ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT MANAGEMENT (358) 6~20l0 FACILITIES OPERATIONS IB5&1 CQ.4..JC10 S::LEET UANAGEUEJU John J. McTighe tltS&\ &g.&...2176 Director REAL ESTATE SERVICF.S DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES UlAAl GQ.t.2291 DOr:.UMENf SERVIC':F.S 5555 OVERLAND AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1294 l&...r,.&\lQS.SU6
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Name: Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library
Project Number(s): KL9540
This Document is Considered Draft Until it is Adopted by the Appropriate County of San Diego Decision-Making Body.
This Mitigated Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with the Environmental Initial Study that includes the following:
a. Initial Study Form d. Traffic Study for the Proposed Project e. Vernal Pool/Wetland Assessment and Wetland Delineation f. Cultural Resources Report g. Soils Study h. Flood Analysis
1. California Environmental Quality Act Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings: Find, that this Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the decision-making body's independent judgement and analysis; and, that the decision-making body has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments received during the public review period; and that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the project applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and, on the basis of the whole record before the decision-making body (including this Mitigated Negative Declaration) that there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Required Mitigation Measures: a. Anticipated impacts to 680 square feet of isolated, low value wetlands south of an existing headwall would be mitigated through wetlands restoration with an increase of the on-site wetlands by 344 square feet (from 2,780 SF to 3, 124 SF). Native wetland species present at the site and in the nearby Sweetwater River will be utilized for revegetation within the wetlands area, and indigenous native upland species will be utilized within the wetlands buffer zone. Specific planting and design details will be specified to the satisfaction of California Department of Fish and Game prior to issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for disturbance of the wetland. The County will be responsible for maintenance and monitoring of the wetland area until the mitigation success criteria have been met to the satisfaction of the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b. Potential cultural resource impacts due to construction disturbance of on site soils shall be mitigated through construction monitoring by a qualified archaeological monitor following County-approved procedures and standards. Monitoring shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the County Department of General Services.
c. Haul trucks used to transport fill soils to the site will only be allowed to enter or leave the site between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. This provision shall be monitored and enforced by County personnel.
3. Critical Project Design Elements That Must Become Conditions of Approval: The following project design elements were either proposed in the project application or the result of compliance with specific environmental laws and regulations and were essential in reaching the conclusions within the attached Environmental Initial Study. While the following are not technically mitigation measures, their implementation must be assured to avoid potentially significant environmental effects. a. improvement of library site parking areas to County standards for rural areas;
b. structural design and engineering in compliance with County building regulations;
c. compliance with applicable County and City regulations regarding grading and erosion prevention;
d. compliance with applicable County regulations protecting drainage courses;
e. compliance with County and City standards and procedures designed to implement the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan, Surface and Groundwater Objectives; f. Installation of any exterior library lighting consistent with County and City of Chula Vista lighting regulations.
g. Installation of parapet noise barriers around HVAC equipment to reduce peak HVAC noise levels to 60 dBA or less at the nearest residential property boundary
h. The site shall be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures, and into the existing drainage swale at the west side of the site (to be expanded and improved). Prior to construction/ grading of the site, a Notice of Intent (NOi) must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a General Construction Storm Water Permit. Once construction is complete, the site owner and/or facility operator is required to investigate coverage under the General Industrial Storm Water Permit by contacting the SDRWQCB at 619-467- 2952. In addition, if future uses allowed under the General Impact Industrial Use Regulations (M54) involve contaminates and/or the planned discharge of waste to waters of the State or ground/soil, a permit may be required by the SDRWQCB.
i. Prior to opening the library, the County will relocate the site access to Bonita Road, so that it lines up with the existing access to the shopping center south of Bonita Road. The County will also close the existing Bonita Road access to the golf course parking lot. Concurrently, the City of Chula Vista will install a traffic signal at the new intersection, to be in place prior to opening of the library for public use.
j. If any site contamination is discovered at the site during the process of preconstruction inspection, the County Department of General Services will follow standard project procedures, as follows. 1) conduct special testing of the site to determine the nature and extent of the potential contamination; 2) if such contamination is documented, request that the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) identify and describe appropriate protocols to be followed; 3) incorporate the protocols developed by DEH into project construction documents; and 4) have DEH provide oversight for any remediation efforts.
4. Results of Public Review
( ) No Comments were received during the public input period.
( Comments were received but did not address the draft Negative Declaration finding or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are attached.
( X ) Comments addressing the findings of the draft Negative Declaration and/or accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study were received during the public input period. The letters and responses follow. RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER FROM MARY ANN MANN, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY, DATED NOVEMBER 5, 2003 (See Attached Letter Following MND)
In response to comment on Section V.2, the statement in the Initial Study that the Sweetwater hydrologic subarea is impaired for Coliform bacteria and metals is incorrect, and has been deleted. This change does not result in any change in anticipated impacts.
In response to comment on Section V.4, we could not find the statement that "the project site is not located within an aquifer." We agree that the site is located above an aquifer in the La Nacion hydrologic subarea, used for municipal, domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes. Therefore, no change to the Initial Study is required.
In response to comment on Section V.6, the current site condition includes unimproved land that produces a peak discharge of approximately 3.0 cubic feet per second of runoff in the ten year storm. Development of the site with building, parking lots and impervious surfaces increases the peak discharge in the similar ten-year storm to approximately 5.8 cubic feet per second. The estimated increase in the rate of discharge is insignificant compared to the total peak discharge of the overall drainage basin. The peak basin discharge of the inclusive Sweetwater River basin is more than 20,000 cubic feet per second.
The project design incorporates site design, source control, and structural treatment Best Management Practices (BMP's) in compliance with local and regional requirements. Site design BMP's include the utilization of landscape and natural areas for the discharge of surface drainage and the reduction of impervious surfaces to the extent possible. Source Control BMP's include the control of hazardous material storage, the limitation of the use of fertilizers and pesticides, the design of controlled trash enclosures, the installation of efficient landscape irrigation systems, catch basin stenciling, and good site housekeeping and maintenance. Structural treatment BMP's include catch basin filter inserts, site maintenance, natural bio-filters and swales, and construction phase best management practices. Implementation of these BMP's would reduce the potential for site discharge or urban runoff impacting water quality downstream.
In response to comment on Section V.11, site development will include elevating the proposed buildings to an elevation approximately one foot above the 100-year flood level of the adjacent Sweetwater River. The proposed building pads have an elevation of 75.7 and 75.9 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The Sweetwater Dam inundation area would have an elevation of approximately 76 feet ASML at the project site. Furthermore, finish floor elevations would be at 76.20 and 76.45 feet ASML. Therefore, no significant impacts associated with flooding are anticipated at the site.
In response to comment on Section XII, the proposed site plan requires potable water service for fire protection, domestic, and landscape uses. Currently properties on the east and west of the site are serviced from existing water mains in Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road. The existing commercial center directly south of the site on the southerly side of Bonita Road is served by an existing water main connecting Otay Lakes Road to the main in Bonita Road. The installation of a new water main in Bonita Road easterly of the required point of service for the site is unnecessary. The extention of the existing water main in Bonita Road approximately 250 feet easterly will adequately serve the site.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER FROM GREG HOLMES, DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, DATED NOVEMBER 10, 2003 (See Attached Letter Following MND)
In response to comment (1), the proposed site is a vacant lot, with no uses other than occasional parking by walkers and joggers. Review of databases maintained by U.S. EPA (Envirofacts), California Integrated Waste Management Board (SWIS), California Water Resources Control Board (GeoTracker), and the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (SAM) show no hazardous materials issues at the proposed library site.
In response to comment (2), the databases listed in (1) show no hazardous material site with an open "case" nearby and upgradient. An Arco gas station (#1806) located at 4498 Bonita Road, approximately one block east of the site and south of Bonita Road has been the subject of remedial actions, but that work was completed in August 2003 according the DEH personnel. Therefore, no threat to human health at the proposed library site is anticipated.
In response to comment (3), the hazards questions in the Initial Study utilize a set of questions adopted by the County of San Diego. The issue addressed in the first bulleted item of comment (3) is addressed in Item IX.1, which states "The proposed project would not involve uses that would contain, handle, or store any potential sources of chemicals or compounds that would present a significant risk of accidental explosion of release of hazardous substances." The site is not located within one-quarter mile of a school, although that is irrelevant here, given the absence of any hazardous materials other than typical cleaning products. The response to the question identified in the second bullet has been given in the responses to comments (1) and (2) above. No significant hazard to the public or to the environment are expected to occur as a result of development at the proposed site.
In response to comment (4), we have added Condition of Approval 3.j, which states that "If any site contamination is discovered at the site during the process of preconstruction inspection, the County Department of General Services will follow standard project procedures, as follows: 1) conduct special testing of the site to determine the nature and extent of the potential contamination; 2) if such contamination is documented, request that the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) identify and describe appropriate protocols to be followed; 3) incorporate the protocols developed by DEH into project construction documents; and 4) have DEH provide oversight for any remediation efforts that may be required."
In response to comments (5), (6), (7) and (9), see the response to comment (4) above.
In response to comment (8), no building structures are present on the proposed site. RESPONSE TO COMMENT FAX FROM VALERIE RADEK, SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY, DA TED NOVEMBER 17, 2003 (See Attached Letter Following MND)
The description of anticipated library staffing and hours was revised per Radek input.
ADOPTION STATEMENT: This Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and the above California E;nvironmental Quality Act findings made by the: l.oU~ oO ?tll-1 \)1~~0 f2oMt, ttti ! !Apeav1'> oY"z (Decision-Making Body) on r~ I 1 /6 ~ ( 4j (Date/Item#) r ' ~~A-~~ Jeffrey Redlitz, Project Manager County of San Diego, Department of General Services SWEETWATER AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD 505 GARRETT AVENUE JAMES "JIM" DOUD. CHAIR W.D. "BUD" POCKLINGTON. VICE CHAIR POST OFFICE BOX 2328 R. MITCHEL BEAUCHAMP CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328 NICK INZUNZA (619) 420-1413 MARGARET COOK 'NELSH FAX (619) 425-7469 RICHARD A REYNOLDS http://www.sweetwater.or.g · ····· ------CARY F. WRIGHT WANDA AVERY November 5, 2003 TREASURER MARISA FARPON-FRIEDMAN SECRETARY Mr. Ralph Kingery BRG Consulting, Inc. 304 Ivy Street San Diego, CA 92101-2030
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BONITA I SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY, A.P.N. 593-240-24 LOWER SWEETWATER RIVER URBAN RUNOFF PROTECTION
Dear Mr. Kingery:
Sweetwater Authority has received the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and associated environmental reports for the proposed Bonita I Sunnyside branch library facility. The proposed project includes an 8,300 sq. ft. public library, a 1,600 sq. ft. community center, and a 4,400 sq. ft. museum and public safety center. Development of the approximately 1.36- acre site also would provide 56 parking spaces in a currently unpaved area used for unofficial parking, landscaping with native plant species, and reconstruction and reconfiguration of an existing wetland habitat. Between 17,000 and 24,000 cubic yards of fill would raise the level of the proposed structures and parking areas above the 100-year flood elevation. Water service and sewer service are planned for the project.
The site is located downstream of Sweetwater Reservoir and lies entirely within the drainage basin of the Lower Sweetwater River, as shown on enclosed Figure 1. In 2000, Sweetwater Authority began utilizing groundwater from the alluvial and San Diego Formations at the Reynolds Demineralization Facility at Second Avenue, Chula Vista, north of SR-54 and the Sweetwater River channel. The Demineralization Facility treats groundwater through reverse osmosis and distributes it to the Authority's customers via the adjacent water distribution system. Because Sweetwater Authority is utilizing groundwater from the Lower Sweetwater River Basin, we are interested in protecting water quality in the basin.
Specific comments are as follows:
Section V. Water Resources
Section V.2. of the Environmental Analysis states that the Sweetwater hydrologic subarea is impaired for Coliform bacteria and metals. According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (J. Smith, telephone conversation with T. Murphree, July 10, 2003), no portion of the Sweetwater River watershed is impaired or on the 303d list. The Sweetwater River flows into San Diego Bay, portions of which are impaired. Please provide information relating to the basis of the applicant's findings that this river is impaired.
Section V.4. states that "the project site is not located within an aquifer. According to the records of the State of California, Department of Water Resources, the project site is located within an aquifer.
A Public Water Agency Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas Mr. Ralph Kingery Re: COMMENTS ON BONITA I SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY LOWER SWEETWATER RIVER URBAN RUNOFF PROTECTION November 5, 2003 Page2
Section V.6. discusses the potential of the project to increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off-site. As noted above the Authority has an existing groundwater demineralization facility located downstream of this project. We request that the applicant discuss the implementation of best management practices according to city, county and regional standards to minimize flow of urban runoff into the river system that may be detrimental to our facility.
The Section V.11. response states that the site will not be subject to the 100-year flood plain and will no longer be located in the Sweetwater Dam inundation area after the elevation is increased by approximately five feet. Sweetwater Authority is only aware of a Sweetwater Dam inundation map that was created for our predecessor, California American Water Company, in 1974. While we do not have jurisdiction of flood contml, we caution the applicant that if this map was utilized the information may not be currently accurate.
Section XII discusses the previous correspondence from Sweetwater Authority regarding a main extension in Bonita Road. To clarify attached is a map showing the minimum requirements for the new water main. Our standards require that any new water main be extended to the centerline of the lot of a new development. Also, the final determination of the new water main including diameter is based on the proposed fire flow and domestic requirements. It may be necessary to extend this new main in Bonita Road to Otay Lakes Road.
Sweetwater Authority appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Bonita I Sunnyside branch library and to provide further awareness of the importance of watershed management in San Diego County. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Troy Murphree at (619) 409-6815.
