'~
pag~ 2-i .~ays ,
is 44 feut - -he pA oposed i:; 42 [~et. Recommend changing
- - ' "''" [.0 r~d "4'~ Loot" ,d.a,.- ~lmildL
correction gO [,aq~ !-30.
depusi =ud ~
Frc, qu~nt reft~tenc~ to "heavy metals" · Is this (-~ prot~:ctive
: . - , c:hlnce of heavy m~tals
~. ~: N ......
' -' ~,~fc~ bo precl ~tozs they a~e referring to
When the ~,: pu~ ~
scaveng~rs, c:ats, dogs, coyotes, and faf trite, · II'1
Page 3-37. Mitigation measure ~10. Appears e;<ce~sive to require
R hr to tunu the ~_ lz time enforcement stai ',. ol [.wo
, ' ,,ili a>sume uc~uo ~hen Nohr leaves.'
c:ppes i ~,~ 3~-
F[S'~[~' ?-9. Why isn't tile Bay Elvd ~.~etc..
included?
Page 3-59 . A~,2 thc projoctlons of traffic based
~., z~y 2)ti a,q. a ·
,Ill/' Zh.~ lis ,ii L Zl~h h,.~ ~ ';-'h~5~i;ti
December 12, 1990
TO: Marianne Miller, Environmental Section - Planning
Department ~
VIA: Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreatio
FROM: Shauna Stokes~Principal Management Assistant
SUBJECT: Draft EIR for Rohr office Complex Expansion
We have reviewed this document and appreciate the inclusion of our
concerns from the check print draft EIR. The concerns of this
Department have been met.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.
/cs
PLANNING
~~o~~~:~~ ~rbo~ess TRIP
~ MEBBAGE
-
SIGNED
REPLY
SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 It,ITACT - POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472
~F-.DI .F~__.__r'~_ 4S 472 ~ '~T 3 WILL ,!E ~ETLIRNC~D ~,'IITH '~PI.V.
( MEMORANDUM
October 26, 1990
File No. YE-042
TO: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator
/
FROM: Clifford L. Swans~tgeputy Public
Works
Director/City
Engineer
SUBJECT: Engineering Review of EIR 90-10, Rohr Office Complex
The Engineering Division has reviewed the subject Environmental Impact Report and
hereby submits the following comments:
1. The subject EIR is incomplete. Many sections, most notably the "Traffic
Impact Report," are missing. The Engineering Division considers this review
of the EIR incomplete and will provide a final review upon submittal of a
complete EIR.
/2. Page 2-4. Reference was made to Figure 2-3; however the figure is missing.
3. It seems that this project will create significant changes to existing traffic
patterns, especially in the section of Bay Boulevard between "E" and "F"
Streets and at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street. The existing
ADT 4160 on "F" Street will be increased by 2450 to 6110 ADT.
4. The developer will be responsible for the upgrading of "F" Street (from Bay
Boulevard to their westerly property line) to a Class I Collector as designated
on the General Plan and for dedicating the necessary right-of-way along "F"
Street. The required improvements to "F" Street shall include but not be
limited to the installation of pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street
lights,...etc.
5. A "Traffic Impact Report" is being prepared as part of this EIR. Bay
Boulevard between "E" and "F" Streets will probably need to be ~videned to
handle the increased traffic volume generated by this project. This
requirement will be contingent upon the conclusions of the "Traffic Impact
Report" after that report has been reviewed and accepted by the City.
6. A detailed grading and drainage plan must be prepared in accordance xvith
the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual. applicable ordinances.
policies, and adopted standards. Said plan must be approved and a permit
issued by the Engineering Division prior to the start of any grading work
and/or installation of nny drainage structures.
Maryann Miller ~' ' ""2- ' .... October 26, 1990
i 7. The following paragraph must be added under the "Mitigation Measures"
section on page 3-5:
"Development of the subject project must comply
with all applicable regulations established by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as set
forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elim#mtion System (NPDES) permit requirements
for storm water discharge."
8. The draft EIR did not go into detail about extension of existing server mains
to service this project. The nearest sewer line is in Bay Boulevard south of
"F' Street and is over 1100 feet away from the proposed office building. The
developer would need permission from the City of San Diego Metropolitan
Sewerage System if a direct connection to the existing 78" RCP Metro sewer
line is proposed.
9. The proposed building falls within an inundation zone due to tidal waves. The
lowest finished floor elevation of the building must comply with the standards
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
SMN/bb
[SMN1V~OHR.DOC]
Sweetwater Union High School District
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
December 14, 1990 ~
Ms. Mary Ann Miller
Environmental Review Coordinator
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92011
Dear Ms. Miller:
Re: EIR-90-lO/Rohr Off~ce Complex
On June 21, 1990, I responded to a Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the above subject project
(attached). The district's position has not changed. I am
requesting that any a~proval of this project be conditioned on its
successful annexation to our district's Community Facilities
District No. 5, Drovid~ng that Government Code Section 65995 and
65996 are applicable.