Sincerely,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY '.')A\~ k ~\~ Mary 'Ann 'Mann Director of Water Quality encl: as cited pc: Mr. Jeffrey Redlitz, County of San Diego, Dept. of General Services Mr. John Hammond, Sweetwater Community Planning Group Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator, City of Chula Vista Planning Department Ms. Troy Murphree, Sweetwater Authority PROJECT LOCATION WI INHYD OLOGJC UNIT
Sweetwater River Watershed Boundary Subject to Resolution 84-8 As Amended Lower Sweetwater River Basin wt Sweetwater Authority Service Area OJ 0 0,5 Mild Sweetwater Reservoir Reynolds Demineralization Facility Alluvial Well (Monitoring) 0 100/500 Year Flood Plain (FEMA) Alluvial Well (Production) © N.C. Well Field (Monitoring) @ Sweetwater Dam Inundation Area N.C. Well Field (Production) /"v' Sweetwater River San Diego Formation (Monitoring) Tributaries San Diego Formation (Production)
1
PROPOSE D LIBRARY PROJECT
PROPOSED LIBRARY PROJECT N
.-...,.:;· D:\MYDOCS\GIS\OPSCOM\36_3NSAVE.APR QTR SECTION 58 n D D D D D D D D D D D D 0 D D D 0 Department of Toxic Substances CdmroF~J
Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Winston H. Hickox Gray Davis .Agency Secretary Governor f·; .._.>:·: ... alifornia Environmental .... '-··· :..!'./ Protection Agericy
November 10, 2003
Mr. Jeffrey Redlitz Project Manager Depa.rtmen.loLG.eneral S.ervlces County of San Diego 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B MS 0650 San Diego, California 92123-1666
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BONITA/SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY PROJECT (SCH #2003101112)
Dear Mr. Redlitz:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative Declaration (ND) for the above-mentioned Project.
Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows:
1) The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the Project area.
2) The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies:
• National Priority List (NPL): A list is maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• CalSites: A Database primarily is used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that maintained by U.S. EPA. The energy challenge feeing California is reel. Every Californian needs to take Immediate action to ~duce energy consumption. Fore I/st of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site etwww.dtsc.ca.gov.
® Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Jeffrey Redlitz November 10, 2003 Page 2of4
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that maintained by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board consists of both open as well as closed-am:! inactive solffi waste disposaf facilities and transfer stations.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) I Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
• Local County and City maintain lists for hazardous substances' cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
3) The ND does not specifically address the Hazards' section checklist of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which includes the following questions:
• Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
• Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and 1 as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
4) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials/wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination. Also, it is necessary to estimate the potential threat to public health and/or the environment posed by the site. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state regulations and policies. Mr. Jeffrey Redlitz November 10, 2003 Page 3 of 4
5) All environmental investigation and/or remediation should be conducted under a Workplan which is approved by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste cleanup.
6) If the subject property was previously used for agriculture, onsite soils could contain pesticide residues. Proper investigation and remedial action may be necessary to ensure-the-site·
7) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone Property."
8) If building structures are planned to be demolished/renovated, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If lead-based paints or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies.
9) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
DTSC provides guidance for preparation of a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA), and cleanup oversight through, the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. Mr. Jeffrey Redlitz
November 101 2003 Page 4 of 4
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5476.
Sincerely, ~~····· Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 Input from Valerie Radek, Fax of November 17, 2003.
The Draft MNO is available tor public review at the following locations: County of San Diego, Department of General Services, Project Management Dfvision
Information Counter, 5555 Overiand OriVe1 San Diego, CA 92123; City of Chula Vista Library, 365 F Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910; and Bonlta.Sunnyslde library, 5047 Central Avenue, CA 91902.
For information on environmental review for this project, contact Ralph Kingery of BRG Consulting, Inc. at (619} 298-7127. The Draft MNO ls being c1rculated for a 30·day publlc review period beginning on October 22, 2003 and ending on November 21. 2003. Written comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft MNO should be directed to Ralph Kingery. BRG Consulting, Inc., 304 Ivy Street, San Diego, California 92101-2030 and must be received by November 21, 2003. All comment letters received durtng the SQ.day review period wilt be part of the environmental review record.
A Final MND incorporating public input wilt be prepared for consideration by the County of San Diego at a future publlc meeting. The date, time, and location of the public meeting will be provided by public notice when they are determined.
This notice was published in the SAN DIEGO DAllY TRANSCRIPT and dfstrtbuted on 0 ber 22~-i:c:
------· . ·-·- --· -· The library would be staff by six employees each day and would be open for approximately 50 hours per week. Hours of operation would be from 10 AM to a PM on Monday and Tuesday; 10 AM to 6 PM on Wednesday and Thursday; and 10 AM to 5 PM on Friday and Saturday. It ts expected that the Friends of the Library wlll operate a bookstore. The store wm be staffed by volunteers with sd'leduled hours yet to be determined.
"' -cw 411d-,.C e- 0. - • .;.,.J a. /.r ""- ,,, :7" 0 f:, ..,,..,_· ./'vc,-.::.o a'1'JI t /ti0 'i::J t:,; 0 f' .::;;.. """" f:.. L. Ar -t.t...- I'~ 11· ;; c. ,;I ~. -h 13,,....,,,,'-="4 6,,.J ~~
PROJECT W.NAGEUEMT f&Sa1&9'-204ll FACtLmFS OPERATIONS fRSU 594.-3510 FLEET MANAGEMENT john J. McTighe IRS&l 6U.2l76 Director REAL EST ATE SERl/ICF.S DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES IAS&I &!U-1'91 DOCUMENT SER\llCES 5555 OVERLAND AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1294 18,.tj,g\49S.SU6
November 26, 2003 FINAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
1. Project Number(s)/Environmental Log Number/Title: KL9540/Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library
2. Description of Project:
The County of San Diego Department of General Services is proposing to build a new San Diego County branch library in the Sweetwater Community Plan Area of the City of Chula Vista (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed project would include a library, a community center, and a museum/public safety center located on Bonita Road, adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course (Figures 3 and 4). The project would also involve improvements to a portion of the existing parking lot and jogging trail to the east of the new library project and landscaping around the new library project buildings.
The proposed library would be constructed on a 1.36-acre vacant lot on Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road to the east and Willow Street to the west (see Figure 2). Site preparation would involve the importation of approximately 17,000 to 24,000 cubic yards of fill, to raise the level of the site approximately five feet and out of the floodplain. Prior to opening the library, the County will relocate the site access to Bonita Road, so that it lines up with the existing access to the shopping center south of Bonita Road. The County will also close the existing Bonita Road access to the golf course parking lot. Concurrently, the City of Chula Vista will install traffic signals at the new intersection, to be in place prior to opening of the library for public use.
Library The proposed 8,300-square-foot library would be a single-story structure and would be located on the north side of the parcel, parallel to the existing Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. The main entrance/exit would be located at the south side of the building and would be accessible from the adjacent parking lot. The library would have a lobby, art gates, display areas, circulation desk, informal reading areas, adult/young adult area, 15 computer stations, 3 homework stations, reference area, copier, reserves/sorting shelf, a study/seminar room, meeting room, children's area, children's special features area, restroom facilities, two work stations, a workroom, staff restroom, janitor room, two storage rooms, Initial Study, Bonita Library - 2 - Date: November 26, 2003
staff break room, and a staff courtyard (Figure 5). The library would include a Friends of the Library bookstore at the storefront on the south side of the building (see Figure 5). Elevation views of the proposed library are shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Community Center The proposed 1,600-square-foot Community Center would be located on the westside of the library building and would include a kitchenette, a storage room, and a community patio (see Figures 3 and 6).
Museum/Public Safety Center The proposed 4,400-square-foot future museum and public safety center building would be located adjacent to Bonita Road on the southern end of the parcel.
Project Site Improvements The on-site parking lot would provide a total of 56 parking spaces. The project parking lot would be separated from a new paved parking area on the City portion of the site, and from the existing Golf Course and Clubhouse parking lot, east of the proposed project area. Access to the project parking area would be from Bonita Road. The existing driveway to the proposed project area would serve as temporary construction access to the site until that driveway is closed and replaced with a driveway that lines up with the existing Vons driveway just south of the parcel. The intersection of the project driveway and the Vons driveway with Bonita Road would be signalized by the City of Chula Vista concurrently with library construction and the library would not open until the signalization has been completed. The proposed project would include the removal of an existing pepper tree in the middle of the site. Landscaping improvements would consist of native plant species and the enhancement and modification of the existing isolated wetland with plant species that currently reside in the Sweetwater River. The site plan would incorporate an existing jogging path that passes through the site (see Figure 3). Conceptual grading of the site is shown in Figure 8.
Hours of Operation The library would be staffed by seven to ninesix employees each day and would be open for approximately .§4-50 hours per week. Hours of operation would be from 10 AM to €-§_PM on Monday and VVednesdayTuesday, 10 AM to &-§_PM on Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday, and 10 AM to 5 PM on Friday and Saturday.:., and 1 PM to 5 PM on Sunday. The bookstore vvould be staffed by t\NO to four volunteers each day and 1.vould be open for 36 hours per vveek. Bookstore hours of operation 1.vould be from 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Saturday and closed on Sunday. It is expected that the Friends of the Library will operate a bookstore. The store will be staffed by volunteers. with scheduled hours yet to be determined. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 3 - Date: November 26, 2003
3. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: County of San Diego Department of General Services County Operations Center 5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 2600 Building 2, Room 220 San Diego, California 92123-1294
4. Project Location:
The library would be constructed on a vacant lot on Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road and Willow Street in the community of Bonita (portion of Section 13, Township 17 South, Range 1 West, National City 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangle, San Bernardino Base and Meridian). Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 593-240- 24.
Thomas Brothers Coordinates: Page 1310, Grid G/3
5. Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting:
The proposed project site is located in the community of Bonita, within the City of Chula Vista, California. According to the Sweetwater Community Plan, the community has unique resources within San Diego County, that provide a semi rural equestrian community which is close to urban areas. Adjacent land uses on the same block as the project include the existing clubhouse/parking lot of the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course to the east, and the Vista Bonita Apartments to the west. Existing land uses located south of the proposed library site, south of Bonita Road, include commercial and residential uses. The Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course is located north of the site. Surrounding properties are zoned for a mixture of commercial, residential, and park/recreation uses.
6. General Plan Designation Community Plan: Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Designation: Visitor Commercial (CV) Density: N/A
7. Zoning Use Regulation: CV (Visitor Commercial) Density: N/A Special Area Regulation: None
8. Environmental resources either significantly affected or significantly affected but avoidable as detailed on the following attached "Environmental Analysis Form".
None Initial Study, Bonita Library -4- Date: November 26, 2003
9. Lead Agency Name and Address:
County of San Diego, Department of General Services 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B MS 0650 San Diego, California 92123-1666
10. Lead Agency Contact and Phone Number:
Jeffrey Redlitz Department of General Services (858) 694-8834
11. Anticipated discretionary actions and the public agencies whose discretionary approval is necessary to implement the proposed project:
Permit Type/Action Agency Certification of the MND/IS County of San Diego Lease Agreement/CUP/Design Review City of Chula Vista Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement CDFG Section 401 Permit RWQCB
12. State agencies (not included in #11) that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project: None.
13. Participants in the preparation of this Initial Study:
Ralph Kingery and Kathie Washington, BRG Consulting Richard King, RDK Consulting David Pfeifer, Dominy & Associates
14. Initial Study Determination:
On the basis of this Initial Study, the County of San Diego Department of General Services believes that the proposed project may have a potentially significant effect on the environment. However, the mitigation measures described in the attached Environmental Analysis Form have been added to the project which clearly reduce the potentially significant effects to a level below significance. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
it~!J~i1tlager Date: November 26, 2003 County of San Diego, Department of General Services Initial Study, Bonita Library - 5 - Date: November 26, 2003
Attachments: Figure 1 Regional Location Map Figure 2 Project Location Map Figure 3 Concept Plan Figure 4 Site Plan Figure 5 Library Floor Plan Figure 6 Library-North and South Elevations Figure 7 Library-East and West Elevations Figure 8 Conceptual Grading Plan
Appendix A Geotechnical Investigation Prepared by Geocon
Appendix B Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations Prepared by Snipes-Dye
Appendix C Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Appendix D Biological Resources Study and Results of Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Prepared by Vincent Scheidt
Appendix E Cultural Resources Studies Prepared by Gallegos & Associates
Appendix F Will-Serve Letters - 6 -
ENCINITAS
z <( lU 0 0
PROJECT LOCATION
SOURCE: BRG Consultin , Inc., 2003. NO SCALE Bonita I Sunnyside Branch Library FIGURE Regional Location Map 1 BRG Consulting, Inc. -7-
0 2000 4000
Scale in Feet
BASEMAP: USGS 7.5' Quadran le, National Cit . SOURCE: BRG Consultin , Inc., 2003. 06124/03 Bonita I Sunnyside Branch Library FIGURE ·ill·ill·IB· Vicinity Map 2 BRG CONSUL TING. INC. o:>
0 128 256 l Scale in Feet
SOURCE: Dominy and Associates Architects, 2003. 10/08103 Bonita I Sunnyside Branch Library FIGURE ·m·m·m· library Concept Plan 3 rmo CONSULTING. INC - 9 -
~[',x..;.Yi'T'JS·--A/ ~~-'.l,4.1.~ ---If.-
".'JE'Tt.ANO'AND SUFFER AREA ,(2) MONUMENT SIGt>j _____·------· - f.). . ..w:nJ;~F. \..Jf/"·.. r-.c- ~~ '----/./ ' !:lZIN'O::U ;' CO-Jlt'.lr~·~·< C:Jil!MatetHl'.r. ',, ,_.--~~ {
·------~ ----- ~~ ------! --- North ------. 0 60 120
SOURCE: Domin and Associates Architects, 2003. Scale in Feet 10/08/03 Bonita I Sunnyside Branch Library FIGURE 'Site Plan 4 BRG CONSUL TING, INC.