Should you have any questions, feel free to give me a call at 691-
5553.
Res~gctfully,
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
cc: Kate Shurson
CHULA '""$TA EI,EMENTARY SCII )L DISTRICT
84 EAST 'J" STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 ° 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS ~ INDIVIDU.~L OF GREAT WORTH REC£1VED
BOARD OF E~CATION
JmEp. D. CUMM,.GS, m.D. DEC I O 19 3
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDO
JUOY HULENRERG PLAN N ING
F~NKA. TARANTINO December 4, 1990
~HN F. VUGRIN, Ph.D.
Ns. Naryann
Environmental Section
C~y of Chu]a Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Ws~a, CA 92010
RE: Not~ce of Planning Coffe]iss~on ~earing Rohr Office
Comp]ex
Dear Hs.
Thank you for [he oppor[un~[y to commen~ on the Draf~
Env]ronmen[a] [mpac~ Report for [he Rohr Office Complex prior
~o hearing before ~he Planning Commission.
As s[a~ed ~n my October 19, 1990, ]e~ter (copy enclosed),
~he Screencheck DE[R for ~h~s projec~ d~d no~ contain any
d~scuss~on relative [o ~mpac[s on public
specifically schools. ! have no~ received ~he DEIR and do
no~ kno~ ~f th~s omission has been corrected, and ~mpacts
properly addressed.
The relationship be[ween nonresidential developmen[ and s[uden[
enro]lmen~ has been clearly documented and [his project
have s~gn~f~can~ impacts on D~s~r]c~ facilities. Hy July
5, 1990, response ~o ~he project's Initial S[udy (copy
enclosed) s[a[ed [ha~ developer fees are no~ adequa[e ~o
m~t~ga[e [hese ~mpac~s, and recommended consideration of
an alternative f~nanc~ng mechanism, such as a Mel]o-Roos
Community Fac~l~es
[f you have any questions, please con[ac[ me.
Sincerely,
Kale Shurson
D~rec[or of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Meade
Tom S~]va
John L~nn
CHuI,A-,rlSTA CITY SCHOO DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
J~EPHD. CUMMINGS,~.D. October 19, 1990
JUDY~HULENBERG
FRANKA. TARANTINO
Ms. Maryann Miller
SUPERI~ENDE~ Environmental Section
~HNF~VUGRIN. Ph.O. City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE:Screencheck Draft EIR - Rohr Office Complex
EIR-90-~4-
Dear Ms. Miller:
I am in receipt of the Screencheck DEIR for the Rohr Office Complex
and your request for comments. The document, dated October 8, 1990,
was received in my office on October 17, with comments requested by
the 19th. Unfortunately this does not permit adequate time to review
the document.
It has not been the District's practice to comment on Screencheck
documents; rather, we provide initial input at the time the Notice
of Preparation or Initial Study is circulated. I refer you to that
letter (copy enclosed) for issues we request be addressed in the DEIR.
A brief review of the document's Table of Contents reveals that the
impact analysis does not contain any discussion relative to impacts
on public facilities, specifically schools. Without a thorough analysis
of these impacts and inclusion of appropriate mitigation measures,
this document is inadequate.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
) ,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
Ian Gill
CHULA_VISTA CITY SCIIOOL DIS'I'IHCT
84 EAST "J" STI~.EET * CIIut~AVISTA, CALIFORNIAg2010 ° 619425-gGUO
BOAROOF EDUCAIIOH ; , s,; ;'
~Y ~H~ENBER~ ,)
Ms, Maryann fllller '
su,~mm~,,~,~ Environmental Review Coordinator
~;WFV~Ra. Ph.O. Ct~y of Chula Vista
2~6 Fourth Rvenue
Chula Vista. Ch 92010
RE:Rohr Offtce Complex - HottCe of PreparaOon or an
Case Ho. fIE-90-10
Pear Hs. Hiller:
lhank you for ~he opportunity ~o provide tt~ptl~ o~] Um
Environmental Impact R~port for ~he Rohr orrtce complex.
1he Initial Study prepared for the proposed projec~ does
identify poten~;al significant impacts on schools. 1he relationship
between non-residential developmen~ and student eorollment ha~
been clearly recognized by ~he S~ate Legi sla~ure U~rough
authorization of collection or school fees. A jotn~ s~udy sponsored
by ftve South Bay school districts, prepared earlier this year
by SourcePoint, further documents and demonstrates thi~
relationship. Based on ~hts s~udy, ~he proposed 2II,SPO sqnare
fee~ of office space .tl1 gelmra~e approximately 162 new elementary
age children.
Pe~ s~uden~ Facility costs ~o ~he ~ts~rlc~ ~re estimated a~
or ~1,427,86B for OHs project, lhese costs r,r exceed developer
fees currently allowed unde~ S~a~e law. Chtmla VIsta City School
District's share of ~hese fees is $ .]2 pe~ square foo~, or $25,380,
far short of wha~ is ~eeded ~o provide facilities.
lhe Utstrtct reco~ends alternative financing mechnnisms including
formation of or annexation ~o a ~tello-Roos Community Facilities
District and would be happy ~o discuss UHs further.
If you have any questions, please con~ac~ my oFFice.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Olrec~or of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
lerrt Senner
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-91-03: Consideration to chanqe the name of Center
Street, located in the Montqomery area, to Reed
Court - City initiated
A. BACKGROUND
As a result of the Montgomery area annexation, the City of Chula Vista
now has two "Center Streets". One is located between Hilltop Drive and
Broadway and between F and G Streets, and the other is located adjacent
to the 3500 block of Main Street, parallel to Mace Street, in the
Montgomery area. The resulting confusion from having two streets with
the same name creates problems for both the City and its residents. The
most serious problem is a potential delay in response time for emergency
vehicles.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, on December 5, 1990, voted 6-0 to
recommend to change the name of the Montgomery area Center Street to Reed
Court.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council change the name of the
Montgomery area Center Street to Reed Court.
C. DISCUSSION
The proposal is to change the name of Center Street in the Montgomery
area since it is relatively short in length, consisting of only one city
block. The proposed name of Reed Court is indicative of a plant type
common in the vicinity which is adjacent to a riparian habitat
approximately 1,000 ft. to the south of the street where reed-type plant
growth is quite pronounced. Also, the entire western edge of the street
is bordered by a small drainage ditch, within which an abundance of reed
growth is visible. Additionally, the name Reed Court does not conflict
with any existing City street names.
The total fiscal impact to the City as a result of the proposed street
name change would be approximately $140. This includes one new street
name blade at the corner of Main Street, and a complete street name
assembly at the corner of Britton Street.
Property owners affected by this proposed street name change have been
notified of the hearing by mail. To date, there have been no responses
submitted.
The following are the City policies with regard to street naming. The
first is from the Municipal Code and the next is from the Subdivision
Design Manual.
1. It shall be the duty of the City Council, in designating street
names and in accepting recommendations for changes of street names,
to provide names which do not cause confusion and uncertainty to
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 2
police, fire or other emergency vehicles by virtue of similarity of
spelling or sound of said street names, and to act in changing such
names so as to eliminate such confusion and uncertainty.
2. New Streets
a. Names should not be used which are difficult to pronounce or
sound like other street names within the City's sphere of
influence.
b. Street names shall not duplicate any other street name within
an area surrounding the City where confusion may occur.
c. Proposed street names should be unique, meaningful, and
appropriate to the locale, type of subdivision, architecture,
etc. Names of persons should not be used unless that person
has distinguished himself during his or her lifetime and is now
deceased.
WPC 8757P
ST.!
~ ; STREET LOG-ATiON _~
city Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January 9, 1991 Page 1
3. REPORT - Selection of Plannina Commission to serve on the
1991 Growth Manaqement Oversiaht Committee
The Planning Commission annually appoints a member to represent the
Commission on the Growth Management Oversight Committee. This
Committee is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the
growth of the city and the Quality of Life Threshold Standards
approved by the city Council in 1987. Susan Fuller represented the
Planning Commission last year.
The GMOC meetings will start during the latter part of this month
and continue for approximately 10 biweekly meetings. Last year the
GMOC met on Thursday evenings.
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission is requested to appoint a member to
serve on the Growth Management Oversight Committee.
January 2, 1991
To: j~mbers of the Planning Commission
From:f~Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning
Subjec%: Workshop Scheduling for January
Please be advised that in lieu of your normal workshop meeting
scheduled for Wednesday, January 16, we have scheduled a briefing
and presentation coupled with a field trip for the San Miguel
property for Saturday, January 19. Please plan to meet at the
Public Services Building at 9 a.m. on Saturday, the 19th, in
Conference Room 2. At that time, the applicants for the San Miguel
property will provide a presentation lasting approximately one
hour. We will then board the city van and tour the San Miguel
property between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. If you have any questions, we
will respond at your regular Planning Commission meeting of
January,9.
KL:nr
{wp51\pc-l\wkshp}