1f ; if I~ iii I.J~'-'!-,.r_,, ·' ·tfb • -'Yf,_7~ :.r~cfb-; Qb l~·p.a· " ... " .... !•i t~· .. · Q__b • 'µ- '! r~-~ i.i 'f JlJ . 'i, ii; ' ADU.ti~;: i li; ""+lf'-' ;:, : i;; l
EIE! ACU.l/~llO.U lO..i;:;;;;t.Q 1:1• n~a •Ii 0, QQ
PATIO """""""" STATlONS ~ • .. ~ 0
~"' ROOM ,.....,. '"""'"'ROOM bQOKSTORE 1 . l .,,,,, ~ \ ~~ ~J.. --- .~-- .. ----- North 0 22 44
Scale in Feet
SOURCE: Dominy and Associates Architects, 2003. 08/24/03 Bonita I Sunnyside Branch Library FIGURE ·m·rn·m· library Floor Plan 5 BRG CONSUL TING, INC. ~~?ttt~~~i~3:~1,~~w~r~~~~~.tfl:~t,~~ - - --, - - - - ·-.------'-=-~ North Elevation
I -lo. -lo.
' .. '~,; ~
;''Af' ( .··. ;';~ ..~ -. ·:.>:\:·.-: _...;;
< tt--=t=:=!-W-t=t= 11+'·"···· . -- == """------~\:---11' -~ ~·------..:::.. --
South Elevation 0 30 60 1 Scale in Feet
SOURCE: Dominy and Associates Architects, 2003. 08/24/03 Bonita I Sunnyside Branch Library FIGURE Library North and South Elevations 6 -~·~·m·BRG CONSUL TING, INC. ,.,,,- ". \, ...... ,., :~;:· \,... ( ,!~ /"~·:.f~'7 ,,./~ r .... i,.., - ~~~~~~-=----~;:_;'.~~~~ll
__ ,_ __ -..::::::_------East Elevation
I
~ --~#- N ,- I
r...-···--·~-., ,.r ' ' I, 11 r1 ~--- "'-}~;,1-q_ · · - 2] ::£t-1 ~·I'~&IL.. L~. ' ~ ; [6 ~'~ .. ' v,ff 'tp
West Elevation 0 30 60 I Scale in Feet SOURCE: Dominy and Associates Architects, 2003. 08/24/03 Bonita I Sunnyside Branch Library FIGURE Library East and West Elevations 7 ·~·rn·~·BRG CONSULTING, INC.
- 13 -
/ I / \ r···------·-- •' \
1. I
::::·:=~~] 11111111111!111
\ ...... \ \ ...... ,,..,i." __ , __ ,,._, ___ ,, -...... ,~ ·._:BR.AFY ·1s:w ff 7'::.l P.:.0
{{) ~ NOTES A~ ~
) ':'MS Pl.A!-< Wr\S Mf.P~ffi ro INCIC.\TI=: '...j( Pf!Cf'OO:O ~i! i~Pr(C',.t'J(~T'3 ,,_.._D ~TC t':>\Alt,.i.c.:::. II :':'; NlH iNllNDW AS A :.:RJ.'..IJNC !.>t.A!i
1, $:':"[ CRN'~,\GC Df.$7 MN~A.Q:",l[t{!' ~f0·C'1CC~ 'ct< ;1c-5r c~s;itur«Ot> s1~1.. r.vAttR "!f..'li o; l'O$~i. ntn:Hs =~A:.:. CA'!o':!-! ~t.S!NS AN!': Ctmtt iNU'.7~
4, THE EXISTING WETLANDS A.REA. NORTH OF THE HEADWALL SHALL REMA.IN UNDISTURllEO OURtNG PCL 2 GRADING OPERATIONS. P.M. 958
'=\ \ \ r--; g,~~l'fCUii9 \ \ ! ..,,_.' \,.,___ ...... \ i ~-;is _____ I ~ I \ !
~~ North A:e -f•--''"-'""=-- - ~ - 0 60 120
SOURCE: Sni es-D e Associates, 2003. Scale in Feet 10/08/03 Bonita I Sunnyside Branch Library FIGURE ·m·m·m· Conceptual Grading Plan 8 BRG CONSULTING, INC.
Initial Study, Bonita Library - 14 - Date: November 26, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FORM
DATE: November 26, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library
PROJECT NUMBER(S): # KL9540
EXPLANATION OF ANSWERS:
The following questions are answered either "Potentially Significant Impact", "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated", "Less Than Significant Impact", or "Not Applicable" and are defined as follows.
"Potentially Significant Impact." County staff is of the opinion there is substantial evidence that the project has a potentially significant environmental effect and the effect is not clearly avoidable with mitigation measures or feasible project changes. "Potentially Significant Impact" means that County staff recommends the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated." County staff is of the opinion there is substantial evidence that the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the resource. However, the incorporation of mitigation measures or project changes agreed to by the applicant has clearly reduced the effect to a less than significant level.
"Less Than Significant Impact." County staff is of the opinion that the project may have an effect on the resource, but there is no substantial evidence that the effect is potentially significant and/or adverse.
"Not Applicable." County staff is of the opinion that, as a result of the nature of the project or the existing environment, there is no potential for the proposed project to have an effect on the resource.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Would the proposal potentially be in conflict with any element of the General Plan including community plans, land use designation, or zoning?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed library project would be constructed on a parcel zoned and designated for commercial visitor use by the City of Chula Vista General Plan. According to the City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance, libraries, community centers, museums, and other unclassified uses may be allowed in CV zones with a Conditional Use Permit. With Chula Vista Initial Study, Bonita Library - 15 - Date: November 26, 2003
approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the project would be consistent with the zoning and General land use designation of the site.
2. Would the proposal potentially be in conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Less than Significant Impact.
The proposed project is located within the 100-year flood plain, which is protected under the Federal Emergency Management Agency, California Coastal Commission, and the County of San Diego. The project will comply with all applicable flood regulations, including maintaining structures at least one foot above the 100-year flood zone (Snipes-Dye, 2003). Other agencies with jurisdiction over the project include the City of Chula Vista, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. All construction would be done in compliance with applicable regulations and policies of these agencies. No conflicts with environmental plans or policies adopted by these agencies have been identified.
3. Does the proposal have the potential to be incompatible with existing or planned land uses or the character of the community?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The general plan land use designation and zoning of the proposed Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library project site is visitor commercial (CV). According to the City of Chula Vista's Zoning Ordinance, libraries, community centers, museums, and other unclassified uses may be allowed in CV zones/land use designations with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project uses are compatible with the uses allowed under General Plan and zoning designations of the project site. The existing land uses surrounding the project site include commercial and residential uses. The library project is compatible with these uses. Additionally, compliance with the Chula Vista design review process will ensure that the project is consistent with the character of the Sweetwater Community Plan Area and the City of Chula Vista's zoning development regulations for CV zone uses. The architectural style is depicted in Figures 5 and 6, which is proposed to be consistent with the architectural style of the community, rural and informal. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 16 - Date: November 26, 2003
4. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would provide an expanded library, community center, museum/public safety center for the community. There is no residential neighborhood that would be disrupted or divided by the proposed project.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
1. Would the proposal convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; or have a potentially adverse effect on prime agricultural soils as identified on the soils map for the Conservation Element of the San Diego County General Plan?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The soils map for the Conservation Element of the San Diego County General Plan does not identify any prime agricultural soils onsite. The project site is identified as Salinas clay loam (SbA), 0 to 2 percent slopes, Tijuana sand (TuB), 0 to 5 percent slopes, and Riverwash (Rm) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1973). SbA is designated as Prime Farmland Soil and TuB is designated as a Soil of Statewide Importance. However, the project site is located in a fully developed area and does not currently support agricultural operations. Therefore, a significant conversion of farmland resources to non-agricultural uses would not occur.
2. Would the proposal conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
Not Applicable.
The project site and surrounding area do not contain agricultural uses. In addition, the project site and surrounding area are not zoned for agricultural use, nor is the land under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 17 - Date: November 26, 2003
3. Would the proposal involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-agricultural use?
Not Applicable.
The project site and surrounding area do not contain agricultural uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Ill. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Would the proposal potentially induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library Project would be a public community-serving facility. The project is located in a developed area, and would not involve substantial extensions of infrastructure, such as water, sewer or new roads systems into previously unserved areas. The project is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan. The project will not introduce new industrial uses or employment in the area. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth that would be inconsistent with the City of Chula Vista planning goals.
2. Would the proposal displace a potentially significant amount of existing housing, especially affordable housing?
Not Applicable.
There are no residential uses on the property that would be displaced as a result of the project.
IV. GEOLOGIC ISSUES
1. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly increase the exposure of people to hazards related to fault rupture (Alquist-Priolo Zone), seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (liquefaction), rockfall, or landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The slightly sloping project site is not located in a hazard zone identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Special Publication 42, Revised 1994, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. According to a Initial Study, Bonita Library - 18 - Date: November 26, 2003
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon on August 8, 2003 (see Appendix A), the nearest active fault to the project site is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 6.6 miles west of the project site. The site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on this or other faults within the southern California or northern Baja California regions. The seismic risk at the site, however, is not considered significantly greater than that of surrounding developments. The site is underlain by Alluvial soils. Proper engineering of the new structures would ensure that the potential for geologic impacts from regional hazards would be less than significant.
2. Would the proposal result in potentially significant increased erosion?
Less Than Significant Impact.
According to the Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California (USDA, 1973), the soils onsite are identified as SbA, TuB, and Rm, which have slight to moderate, moderate to severe, and severe erosion hazards, respectively. The potential for wind or water erosion would be significant if the soil was exposed. Project features would include the implementation of soil erosion resources required pursuant to the City of Chula Vista Sub division Manual and the Development and Redevelopment Project Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual. Compliance with the standard erosion control measures identified in these manuals will ensure that the project would not result in significantly increased erosion potential.
3. Would the proposal result in potentially significant unstable soil conditions (expansive soils) from excavation, grading, or fill?
Less Than Significant Impact.
A review of the Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California (USDA, 1973) identified no soils on the site which have a high shrink-swell behavior. The three mapped soils on the site, SbA, TuB, and Rm, have moderate to low shrink-swell behavior. Therefore, on-site soil conditions are stable and do not have an adverse potential to impact the proposed development.
Approximately 17,000 to 24,000 cubic yards of fill soils would be brought to the site to raise proposed structures and parking areas above the 100- year flood elevation. These soils will be obtained from a variety of construction sites in the Chula Vista area. All such fill soils will be tested prior to transport to the site to preclude acceptance expansive soils, in accordance with the recommendations of the engineer technician for the proposed project. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 19 - Date: November 26, 2003
4. Would the proposal result in a potentially significant adverse effect to unique geologic features?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Based on a site visit conducted by BRG Consulting on March 7, 2003, no unique geologic features were identified on the property, or in the immediate vicinity. The project site is relatively flat and void of any unique topographical or geologic features. Since no unique geologic features are present on the site, no adverse impacts would result from the proposed project.
5. Would the proposal result in potentially significant loss of availability of a significant mineral resource that would be of future value to the region?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project would not result in a loss of availability of a known significant mineral resource that would be of value to the region. The project is not located in a significant mineral resource area, as identified in the "Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego Production-Consumption Region, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996". Additionally, no past or present mining activities were identified on the project site during the site visit conducted by BRG Consulting on March 7, 2003.
V. WATER RESOURCES
1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project is proposed by the County of San Diego General Services Department, and the project will comply with the requirements and standards of the City of Chula Vista's Subdivision Manual and the Development and Redevelopment Project Storm Water Management Standards Requirements Manual. The project proposes and will be required to implement construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs chosen will be consistent with City of Chula Vista requirements and documentation procedures. Construction best management practices will be designed and controlled by the erosion control plan to be prepared as part of the grading plan and the required stormwater pollution prevention plan, SWPPP, to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista as part of the construction documents. Site design BMPs include: site design to reduce impervious surfaces to a minimum, landscape to reduce potential erosion on slopes, energy dissipaters at outlet locations of storm drains, inclusion of vegetated Initial Study, Bonita Library - 20 - Date: November 26, 2003
swales and wetlands to treat surface runoff as bio-filters. Source control BMPs include: covered trash enclosures, efficient irrigation system design, catch basin stenciling, and good housekeeping maintenance of the site parking areas and landscape areas. Structural treatment BMPs include catch basin filters, maintenance agreements for site housekeeping and filter maintenance, and construction phase BMPs.
Implementation of these measures will enable the project to meet waste discharge requirements as required by the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (California RWQCB, 2001). The impact associated with this issue will be less than significant.
2. Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list? If so, could the project result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project lies in the Sweetwater La Nacion hydrologic subarea, within the Lower Sweetwater hydrologic area. unit that is impaired for Coliform bacteria, metals. Hmvever, the project does not propose any knovm sources of pollutants, or land use activities that might contribute these pollutants. The Lower Sweetwater River is not listed as an impaired water body.
3. Could the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
Not Applicable.
The Project does not propose any known sources of polluted runoff. In addition the project does not propose new storm water facilities. The site would be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures, and into the existing drainage swale at the west side of the site (to be expanded and improved). Prior to construction/grading of the site, a Notice of Intent (NOi) must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a General Construction Storm Water Permit. Once construction is complete, the site owner and/or facility operator is required to investigate coverage under the General Industrial Storm Water Permit by contacting the SDRWQCB at (619) 467- 2952. In addition, if future uses allowed under the General Impact Industrial Use Regulations (M54) involve contaminates and/or the planned discharge of waste to waters of the State or ground/soil, a permit may be required by the SDRWQCB. Therefore, no impact to surface and groundwater water quality will result. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 21 - Date: November 26, 2003
4. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?)
Not Applicable.
The proposed project will not use or alter groundwater supplies. No impact to this issue is anticipated. No dewatering of the site would be required during site development, since the existing ground water level is six to seven feet deep (see Appendix A) and excavation of on-site soil would not exceed four feet.
5. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant.
The project site is generally flat and completely disturbed. The project site is proposed to be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures and into an existing drainage swale at the western side of the site. That swale currently receives drainage from the vacant project site, the adjacent apartment parking lot, Bonita Road and from the commercial parking lot on the South side of Bonita Road. The existing swale has no outflow across the jogging trail and the golf course. Water in the swale percolates into the ground. Surface water flow in the existing drainage/discharge is not cleaned nor treated in any manner. The proposed drainage swale is larger and improves and would clean/treat most of the surface flow introduced into it. Installation of an outlet pipe under the pedestrian/equestrian path would allow for discharge of excess water from the swale in a managed manner. Energy from the occasional outflow would be dissipated within the pipe, and in an outlet area containing rip-rap. Details of this outlet will be finalized as part of the Chula Vista review of the proposed grading plan. Therefore, the project would result in no substantial erosion on- or offsite.
6. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant.
The project site is generally flat and completely disturbed. Construction of the project would not result in a substantial alteration of the existing Initial Study, Bonita Library - 22 - Date: November 26, 2003
drainage pattern. Runoff will be directed to an existing drainage swale at the west side of the project site. This, combined with the raising of the site grade in development areas will insure that no flooding occurs on- or off site. No related impact to this issue is anticipated.
7. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The existing and improved drainage swale west of the project site and filtered catch basins will control runoff and ensure that the capacity of existing off-site drainage facilities are not exceeded. Grading of the site will comply with applicable County and Chula Vista regulations. The impact associated with this issue is less than significant.
8. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant.
The proposed project is the construction of a community library project. As such, the project would not include potential sources of chemicals or compounds that could contaminate surface water sources and decrease the quality of surface water to below standards as established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SDRWQCB's) Basin Plan, Surface Water Quality Objectives. However, prior to construction/grading of the site, a Notice of Intent (NOi) must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a General Construction Storm Water Permit. Once construction is complete, the site owner and/or facility operator is required to investigate coverage under the General Industrial Storm Water Permit by contacting the SDRWQCB at (619) 467- 2952. In addition, if future uses allowed under the General Impact Industrial Use Regulations (M54) involve contaminates and/or the planned discharge of waste to waters of the State or ground/soil, a permit may be required by the SDRWQCB.
The project will also implement water quality BMPs, as discussed in V.1. Implementation of these BMPs, and compliance with NPDES requirements to control the quality of storm-water runoff from the site will ensure that the project will not substantially degrade water quality. The impact associated with this issue is considered less than significant. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 23 - Date: November 26, 2003
9. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other hazard delineation map, including County Floodplain Maps?
Not Applicable.
The proposed library project is the development of a new library, community center, museum, and public safety center and no housing is proposed. No impact associated with this issue is anticipated.
10. Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project site is currently within the 100-year flood plain of the Sweetwater River. However, in order to develop the site, pad elevations will be elevated approximately five feet to provide a flood free site (Snipes Dye, 2003) (see Appendix B). The pad elevations of 75.7 feet and 75.9 feet place the proposed buildings 2 feet above the 100-year flood level for the Sweetwater River, as defined by FEMA and the County of San Diego [Dominy memo, 9/18/03]. A CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) is currently being processed through FEMA for the project. Upon completion of the project, a LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) will be filed with FEMA. The impact associated with this issue is considered less than significant.
11. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Currently the site is located in the 100-year flood plain within the Sweetwater Dam inundation area. However, prior to construction, the site will be elevated approximately five feet to provide a flood free site. After construction, the site wi-1+-would not be subject to a high risk of flooding and will not but would be located ffi-on the fringes of a dam inundation area (pad elevation of 75. 7 feet AMSL v. approximately 76 feet AMSL for the inundation area. The impact associated with this issue is considered less than significant.
12. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Not Applicable.
There is no potential for damage as a result of the occurrence of either a tsunami or seiche. The project site is located approximately 5-6 miles Initial Study, Bonita Library - 24 - Date: November 26, 2003
from the San Diego Bay. The project site is not located directly down slope from any significant hills or mountains, and landslide potential for the area is low. No impact associated with this issue is anticipated.
VI. AIR QUALITY
1. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly contribute to the violation of any air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project will not generate a significant source of stationary or indirect air pollutants. The proposed project is estimated to generate 565 average daily trips (LLG, 2003). The traffic generated by the proposed project will generate the emissions identified in the table below.
Project Air Emission/Significance
Pollutant Mobile Emissions APCD Significance Exceeds Threshold Significance Threshold? co 19.99 550 No voes 2.14 55 No NOx 6.04 250 No PM10 3.76 100 No
The low number of vehicle trip emissions associated with the proposed project will not cause a conflict with or obstruct implementation of all Federal, State and Local air quality plans or significantly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, the daily operations of the project will not emit any toxic air contaminant or substantial particulate matter from sources other than vehicles. Finally, any construction-related air quality emissions will be temporary and will be reduced through the implementation of standard construction practices as required by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). Therefore, the impact associated with air quality will be less than significant.
2. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly increase the exposure of people to any excessive levels of air pollutants?
Not Applicable.
Based on a site visit conducted by BRG Consulting on March 7, 2003, and a consultation with Anita Tinsley at San Diego County Air Pollution Control District on March 28, 2003, the project is not located near any identified Initial Study, Bonita Library - 25 - Date: November 26, 2003
source of noxious emissions and would not expose people to excessive levels of air pollutants. No point-source (e.g., smokestack) emissions are associated with the project.
3. Would the proposal potentially result in the emission of objectionable odors at a significant intensity over a significant area?
Not Applicable.
No potential sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed project. The project will not result in any emissions or uses that could create objectionable odors. Thus, the project is not expected to generate any significant levels of objectionable odors.
VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
1. Would the proposal result in a potential degradation of the level of service of affected roadways in relation to the existing traffic volumes and road capacity?
Less Than Significant Impact.
A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project by Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG) (October 2003) and is provided in Appendix C. Three key roadway segments in the project vicinity were analyzed. Bonita Road and Willow Street are classified as Major Roads and Otay Lakes Road is classified as a Prime Arterial. Currently, the three key roadway segments analyzed operate at a level of service (LOS) B, C or D: the intersection of Bonita Road and Willow Street (LOS B in AM and LOS C in PM), the intersection of Bonita Road and the Project Driveway (unsignalized) (LOS D in AM and LOS C in PM), the intersection of Bonita Road and the Project Driveway (signalized in the near future) (LOS B in AM and PM), and the intersection of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road (LOS C in Am and PM). The proposed project would generate 565 ADT, based on the SANDAG library trip generation rate of 50 daily trips per 1,000 square feet for the 8,300 square-feet of proposed library, and then 25 daily trips per 1,000 SF for the balance of 6,000 square-feet for the proposed project. These 565 project-generated trips were distributed to the surrounding street system as vehicle trips. With the addition of project traffic to the existing traffic, all of the nearby intersections would continue to operate at the same LOS. Therefore, project traffic would not adversely affect traffic LOS (see Table 4 in Appendix C).
If the project intersection were not signalized, project traffic plus traffic from other cumulative projects would change the existing LOS C to LOS D, an acceptable level of service. With signalization, as proposed by the Initial Study, Bonita Library - 26 - Date: November 26, 2003
City of Chula Vista, LOS B service is projected for the project driveway intersection.
Future (Year 2020) roadway segments in the study area are not expected to change from their existing LOS. When project traffic is added to future (Year 2020) traffic volumes, all street segments would continue to operate at the same future LOS. Therefore, the potential for project traffic to degrade the LOS of affected roadways in the existing nearterm and/or future conditions would be less than significant.
Fill estimates have been revised to 17,000 to 24,000 cubic yards (cy). At this time, anticipated sources of the fill soils are Gateway Center in downtown Chula Vista (approximately 17,000 cy) and Rancho San Miguel several miles east of the library site (approximately 7,000 cy). If the fill process takes three weeks, truck ADT associated with the filling would be less than 160 ADT (80 loads per day). LLG traffic analysis indicates that no significant traffic impact would occur if fill haul trucks are restricted to off-peak times, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and LLG recommended that such restrictions be implemented. Implementation of that recommendation would eliminate potential peak hour impacts no matter what the sources of fill or the routes taken. This restriction is shown as Mitigation Measure 2.c in the MND document.
2. Would the proposal result in potentially significant impacts to traffic safety (e.g., limited sight distance, curve radii, right-of-way)?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The current access to the site is via an unsignalized, full access "tee" intersection to Bonita Road. The proposed project would not result in any changes to existing sight distance, curve radii, or right-of-way. As a result of an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior to opening the library, the County will relocate the site access to Bonita Road. The County will also close the existing Bonita Road access to the golf course parking lot. Concurrently, the City of Chula Vista will install a traffic signal at the new intersection, to be in place prior to opening of the library for public use. As a result, access to the proposed project site and intersection level of service would be improved. No significant traffic safety impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
3. Would the proposal potentially result in insufficient parking capacity onsite or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Using the County library parking standard of 1 space per 300 SF of library would require 33 spaces for the proposed 9,900 SF library plus community room. The 4,000 SF museum would require 20 spaces at one space per Initial Study, Bonita Library - 27 - Date: November 26, 2003
200 SF, and the three staff members at the safety center require three more spaces. The total is 56 spaces (1 space per 255 SF) and that is what is proposed. Chula Vista has no parking standards for libraries. For the last seven County libraries constructed or approved, approximately one space per 270 SF has been provided. Therefore, the proposed Bonita Library is consistent with, and provides slightly more parking than the average of prior constructed or approved County branch libraries. Park user/jogger parking can continue on the eastern, City of Chula Vista, half of the site. This portion of the site will be paved by the County under an agreement with the City. Anecdotal evidence indicates that approximately one-half the existing vacant lot is currently used at peak times by park users or joggers. The remaining City lands are expected to be able to continue to accommodate current peak park parking at the site. If additional park parking is required, it is available at the Rohr Park lot located south of Sweetwater Road. Therefore, parking impacts would be less than significant.
4. Would the proposal result in a potentially significant hazard or barrier for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Although the proposed project would contribute 565 additional ADT to local roadways, it would not result in a significant increase in the V/C ratio of surrounding street segments. An existing jogging trail currently crosses the proposed project site; however, as part of the proposed project this jogging trail will be rerouted along the north side of the proposed library project. Rerouting the jogging trail would create a safer jogging trail than the one that currently exists on the site. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the project would provide a significant hazard or barrier to pedestrians or bicyclists.
VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Would the proposal result in potentially significant adverse effects, including noise from construction or the project, to an endangered, threatened, or rare plant or animal species or their habitats? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the biological study of the site prepared by Vincent Scheidt (Appendix D), nearly all of the site that is proposed for development has been completely disturbed and contains no native vegetation or habitats. However, approximately 680 SF of low-quality isolated wetlands habitat occur near the southwestern portion of the site (south of an existing headwall) and would incur project impacts, while an additional 2, 100 SF of isolated wetlands north of the headwall would not be impacted (other than Initial Study, Bonita Library - 28 - Date: November 26, 2003
via enhancement). According to Appendix D, most of the plant species present within the wetlands area are non-native exotics. The 680 SF of isolated wetlands do not contain any endangered, threatened or rare plant or animal species or their habitats. No endangered, threatened or rare plant or animal species as identified by the County of San Diego or State and Federal wildlife agencies, or their habitats, occur on other areas of the site. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to such species from the proposed project.
2. Does the project comply with the Sensitive Habitat Lands section (Article IV, Item 6) of the Resource Protection Ordinance?
Not Applicable
The County Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) is applicable only to a specific list of County permits. None of the RPO-listed permits will be requested. Rather, the City of Chula Vista will be requested to issue a Conditional Use Permit, for development of an unclassified use in a Visitor Commercial zone.
3. Would the proposal result in potentially significant adverse effects to wetland habitats or wetland buffers? Is the project in conformance with wetland and wetland buffer regulations within the Resource Protection Ordinance?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated
As discussed in a biological report prepared by Vincent Scheidt, the proposed Bonita Library project site does not support vernal pools; however, man-made wetlands are located on-site, in a swale along the property line boundary with Bonita Vista Apartments. The wetland habitat there is defined by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) as an isolated wetland (not connected to any navigable water body). Therefore, the isolated wetland does not qualify as a federally-regulated wetland, only as a "state" wetland. Impacts to the drainage would therefore be regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
As indicated in the project site plan, Figure 4, all project development would be set back 10-25 feet from the wetlands area bank top to avoid an impact to this man-made drainage. However, in order to utilize the southwestern portion of the site for the proposed museum, drainage from the southern portion of Bonita Vista Apartments would be put in an underground pipe south of the existing headwall. This would remove approximately 680 SF of isolated, low-quality wetlands, which is proposed to be mitigated through creation of 1,024 SF of wetlands adjacent to the swale to the north of the headwall. Thus, impacts to the wetland would be mitigated at more than the 1:1 ratio, as discussed with, and agreed to in Initial Study, Bonita Library - 29 - Date: November 26, 2003
concept by CDFG personnel on August 12, 2003. The implementation of project-appropriate BMPs, as discussed in Section V of this MND/ Initial Study, would minimize any potential discharge of sediments into the wetland.
The minor impact to the isolated wetland will be mitigated through the reconstruction and revegetation of the existing wetland with details specified to the satisfaction of CDFG prior to approval of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. As shown on the site plan (Figure 4) the existing wetland totals 2,780 SF, including 680 SF south of the headwall. The proposed reconfigured wetland totals 3, 124 SF, an increase of 344 SF. Approximately 1,024 SF of new wetlands north of the headwall would be provided, mitigating for the 680 SF of wetlands south of the headwall to be removed, resulting in a mitigation ratio of greater than 1.5: 1. This ratio exceeds the 1: 1 ratio that was agreed as appropriate by CDFG personnel at the meeting of August 12, 2003. The restoration of the wetlands would include the planting of native wetlands vegetation using species found in the Sweetwater River area, and planting of upland native species in the buffer area along the wetland. An application for a CDFG Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement and a RWQCB Section 401 permit application will be submitted to CDFG and RWQCB, respectively, and must be approved, if appropriate, by those agencies prior to any disturbance of the wetlands. Therefore any potentially significant impacts to wetland habitats will be reduced to below a level of significance through the proposed wetland reconfiguration measures. Conformance with the County Resources Protection Ordinance is not required for this project, because no County permit listed in the Ordinance is being requested. However, with mitigation of the anticipated wetlands impacts as described above through wetlands revegetation and expansion, and placement of project development beyond a 10-25-foot wide wetlands buffer zone, the project is consistent with RPO requirements.
4. Does the proposed project have the potential to discharge material into and/or divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, lake, wetland or water of the U.S. in which the California Department of Fish and Game and/or Army Corps of Engineers maintain jurisdiction over?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated.
The proposed project site does not contain any rivers, streams, lakes, or waters of the U.S. that could potentially be impacted, diverted or obstructed by the proposed development. However, the proposed project site does contain a state isolated wetland, regulated by CDFG and RWQCB, that would incur impacts from the proposed project development. Approximately 2,850 SF of isolated, low-quality non-federal Initial Study, Bonita Library - 30 - Date: November 26, 2003
wetlands are located in a drainage swale associated with the adjacent apartment complex along the western boundary of the site. The southern 680 SF of that wetlands area would be disturbed by the proposed project. As mitigation, approximately 1,024 SF of wetland habitat would be added adjacent to the swale north of the existing headwall, a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio. The new wetland habitat and adjacent buffer areas would be revegetated with native plant species per a Wetlands Restoration/ Revegetation Plan, meeting the standards of, and to the satisfaction of, the California Department of Fish and Game. Setback of the project development areas behind wetland buffer zones, and implementation of project-appropriate BMPs would preclude any discharge of sediments into nearby wetlands, and the reconfiguration and reconstruction of the existing wetland would avoid any permanent impacts to the wetland habitat. Therefore, no unmitigated impacts would occur to rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, or waters of the U.S. over which the California Department of Fish and Game and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintain jurisdiction.
5. Would the proposal result in potentially significant adverse effects to wildlife dispersal corridors? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within a generally-developed area of Bonita. A small isolated drainage swale associated with runoff from the adjacent apartment complex is located at the western edge of the project site. The swale has not been identified as a biological resource of any significance, including a wildlife corridor, in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. According to the biological survey report (Appendix D), no significant animals were detected at the site, with the exception of an exotic African clawed frog. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impact to wildlife dispersal corridors.
6. Does the proposed project conform to the Multiple Species Conservation Program and Biological Mitigation Ordinance?
Not Applicable. The proposed project site and any off-site improvements related to the proposed project are located outside any areas identified as biological resources in the City of Chula Vista Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City MSCP. The City has no Biological Mitigation Ordinance, and compliance with the County's Biological Mitigation Ordinance is not required. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 31 - Date: November 26, 2003
7. Does the proposed project conform to the Habitat Loss Permit/Coastal Sage Scrub Ordinance findings? Not Applicable. The proposed project does not contain habitats subject to the County Habitat Loss Permit/ Coastal Sage Scrub Ordinance. In addition, it is located within the City of Chula Vista. Therefore, conformance to the Habitat Loss Permit/Coastal Sage Scrub Ordinance findings is not required.
IX. HAZARDS
1. Would the proposal present a significant risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances?
Not Applicable.
The proposed project would not involve uses that would contain, handle, or store any potential sources of chemicals or compounds that would present a significant risk of accidental explosion of release of hazardous substances.
Typical commercial products would be used for cleaning purposes, and would be used in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
The proposed site is a vacant lot, with no uses other than occasional parking by walkers and joggers. Testing of site soils has identified no obvious or suspected contamination. Review of databases maintained by U.S. EPA (Envirofacts), California Integrated Waste Management Board (SWIS), California Water Resources Control Board (GeoTracker), and the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (SAM) show no open hazardous materials cases at or within one block of the proposed library site. According to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) personnel, Arco gas station #1806, located at 4498 Bonita Road, approximately one block east of the site, had been the site of remedial action. but that work was completed in August 2003.
If any site contamination is discovered at the site during the process of preconstruction inspection, the County Department of General Services will follow standard project procedures, as follows: 1) conduct special testing of the site to determine the nature and extent of the potential contamination: 2) if such contamination is documented, request that the DEH identify and describe appropriate protocols to be followed; 3) incorporate the protocols developed by DEH into project construction documents; and. 4) have DEH provide oversight for any remediation efforts. As a result of these reviews and compliance with standard County Initial Study, Bonita Library - 32 - Date: November 26, 2003
procedures. no threat to human health at the proposed library site is anticipated.
2. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly interfere with the County of San Diego Operational Area Emergency Plan or the County of San Diego Operational Site Specific Dam Failure Evacuation Data Plans?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project lies inside the Sweetwater Dam inundation area for major dams/reservoirs within San Diego County, as identified on inundation maps prepared by the dam owners. However, development of the proposed project would not interfere with any County Operational emergency or evacuation plans; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly increase the fire hazard in areas with flammable vegetation?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project will not significantly increase the fire hazard because it will comply with the regulations relating to emergency access, water supply, and defensible space specified in the Uniform Fire Code, Article 9 and Appendix II-A, Section 16, as adopted and amended by the local fire protection district. Implementation of these fire safety standards will occur during building permit process. The Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District currently serves the communities of Sweetwater, Bonita and Sunnyside. The Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Station No. 2 is located at 4900 Bonita Road in Bonita, approximately seven blocks from the proposed library project site. The project does not propose uses that would increase the potential fire hazard, and the site is not located in an area with flammable vegetation or adjacent to wildlands. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to significantly increase fire hazards.
4. a. Would the proposal expose people or property to flooding?
Less Than Significant Impact.
According to on-line SANDAG flood hazard maps, the project is located within a 100-year flood hazard area (SAN DAG, 2003). Therefore, the project would potentially expose people or property to flooding. In order to develop the site, the pad elevations will be elevated approximately five feet to provide a flood free site (Snipes Dye, 2003) (see Item V.10, and Appendix B). With the proposed fill, the potential for flooding on the project site is less than significant. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 33 - Date: November 26, 2003
b. Does the project comply with the Floodways and Floodplain Fringe section (Article IV, Section 3) of the Resource Protection Ordinance?
Not Applicable.
The County's Resource Protection Ordinance is not applicable to this project. See Vlll.2.
5. Would the proposal expose people to any other demonstrable potentially significant health or safety hazard not listed above?
Less Than Significant Impact.
No other health or safety hazard has been identified in the review of the proposed project.
X. NOISE
1. Would the proposal result in exposing people to potentially significant noise levels (i.e., in excess of the San Diego County Noise Control Regulations)?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project site is located north of Bonita Road, a busy street with a current ADT of approximately 36,600 vehicles per day (LLG, 2003). None of the other land uses adjacent to the proposed project site (golf course, clubhouse, and apartment complex) are expected to result in substantial noise levels that would impact the project. According to noise studies prepared for the North Embarcadero Alliance Visionary Plan EIR, sound levels resulting from 36,600 ADT would be approximately 72 dB(A) CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane to the site (Port of San Diego, 1999). Sound levels decrease with increasing distance from the source of the sound. For linear sources, such as streets or highways, the sound level decreases by 3 dB(A) per doubling of distance on a line perpendicular to the project site. Thus, Bonita Road sound levels would decrease to 69 dB(A) at 100 feet from the centerline of the nearest lane, to 66 dB(A) at 200 feet, and to 63 dB(A) at 400 feet.
The front facade of the library and community center is proposed to be built approximately 216 feet from the centerline of the northern lane of Bonita Road (Dominy & Associates, 2003). Sound levels from Bonita Road traffic at this location have been estimated by BRG at 65.67 dB(A) CNEL. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 34 - Date: November 26, 2003
According to the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance, the acceptable interior noise level for libraries is 55 dB(A). Standard construction techniques result in sound level reductions from exterior to interior of 20 to 30 dB(A), with windows closed (Appendix D, Noise Element, San Diego County General Plan, 1980). Therefore, exterior sound levels of 75 dB(A) would not require additional sound reduction measures in design or construction in order to meet interior sound level standards, since it can easily be reduced to 55 dB(A) or less using standard construction techniques.
Since the exterior sound level at the proposed library facade from Bonita Road traffic has been estimated at 65.5 dB(A) CNEL, the library project would not require additional sound reduction over standard design and construction techniques. In summary, the project would not result in exposing persons using the facility to significant noise levels.
2. Would the proposal generate potentially significant adverse noise levels (i.e., in excess of the City of Chula Vista Noise Control Ordinance)?
Less than Significant Impact.
Onsite noise associated with the project would occur during construction, and during operation of library heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
Due to the increased noise levels emitted from construction, the City of Chula Vista limits construction to daylight hours. Construction of the library project would comply with these regulations. Therefore, there would be no significant noise impact associated with project construction.
The maximum library operational sound levels would occur on a warm afternoon, when all air conditioning equipment would operate at 100 percent maximum power. Although specific HVAC equipment has not yet been selected, the HVAC system from a similarly sized facility was analyzed. Such a system, consisting of four roof-mounted air conditioning units, would result in sound levels of 86 dB(A) at five feet from the equipment (Noise Impact Study, Alpine Branch Library, Giroux and Associates, 2002). The property line for the nearest residential uses, the Vista Bonita Apartments, is located more than 112 feet west of the center of the proposed library building. At that distance, estimated library HVAC sound levels would diminish to approximately 59.1 dB(A). Chula Vista Noise Control Ordinance exterior noise limits for all multiple dwelling residential areas is 50 dB(A) from 1Op.m. to 7a.m. (Weekdays) and 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. (Weekends), and 60 dB(A) from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Weekdays) and 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Weekends) (Chula Vista Municipal Code, 2001 ). The library's hours of operation, when the HVAC system would operate at maximum power, would be between the hours of 8 a.m. and10 p.m. Therefore the estimated library HVAC sound levels would not Initial Study, Bonita Library - 35 - Date: November 26, 2003
exceed the residential noise standards of 60 dB(A) during those hours of operation. In addition, a solid HVAC parapet wall has been proposed by the project architects, which would diminish sound levels associated with library HVAC to 53.1 dB(A). This has been made Condition of Approval g. in the MND.
The proposed museum would also have HVAC equipment. The center of museum HVAC equipment location would be more than 70 feet from the nearest residential property line. Without noise barriers, and at maximum power, sound levels at the residential building would be approximately 63.2 dB(A). However, with the 6 dB noise reduction from the proposed solid parapet barrier, the resultant maximum sound levels from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. at the residential building near the museum would be approximately 57.2 dB(A). This operation also would comply with limits of the Chula Vista Noise Control Ordinance.
Xi. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal create potentially significant adverse effects on, or result in the need for new or significantly altered services or facilities? This could include a significantly increased maintenance burden on fire or police protection, schools, parks, or other public services or facilities. Also, will the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed library project would include two separate buildings (library, community center, and future museum/public safety center) and would be located in an urbanized area adjacent to the existing golf course and clubhouse/Southbay banquet center. The existing available public services would be adequate to serve the new library. The Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Department and the Chula Vista Police Department have provided signed service availability letters to verify that fire services and police protection will be available for the proposed project, and that no expansion of these services would be required. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for new or significantly altered services or facilities.
Additionally, project access complies with the Bonita-Sunnyside and City of Chula Vista Fire Department standards. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 36 - Date: November 26, 2003
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Would the proposal result in a need for potentially significant new distribution systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas; Communication systems; Water treatment or distribution facilities; Sewer or septic tanks; Storm water drainage; Solid waste disposal; Water supplies?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed library project would be constructed on a site surrounded by prior Urban developments. As such, the project site has the distribution systems listed above already in-place. The Sweetwater Authority and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) have provided signed service availability letters that verifies that water and powers services will be available for the proposed project. However, in order to meet the water supply at the project site, the Sweetwater Authority stated in their letter that because there is no water main in Bonita Road fronting the property, a water main extension would be required to serve the project. Before the completion of the proposed library project, a water main extension would be installed in Bonita Road fronting the project site. Therefore, impacts to utilities and services would be less than significant (see Figure 8).
XIII. AESTHETICS
1. Would the proposal result in a demonstrable, potentially significant, adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Not Applicable.
No scenic vista or scenic highways is located within the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not result in a demonstrable, adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic highway.
2. Would the proposal result in a demonstrable, potentially significant, adverse visual effect that results from landform modification, development on steep slopes, excessive grading (cut/fill slopes), or any other negative aesthetic effect?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction of the proposed library project would not involve any substantial landform modification, development on steep slopes or Initial Study, Bonita Library - 37 - Date: November 26, 2003
excessive grading. The elevation of the portions of the site where the library would be located would be raised from 2.5 to 5.0 feet, using imported fill. The project is subject to the Chula Vista design review process, ensuring that the project, as approved, would not result in any adverse visual effect.
3. Does the project comply with the Steep Slope section (Article IV, Section 5) of the Resource Protection Ordinance?
Not Applicable.
The project does not propose development on steep slopes. In addition, conformance with the County's RPO is not required. See Vlll.2.
4. Would the project produce excessive light, glare or dark sky impacts?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project is the construction of a new community library, community center, museum/public safety center. The project is a County project within the City of Chula Vista, therefore, the project will be required to comply with both and County and City of Chula Vista lighting standards. The library project would be required by County Ordinance to direct lighting away from adjacent properties and uses. Approximately seven new light poles would be installed at the project site to illuminate sidewalks and the parking lot after dark. The proposed lighting would comply with City of Chula Vista standards, as required for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the project would not produce excessive light, glare or dark sky impacts.
XIV. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Would the proposal grade or disturb geologic formations that may contain potentially significant paleontological resources?
Less Than Significant Impact.
A review of the paleontological maps provided by the San Diego Natural History Museum indicates that the project is not located on geological formations that contain significant paleontological resources. The geological formations that underlie the project are undifferentiated alluvium and slopewash, which have a low probability of containing paleontological resources. The proposed project would not grade or disturb geologic formations that may contain potentially significant paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue is considered less than significant. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 38 - Date: November 26, 2003
2. Does the project comply with the Significant Prehistoric and Historic Sites section (Article IV, Section 7) of the Resource Protection Ordinance?
Not Applicable.
The County's Resource Protection Ordinance is not applicable to this project. See Vlll.2.
3. Would the proposal grade, disturb or threaten a potentially significant archaeological, historical or cultural artifact, object, structure, or site which:
a. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions;
b. Has particular quality or uniqueness (such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type);
c. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person;
d. Is listed in, or determined to be eligible to be listed in, the California Register of Historical Resources, National Register of Historic Places, or a National Historic Landmark; or
e. ls a marked or ethnohistorically documented religious or sacred shrine, landmark, human burial, rock art display, geoglyph, or other important cultural site?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
A Cultural Resource Survey was prepared by Gallegos & Associates in April 2003 (see Appendix E). The survey included a literature review and field survey of the 3-acre project area. The literature review and field survey did not identify any prehistoric or historic resources. There will be some ground disturbance during the construction of the library project, because of the removal and recompaction of existing soil over most of the site. Therefore, monitoring by an archaeologist is recommended if ground disturbance is to occur during construction and would reduce potential cultural resources impacts to less than significant.
XV. OTHER IMPACTS NOT DETAILED ABOVE
None. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 39 - Date: November 26, 2003
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Not Applicable.
As discussed in Section VIII, Biological Resources, Questions 1 - 4., the project would not degrade the quality of the environment and would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels and would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. Also, the project would not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species. As discussed in Questions 2 and 3 and Section XIV, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, no potentially significant cultural resources were identified on the project site. The project would not result in the elimination of any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Not Applicable.
In the completion of this Initial Study, it has been determined that no significant unmitigated environmental impacts would result from the project. Thus, all long-term environmental goals have been addressed.
3. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed in this Initial Study, potential environmental impacts to wetlands and to archaeological resources will be mitigated through wetlands restoration and archaeological monitoring measures. There would be no net loss of wetlands, and no residual impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to these resources would occur. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 40 - Date: November 26, 2003
No significant cumulative traffic impacts were identified in the project traffic report. Project elements related to flooding, hydrology, water quality, erosion, noise, utility services and lighting would be implemented in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws regulations and policies. Therefore, no cumulative impacts associated with those topics are anticipated. For other environmental topics addressed in this Initial Study, no impacts, and thus, no cumulative impacts would occur.
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact.
As discussed in this Initial Study, the project would have no environmental effects that could adversely harm human beings. There would be no chemical compounds or fluids of a hazardous nature, hazardous mechanical equipment, or equipment operation that would pose a health risk.
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS
Earlier CEQA analyses are used where one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. 1. Earlier analyses used: Not Applicable. 2. Impacts adequately addressed in earlier CEQA documents. The following effects from the above checklist that are within the scope of, and were analyzed in, an earlier CEQA document: Not Applicable. 3. Mitigation measures: Not Applicable
XVIII. REFERENCES USED IN THE COMPLETION OF THE INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Air Pollution Control District, San Diego County
Air in San Diego County, 1996 Annual Report.
California Department of Conservation, Divisions of Mines and Geology
Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production-Consumption Region, 1996.
California Division of Mines & Geology. Map Sheet 29, 1977.
California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, 1997. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 41 - Date: November 26, 2003
California Regional Water Quality Control District San Diego Region
Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff From the Municipal Separate Storm Water Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, and the San Diego Unified Port District, Order No. 2001-01 NPDES NO. CAS0108758. February 21, 2001.
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1995
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, 2001
City of Chula Vista Design Manual, 1994
City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual, 1994
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003.
Dominy & Associates
Plans for Bonita-Sunnyside Branch Library. October 2003.
Gallegos & Associates
Cultural Resource Survey for the Bonita Library Project Chula Vista, CA. April 2003.
Geocon
Geotechnical Investigation for the Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library Chula Vista, California. August 8, 2003.
Linscott Law & Greenspan
Traffic/Transportation Study. October 3, 2003.
Naranjo, 2003. Personal Communication. Robert L. Naranjo, County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services. April 7, 2003.
Scheidt, Vincent N.
Vernal Pool/Wetlands Assessment. April 14, 2003.
Scheidt, Vincent N.
Wetlands Delineation. August 1, 2003.
Snipes-Dye Associates
Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations for the Bonita County Library Project. August 22, 2003. Initial Study, Bonita Library - 42 - Date: November 26, 2003
Sweetwater Community Plan, Part XIII of the San Diego General Plan. Adopted on August 25, 1977 and Amended on October 28, 1993.
Tinsley, 2003. Personal Communication. Anita Tinsely, Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Emissions Inventory. March 28, 2003.
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California, December 1973.
• APPENDIX A.
Geotechnical Investigation
prepared by Geocon '\ GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
BONITA/SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO C/Q RDK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 8, 2003
GEOCON INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 06963-32-01 August 8, 2003
County of San Diego Cfo RDK Consultants Incorporated 7742 Herschel Avenue, Suite H La Jolla, California 92037
Attention: Mr. Paul Chelrniniak
Subject BONIT A/SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 16, 2003 (LG-03215), we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed library and museum site, located in Chula Vista, California. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and our conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of developing the property as proposed.
In our opinion, the site may be developed as planned provided the recommendations of this report are followed. The primary considerations during site development are the presence of undocumented fill and settlement and liquefaction issues related to the presence of relatively deep alluvium.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
:MEE:DBE:dmc
(10/del) Addressee
6960 Flanders Drive II San Diego, California 92121-2974 Ill Telephone (858) 558-6900 Ill Fax ( 858) 558-6159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ...... 2 3 .1 Undocumented Fill...... 2 3.2 Alluvium ...... 2
4. GROUNDWATER ...... 3
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...... 3 5.1 Landslides ...... 3 5.2 Faulting ...... 3 5 .3 Seismicity-Deterministic Analysis ...... 4 5.4 Liquefaction ...... 5 5.5 Slope Stability Analysis - Discussion ...... 6
6. SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ...... 6
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 7 7.1 General ...... 7 7.2 Groundwater ...... 7 7 .3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ...... 7 7.4 Grading ·································································································:································8 7 .5 Settlement Monitoring ...... 9 7.6 Seismic Design Criteria ...... 9 7. 7 Foundations ...... 10 7.8 Concrete-Slabs-on-Grade ...... 11 7.9 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ...... 12 7.10 Preliminary Pavement Design ...... 13 7.11 Drainage and Maintenance ...... 14 7 .12 Grading Plan Review ...... 15
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figures 2, Geologic Map
APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-1-A-3, Logs of Borings Logs of Cone Penetrometer Soundings CPT-1 to CPT -5 APPENDIXB LABORATORY TESTING Figures B-1 - B-5, Gradation Curves Figures B-6 - B-8, Consolidation Curves
APPENDIXC RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library project planned in the City of Chula Vista, California. The purpose of the study was to investigate the soil and geologic conditions, as well as geotechnical constraints (if any) that may impact areas of proposed development. This report provides recommendations relative to the geotechnical engineering aspects of developing the property as proposed based on the conditions encountered during this investigation.
The scope of the investigation included a review of aerial photographs, topographic maps, and readily available published geologic and geotechnical literature pertinent to the property (see List of References). The scope also included performing a field investigation, laboratory testing to evaluate physical soil properties, engineering analyses and preparation of this report.
The field investigation was conducted on June 26 and 30, 2003, and consisted of a site reconnaissance, drilling 3 small-diameter borings and 5 cone penetrometer soundings. The borings and soundings were performed to evaluate the thiclmess and physical properties of the fill and alluvium that covers the majority of the site. Details of the field investigation as well as descriptive boring and sounding logs are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected representative soil samples obtained during the field investigation to evaluate the pertinent physical properties of the soil materials encountered. The testing program focused on determining the in-situ moisture-density, consolidation and gradation characteristics of alluvial deposits in areas of planned development. The laboratory information was used in engineering analyses and to assist in providing recommendations for site grading and development. Details of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix B and on the exploratory boring logs.
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on an analysis of the information obtained from the exploratory field investigations, laboratory tests, and experience with similar soil and geologic conditions.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The generally rectangular-shaped site consists of approximately 2.8 acres of undeveloped land located in the City of Chula Vista, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). Specifically, the site is bound by Bonita Road on the south, the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course to the north, golf course
Project No. 06963-32-01 - I - August 8, 2003 parking to the east, and an apartment complex to the west. A northerly flowing, stagnant drainage is located within the property along the western margin. A jogging path that borders the golf course abuts the northern edge of the property, as well. The relatively level vacant lot is currently used for parking by joggers. With the exception of a large tree located near the center of the lot, vegetation is relatively sparse. A 36-inch-diameter sewer traverses the southern portion of the property.
It is understood that the site will be divided into an eastern and western parcel. The western parcel, composed of roughly 1.4 acres, is being dedicated to the County of San Diego by the city of Chula Vista to be used as the library and museum site. Plans for the eastern parcel are unlmown (see Geologic Map, Figure 2).
It is our understanding that two buildings (a library and a museum), and associated parking, driveways and other appurtenances are proposed for the west parcel. Although the buildings and other improvements are currently under design, it is anticipated that the buildings will be one story. No grading plans have been completed; however, we anticipate that grading will consist of fills on the order of 5 feet thick to achieve the desired finish-grade elevations.
The locations and descriptions of the site and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance, a review of the site plan, and our general understanding of the project as presently proposed. If project details vary significantly from those described above, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to determine the need for additional analyses or revision of this report.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Two surficial soil types were encountered during the field investigation. These consist of undocumented fill, and alluvium. Each of these soil types is described below.
3.1 Undocumented Fill
The site was found to be covered with approximately 4 feet of undocumented fill. The fill generally consisted of medium dense to very dense, silty and clayey sand with varying amounts of gravel. Portions of the undocumented fill will require remedial grading.
3.2 Alluvium
Alluvial soils were observed to underlie the undocumented fill throughout the site. Based on the exploratory borings and soundings, the alluvium is at least 60 feet thick and consists of loose to dense, wet to saturated, fine- to coarse-grained sand with varying amounts of silt and some firm sandy clay lenses.
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 2 - August 8, 2003 The alluvial deposits are considered compressible if subjected to additional loading, as is anticipated with the additional fill that is proposed to be placed. In addition, the clean sands within the alluvium may be susceptible to liquefaction if a major earthquake occurs. The presence of groundwater within the alluvium may affect the depth of remedial grading, especially if grading is planned during the winter months.
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered within the alluvial deposits and is expected to be an important consideration during site development. The groundwater ranged from 6 to 7 feet below the ground surface as observed in the borings and CPT soundings. Groundwater levels in the alluvium should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and will likely affect site grading. Dewatering may be necessary during the construction of site improvements depending on their depth.
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Landslides
No landslides were encountered during the site investigation or are known to exist on the property.
5.2 Faulting
A review of the previously referenced geologic literature indicates that there are no known active or potentially active faults at the site or in the immediate vicinity. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one which has "had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years)." Potentially active faults are those faults which show evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (last 2 million years).
The site is located in the seismically active southern California region, and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic shaking during the design life of the project. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region. Faulting in the region generally comprises a number of northwest-trending, predominantly right-lateral strike-slip faults at the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. As the Pacific plate moves northwestward relative to the adjacent North American plate, stress accumulates and is relieved by strain along the many faults of the San Andreas system. In the general site area, these include the Rose Canyon fault zone, Coronado Bank fault, Elsinor~ fault zone, Earthquake Valley Fault, Newport-Inglewood fault, and the San Jacinto fault zone. These and other faults further to the north and east of the site make up the San Andreas Fault system. In order to determine the distance of known faults to the site, the computer program EQFAULT (Blake, Version
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 3 - August 8, 2003 3.00) was utilized. Principal references used within EQFAULT in selecting faults to be included were Jennings (1975), Anderson (1984), and Wesnousky (1986).
5.3 Seismicity-Deterministic Analysis
Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any of the faults described above and other faults in the region. Within a search radius of 62 miles (100 kilometers) from the site, 9 lmown active faults were identified. The results of the deterministic analyses indicate that the Rose Canyon fault zone is the dominant source of potential ground motion at the site. Earthquakes having a Maximum Earthquake Magnitude of 6.9 are considered to be representative of the potential for seismic ground shaking at the site (from this fault zone). The "Maximum Earthquake Magnitude" is defined as the maximum earthquake that seems possible of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework (California Division of Mines and Geology Notes, Number 43). The estimated maximum peak ground acceleration from the Rose Canyon fault zone is approximately 0.30g. Presented on the Table 5.3 are the earthquake events and site accelerations based on attenuation relationships of Sadigh et al (1997) for the faults considered most likely to subject the site to ground shaking. The seismic risk at the site is not considered significantly greater than that of the surrounding areas.
Listing peak accelerations is a convenient method of categorizing and comparing earthquakes for geologic purposes. However, peak accelerations are generally poor indicators of the performance of structures during earthquakes. The duration of shaking, frequency content of the motion, localized subsurface conditions, and details of the structures involved are all-important factors influencing building performance.
TABLE 5.3
Distance Maximum Peak Site Fault From Site (miles) Earthquake Magnitude Acceleration (g) Rose Canyon Fault Zone 6.6 6.9 0.30 Coronado Bank 18 7.4 0.19 Elsinore - Julian 40 7.1 0.07 Newport - Inglewood (Offshore) 41 6.9 0.06 Earthquake Valley 44 6.5 0.04 Elsinore - Coyote Mountain 44 6.8 0.05 Elsinore - Temecula 50 6.8 0.04 San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 61 6.8 0.03 San Jacinto - Borrego 61 6.6 0.03
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 4 - August 8, 2003 5.4 Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction during a strong earthquake is generally limited to relatively clean, sandy soils that are poorly graded, in a relatively loose, unconsolidated condition and are located below the water table. A liquefaction analysis was performed using a peak ground acceleration (PGA) that as a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years as suggested by CDMG Special Publication 117 (1997). The computer program FRISKSP (Blake, 1998) with attenuation relations developed by Sadigh et al. (1997) was used to determine the PGA of 0.18g. The "Simplified Method" of evaluating liquefaction potential, originally developed by Seed and Idriss (1971), with modifications and updates from Technical Report NCEER-97-0022 (1997) was used to provide a general evaluation of liquefaction potential.
Further refinement of potentially liquefiable layers was conducted incorporating the results of the cone penetrometer soundings. Layers that should be further evaluated for liquefaction were determined based on methods suggested by Robertson and Campanella (1986). The liquefaction potential of those layers identified for analysis was evaluated using methods suggested by Zhang (1998). Based on the analysis discussed above, some of the sand lenses have the potential to liquefy during a seismic event with a PGA of 0.18g.
Those layers that were identified to have the potential for liquefaction were further evaluated to quantify the magnitude of settlement that may be anticipated. Methods suggested by Tokimatsu and Seed ( 1987) were used to evaluate volumetric strain that could be anticipated in the event of liquefaction. Based on this analysis, liquefaction-induced settlement of approximately 2 to 3 inches could occur beneath the library site and a settlement of 3 to 5 inches could occur beneath the museum site. The anticipated settlement due to liquefaction will be a major design consideration.
Damage due to liquefaction is greater when ground-surface disruption occurs. The effects of liquefaction can be mitigated by providing an increase in overburden pressure. Research by Ishihara (1985) indicated that the presence of a non-liquefiable surface layer may prevent the effects of at depth liquefaction from reaching the ground surface. This can occur when the non-liquefiable layer is thick enough to resist the upward pressure of the liquefying stratum. Based on interpolation using charts prepared by Ishihara, and modified by Youd and Garris (1995), a roughly 3 meter (10 foot) thick non-liquefiable surface layer would provide sufficient overburden pressure to resist upward pressure from liquefaction for the ground shaking assumed. The non-liquefiable surface layer includes material above the groundwater table as well as compacted fill. Based upon Youd and Garris' s chart and assuming that the site will be raised approximately 5 feet, as proposed, it is our opinion that the potential for surface manifestation of at-depth liquefaction is low to moderate. If the site will not be raised the anticipated amount, further evaluation of the potential for liquefaction surface manifestation will be required.
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 5 - August 8, 2003 Utilization of a deep foundation system or ground improvement techniques greatly reduces the risk of structure damage in the event of liquefaction-induced settlement. In addition, a rigid foundation system, such as a mat or post-tensioned, thickened slab, may be designed to tolerate significant total and differential settlements. It is considered economically impractical to construct deep foundation systems for the proposed lightly loaded structures; therefore, recommendations are included herein for shallow foundations and slabs-on-grade, as well as post-tension foundations, for these structures. The County of San Diego should assess the "importance" or "critical" nature of the proposed structures to determine whether a deep or rigid foundation system, or other methods to reduce the detrimental effects of lique faction-induced settlement, are necessary.
5.5 Slope Stability Analysis - Discussion
Due to the relatively flat nature of the site and the lack of significant slopes, slope instability issues are not anticipated to impact site development.
6. SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Due to the lack of proper documentation, the existing fill soil is not considered suitable for the support of building loads. The majority of the fill appeared to be medium dense and should be acceptable for pavement and non-building areas. Removal and recompaction of the upper two feet of existing subgrade soils should provide relatively uniform support for paved areas.
Due to the relatively shallow groundwater condition and extensive depth of the alluvium, it is not considered practical to remove and compact all of the alluvial deposits underlying areas of proposed development. Hence, the settlement potential of the alluvium left in place (below groundwater) will be a consideration for site development. Laboratory test results indicate that the saturated alluvium has moderate compressibility characteristics when subjected to additional loading.
Additional loading will occur if fill soil is placed to raise the pad elevation of the site and/or from the proposed building loads. However, due to the relatively granular character of the underlying deposits and the relatively thin nature of the clayey lenses, the settlement is anticipated to occur relatively shortly after the placement of fill. Settlement of the fill is estimated to be complete within 4 to 6 weeks after the fill placement. Based on an additional 5 feet of fill, the total magnitude of this settlement is estimated to be on the order of Yz to 1 inch during construction and less than Yi inch postconstruction. A settlement monitoring program is recommended after the grading is complete.
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 6 - August 8, 2003 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
7.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered which would preclude the development of the property as presently planned, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. As specific development plans progress, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to review the plans and determine the need for additional investigation and/or possible modification of this report.
7.1.2 The existing undocumented fill is not considered suitable for the support of structural loads in its present condition and will require removal and compaction beneath the proposed building areas and partial removal beneath pavement and landscape areas.
7.1.3 With the exception of possible strong se1srrnc shaking and liquefaction potential, no significant geologic hazards were observed or are known to exist that could adversely affect the proposed project. The strong shaking has the potential to cause soil liquefaction and settlement on the order of 2 to 3 inches beneath the library and 3 to 5 inches beneath the museum with a corresponding differential of 1 to 2 inches and 2 to 4 inches, respectively, across the width of the buildings.
7.2 Groundwater
7.2.1 Groundwater was encountered from 6 to 7 feet below the existing ground surface. In addition, the alluvium above the groundwater level was near-saturated. Therefore, excavations deeper than approximately 4 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface will encounter wet soil conditions resulting in possible exca~ation and subsequent reuse as compacted fill difficulties. Dewatering of excavations deeper than this may be necessary during construction.
7.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
7.3.l The soil conditions encountered within the undocumented fill vary from silty to clayey sands with varying amounts of gravel. The upper portion of the alluvium generally consisted of saturated, clean, fine to coarse sand. Excavations within the alluvium during grading are not anticipated. Excavations may extend into the alluvium during the construction of underground utilities depending on their depth. The on-site materials are considered rippable with conventional heavy-duty grading and excavation equipment.
Project No. 06963-32-01 . 7. August 8, 2003 7.3.2 The expansive characteristics of the proposed soil import are not known. It is recom mended that the import consist oflow expansive (EI less than 50) soil.
7.4 Grading
7.4.1 All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix C and the City of Chula Vista Ordinance. Where the recommendations of Appendix C conflict with this report, the recommendations of this report should take precedence.
7.4.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
7.4.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of all deleterious material and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site.
7.4.4 It is recommended the undocumented fill be removed beneath the proposed structures to a minimum distance of 10 feet beyond the building perimeter where practical. The removal depth is estimated to be on the order of 4 feet.
7.4.5 Within pavement or hardscape parking areas, it is recommended that the undocumented fill be removed at least 2 feet below existing grade and replaced as properly compacted fill soil. The base of the removal should be scarified 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary, and properly compacted.
7.4.6 The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted in layers. In general, soils native to the site are suitable for re-use as fill if free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at near-optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-91. Fill materials near and/or below optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
7.4.7 Rock or concrete fragments should not be used in fill areas due to the anticipated limited fill thickness.
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 8 - August 8, 2003 7.4.8 Imported soil should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site. Imported fill soils should have a maximum particle size of 6 inches, be free of organic material and should have an Expansion Index (EI) less than 50.
7.5 Settlement Monitoring
7.5.1 Where fills greater than 5 feet thick will be placed, short-term settlement should be anticipated. The majority of settlement is estimated to occur within 4 to 6 weeks after completion of fill placement. Settlement monitoring is recommended to determine when the majority of the short-term settlement has occurred and building construction may commence. When finish grades are achieved, monitoring of the settlement of the fill soils with conventional surface monuments should be conducted on a weekly basis. The readings should be performed by the project surveyor. It will be important to locate the survey bench mark beyond the areas influenced by site grading. Short-term settlement is considered to have been essentially completed when no significant vertical movement has occurred over three consecutive one-week survey readings.
7.6 Seismic Design Criteria
7.6.1 The following table summarizes site specific seismic design criteria obtained from the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The values listed in Table 7.6 are for the Rose Canyon Fault (located approximately 6Yz miles west of the site), which is identified as a Type B fault.
TABLE 7.6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Design Value UBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4 Table 16-1 Soil Profile Type Sp Table 16-J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.95 Table 16-R Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.0 Table 16-T Seismic Source B Table 16-U
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 9 - August 8, 2003 7. 7 Foundations
7.7.1 The project is suitable for the use of continuous strip footings, isolated spread footings or appropriate combinations thereof if the preceding grading recommendations are followed. The following recommendations are for one and/or two story structures. Continuous strip footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade into properly compacted fill soils. Isolated spread footings should be at least 24 inches square and extend 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade into properly compacted fill soils. Minimum continuous footing steel reinforcement should consist of four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Recommendations for reinforcement of isolated spread footings should be provided by the project structural engineer.
7.7.2 Due to the potential for relatively large seismically-induced settlements, it is recommended that, as a minimum, all footings be structurally connected to each other with the use of tie beams or similar means.
7.7.3 The recommended dimensions and steel reinforcement presented above are based on soil characteristics only and are not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural loading. Actual reinforcement of the foundations should be designed by the project structur.al engineer.
7.7.4 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations designed as recommended above is 2,000 pounds per square foot. The value presented above is for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
7.7.5 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations above, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (UBC Chapter 18, Division III, Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soils, it is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in Table 7.7.
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 10 - August 8, 2003 TABLE 7.7 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Design Parameters Foundation Category ill
1. Thornthwaite Index -20 2. Clay Type - Montmorillonite Yes 3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 70% 4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in.Imo. 7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 8. Edge Lift 1.15 in. 9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 10. Center Lift 4.74 in.
7.7.6 UBC Chapter 18, Division III, Section 1816, uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC Chapter 18, Division III, Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used. The minimum depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 18 inches when using post-tensioned concrete. Geocon fucorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
7.7.7 Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required.
7 .8 Concrete-Slabs-on-Grade
7.8.1 The interior concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and should be reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches center to center both ways, placed mid-height in the slab. Where heavy concentrated floor loads are anticipated, the slab thickness should be increased to at least 6 inches and reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer. The slabs-on-grade should be under lain with 4 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen moisture barrier should be provided and placed at midpoint within the 4 inch sand cushion. The moisture barrier should be properly lapped and sealed, and great care should be taken to avoid breaching the moisture barrier during construction operations.
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 11 - August 8, 2003 7.8.2 The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are minimums based on soil support charac teristics only. It is recommended that the project structural engineer evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting equipment and storage loads.
7.8.3 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be at least 4 inches thick. Slab panels in excess of 8 feet square should be reinforced with 6 x 6 - W2.9 x W2.9 (6 x 6 - 6 x 6) welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, all concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control unsightly shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage; however, crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Subgrade soils for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement.
7.8.4 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs and foundations as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incor poration of the recommendations presented herein, foundations and slabs-on-grade will still exhibit some cracking. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks are independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Literature provided by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.
7.9 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
7.9.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid with a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1: 1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. Where soils have an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
7.9.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOlH at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 12 - August 8, 2003 of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure.
7.9.3 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
7 .9 .4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
7.9.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid with a density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
7.9.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
7.10 Preliminary Pavement Design
7.10.1 For proposed paved areas, we are providing the following preliminary pavement section recommendations. Because the properties of the import soil are unknown, but anticipated to
Project No. 06963-32-0 I - 13 - August 8, 2003 be low-expansive, an assumed Resistance Value (R-Value) of 40 was used in the design. This should be verified once import operations commence. It is understood that flexible asphalt concrete pavement sections will be utilized.
7.10.2 The flexible pavement sections were calculated in general conformance with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) method of flexible pavement design using an estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 6.5 and 5 .0 for driveways and parking stalls, respectively. Recommendations for flexible pavement sections are presented in the following table.
TABLE 7.10 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete Class 2 Aggregate Proposed Utilization R-Value (TI) (inches) Base (inches)
Driveways 40 6.5 3.5 7.0 Parking Stalls 40 5.0 3.0 6.0
7.10.3 Subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.
7.10.4 Class 2 base should conform to Section 26-l .02A of the Standard Specifications for The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content. The asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book).
7.10.5 Where trash bin enclosures are planned within asphalt paved areas, it is recommended that the pavement sections consist of 6 inches of Portland cement concrete (minimum Modulus of Rupture of 600 psi) reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced at 24 inches in each direction. The concrete should extend into the roadway sufficiently so that the front wheels of the trash truck are on the concrete when loading.
7.11 Drainage and Maintenance
7.11.1 Good drainage is imperative to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Positive measures should be taken to properly finish grade the building pads after the structures and other improvements are in place, so that the drainage water from the buildings, lots and adjacent properties are directed off the lots and to the street away from foundations and the top of the slopes. Experience has shown that even with these provisions, a shallow groundwater or subsurface water condition can and may
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 14 - August 8, 2003 develop in areas where no such water conditions existed prior to the site development; this is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an increase in landscape irrigation.
7.12 Grading Plan Review
7.12.1 The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the Grading Plans prior to finalization to verify their compliance with the recommendations of this report and determine the need for additional investigation, comments, recommendations and/or analysis.
Project No. 06963-32-01 - 15 - August 8, 2003 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 06963-32-01 August 8, 2003 SOURCE: 2003 THOMAS BROTHER MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION NO SCALE GEOCON VICININMAP INCORPORATED 0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS BONITA/SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE- SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA PHONE 858 558-6900- FAX 858 558-6159 MEE/MEE I I DATE 08/08/2003 I PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 I FIG.1 BONITA I SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
GOLi COURSE EXl$11NG ClUB HOU~-
8-3 ~--~-~------~@ CPT-4 "i·A., Ji\ Cfr of Cho'<> v..ia Prop«ry
J'1 Q df/l"..... i •1 1. u -.:.;1:1:
Po1Mhci1
'>
•,,:,· ··,;~::·:~;s~ ;.,.;~.,....?' i;;S'•<#~ I ~:r ' _,.,.,...;.,...;...'.....- ' . ' ' '
t A /,.... ~ Tmff'ot S11not BONITA ------~------ROAD ~ -~~ ·; l • ~g~f4~;~~ :·· ··-.--~c.·=:c.-C=~~· (F"~~~~;CON LEGEND , I :dn...,,,r, 1 INCORPORATED Qudf... UNDOCUMENTED FILL 0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Qaf...... ALLUVIUM (Dotted Where Buried) 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE· SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 · FAX 858 558-6159 8-3 ~ .... APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING PROJECT NO. 06963 - 32 - 01 CPT-5 @...... APPROX. LOCATION OF CONE PENETROMETER SOUNDING FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC MAP DATE 08 - 08 - 2003
6963ME/RSS
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on June 26 and 30, 2003, and consisted of a visual site reconnaissance, the excavation of 3 small-diameter borings and 5 cone penetrometer soundings. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and soundings are shown on Figure 2.
The borings were advanced to depths of between 35 and 47 feet below existing grade using a Mayhew 1000 rotary wash drill rig equipped with a 4-inch-diameter tri-cone bit. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch, split-tube sampler 12 inches into the undisturbed soil mass with blows from a 140 pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. The sampler was equipped with six 1-inch by 2.5-inch brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were also performed by driving a 2-inch split-tube sampler into the "undisturbed" soil mass with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
The soils encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified, and logged. Logs of borings are presented on Figures A-1 through A-3. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained.
The cone penetrometer testing consisted of pushing an instrumented cone into the underlying soils. The resistance to continuous penetration encountered by the cone tip and adjacent friction sleeve exhibit high sensitivity to changes in soil type, thus providing data on soil behavior types and correlated strength parameters. The CPT soundings were advanced to depths ranging from 41 to 59 feet below the existing ground surface. Logs of the cone penetrometer soundings are presented after the boring logs.
Project No. 06963-32-01 August 8, 2003
PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01
0:: BORING B 1 z LU~ >- LU Qui-: /'.: CD I- ..... z u.. ii) --:- w*o::~ DEPTH 0 SOIL zu.. :::>I- SAMPLE ~<-I- U) I- z IN ....J ~ 0 Cl CLASS ..... U) 3: U) LU NO. ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 06-30-2003 ~~ - I- FEET :r: z LU - 0 I- :::> (USCS) z Cl)-' >- e::. oz LU LU CO 0:: ::?O ::J 0 CL 0:: ~ 0:: MUD ROTARY Cl 0 CD EQUIPMENT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - ')/:,./ UNDOCUMENTED FILL - - Medium dense, dry to moist, brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND and - // GRAVEL, some roots - 2 - ~/ft - Bl-1 //. SC/GC 16 100.2 10.8 - - /;(/ - /.9:/ - 4 - Bl-2 ALLUVIUM 9 20.8 - - Loose, wet, tan, fine to coarse SAND, micaceous - - 6 - . .Y - -Becomes saturated at 6 feet - - - - 8 ------10 - - Bl-3 SP-SM 9 - - - - 12 - - - ..... - -Becomes medium dense, gravelly at 13 feet - 14 - - - - Bl-4 - 29 - 16 - '- -Partial recovery - - - - 18 ------20 ------Firm, saturated, brown, Sandy CLAY, micaceous - - - BJ-5 ~- 9 93.5 30.5 .... 22 - ..... CL - - L- - 24 - ~ ~ ------~------BJ-6 .1. · I· Medium dense, saturated, tan brown, Silty, fine SAND, micaceous 13 26 - [~"l.·1·1 L- - L- - ·1 l I· - : 1· 1 SM - 28 - ..J. ·l L- l ·I. - - - ·' ·1 !. . I .· 1 Figure A-1, 06963-32-01.GPJ Log of Boring B 1, Page 1of2
D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL (] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE .!'. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01
a:: w BORING B 1 Zw~ j:'.: UJ~ >- t- Qoi-: a::~ ('.) I- lJ.. Ci5 ~ DEPTH SOIL z ::::> I- 0 ~<- zu.. SAMPLE ...J ~ t- (/) t- z IN 0 CLASS I- (/) :s: ~q Cl)W NO. 0 ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 06-30-2003 FEET ::i:: z w-o >- [!;;.. t- ::::> (USCS) z (/) ...J 0 !z" ,t 0 wWa:i a:: :::EO :J a:: a.. a::~ Cl (.) C9 EQUIPMENT MUD ROTARY
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I- 30 .. J.'l - - l·1·1 I- I- 32 - :.l :::-[· I- I- - .. 1. l I- . ·I· -Becomes dense, fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobble at 33 feet 34 - - Bl-7 - Y..1· I_ SP-SM -No recovery - 46 -- : I f.l I- -.-1. ·I· - 36 - l·1·1 I- I- - .·1 l.1· I- . ·I . - 38 - .. 1. l I- 1 - - l· ·1 I- .·1·1··1· - 40 - . I I- .J - - ·l . l:.·!. I - - 42 - I- .·1 ·1.-1· - - I- Bl-8 [ I 24 - 44 - -:;:.·!.·::· - 1 - - .·1 · 1· I- . I . - 46 - ·J. l I- Bl-9 1 -Partial recovery 9019" - I "1·. ·1 BORING TERM1NATED AT 47 FEET Groundwater at 6 feet Backfilled with Portland cement slurry (3/4 bag) and capped with 1 bag bentonite chips
Figure A-1, 06963-32-01.C: Log of Boring B 1, Page 2 of 2
D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS §ljj ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE .!. .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01
er BORING B 2 Zw~ >- UJ Q () ~ ~ (.!) I- w*"er~ DEPTH SOIL 1-zu.. ii5 '"":' f- 0 ~ <(- zu.. :::> SAMPLE _J ~ I- (/) 1-Z IN 0 Cl CLASS I-(/)$: (/) UJ NO. ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 06-30-2003 ~~ -1- FEET :c z w-o I- :::> (USCS) z (/) _J >- e::.. oz 0 w UJ co er :2:0 :::i er a.. er~ Cl () (.!) EQUIPMENT MUD ROTARY
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 .9. 1·l UNDOCUMENTED FILL - - lq.I Very dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND and GRAVEL - - 2 - SM/GM - B2-l .·r .1.iJ 52 8.8 I ·1 ·I · - - - -:,: 10 - i- - - B2-2 .1 SP-SM -No recovery 5 i- - - ,_ . - 12 - - ,_ - - - - 14 - ., !· - - ·i - ".i - 16 - - -Becomes medium dense at 16 feet - - - - 18 ------20 - - B2-3 18 - - - - 22 - I- ,_ - - .! .r - i- 24 - ,_ - - -Becomes silty, fine sand at 25 feet (SM) - 26 - - - I- - 1.1· - 28 - ·.1 .I - - - - Figure A-2, 06963-32-01.GPJ Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 2 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •.. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE iii;) ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND ATTHE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 a:: BORING B 2 ZLU~ >- >- LU Qui-: I- w~ 0 I- Ci5 ....,. a::~ I DEPTH SOIL t-ZU.. :::i I- 0 ~ <(- zu.. SAMPLE ....J ~ I- en 1-Z IN 0 Cl CLASS t- (/):;; ~~ en LU NO. ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 06-30-2003 UJ-0 -1- FEET ::i:: z I- :::i (USCS) z(J).....1 >-s oz 0 UJ LU Ill a:: ::2:0 :J 0.. a::~ Cl u a:: MUD ROTARY I 0 EQUIPMENT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WI ,... 30 B2-4 18 I - - (-: - .... - 32 - :1 .[ I .... - . ,. - -Becomes fine to coarse sand at 33 feet - 34 - - .... - - I B2-5 .. SP-SM II .... 36 - - .... - - I - 38 - .. - - - - - 40 - - I B2-6 23 - - - - 42 - i - . ·1.- 1· I - - - B2-7 20 - 44 - -::Jl - I BORING TERMINATED AT 44.5 FEET I Groundwater at 7 feet Backfilled with Portland cement slurry (I bag) and capped with I bag bentonite chips I I I I I I Figure A-2, 06963-32-01.GF .. Log of Boring B 2, Page 2 of 2 D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE lh:J ... CHUNK SAMPLE .!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND ATTHE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 a:: BORING B 3 Zw~ >- >- w Qui-: I- 0 I- 1-zu.. Ci)..-,. UJ*a::~ DEPTH 0 SOIL zu.. ::>I- SAMPLE ....I ~ ~ <{I- (/)- w· I- z IN 0 0 CLASS I-(/)~ o~ (/) UJ NO. z ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 06-30-2003 w-o - I- FEET ::r: zW...l >- !?::. oz I- ::> (USCS) wWCIJ a:: :20 :::i 0 (.) a:: MUD ROTARY Cl.a::~ 0 0 EQUIPMENT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I- 0 .. 1. 1·l UNDOCUMENTED FILL - - l·1·1 Very dense, slightly moist, tan brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND I- SM I- 2 - B3-I :.I j:-t· - 67 107.1 6.6 L- I- - .. 1. ·l .. ·I· 4 - - B3-2 .. ALLUVIUM 9 90.4 27.4 ,_ - Firm, wet to saturated, brown, Sandy SILT, micaceous ML - '- I- 6 - . .!'. -Becomes saturated at 6 feet - - I- ...._ ___ I- 8 - J..:-1-. - ~------Medium dense, saturated, tan brown, fine to coarse SAND with silt, - - micaceous I- 10 - - - B3-3 SP-SM 12 '- I- - - 12 - - ,_ I- - ' - 14 - L- I- - - ,_ 16 - '- ... i ...._ ___ .,_ - !..:- ·1- L------J 10 94.0 28.3 B3-4 .. 1. ,-l Loose, saturated, brown, Silty, fine SAND - 18 - l 1 '1 I- I- - - :.Ii:- t· - 20 - .-l.1·l '- -- l' 1 - B3-5 SM 12 101.7 25.8 .·1 II. ,_ 22 - - :.1 ..I ·l ' L- I- - l I! ·1 I I- 24 - :.I(! - '- - .I ·l - • 1· 1 26 - ·1· ·1 - - ·1 I '- I- .·1 .-1· - . ·I . . 1. ·l '- - 28 - ·1· ·I , I- I- - ·1 f .·1 1· t· Figure A-3, 06963-32-01.GPJ Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 2 D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE lii;;J ... CHUNK SAMPLE .'f. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND ATTHE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 c:: w BORING B 3 Zw~ >- I- Q (.)...,: ~ w~ (.!) Ci5 .....,. o::~ DEPTH SOIL I- z u. 0 ~ <(- z u. ::> t SAMPLE ...J ~ I- (/) I-" IN 0 0 CLASS I-(/)$ (I) u NO. ELEV. (MSL) DATE COMPLETED 06-30-2003 ~~ FEET :c z w-o I- ::> (USCS) z(l)....l >- e:. o~· :J 0 w w co c:: ::?O c:: a.. 0:: ~ 0 () (.!) EQUIPMENT MUD ROTARY MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .... 30 .-J. ll .... - 1 .... l· ·1 SM -Becomes fine to medium SAND at 31 feet ~ 32 - 1 .... B3-6 .·1 ·:.1· 19 113.6 18.5 ·I . .._ ___ .... - I..,_tl..1 · ------i.------:I. l Medium dense, saturated, tan-brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND, micaceous .... 34 - '-- B3-7 I SM 9 ~ 11J - 1----- ~------H~·i·- ~AT ------Firm. saturated. brown. Sandv SILT. micaceous BORING TERMINATED AT 35.5 FEET Groundwater at 6 feet Backfilled with Portland cement slurry (1 bag) and capped with 1 bag bentonite chips Figure A-3, 06963-32-01.( Log of Boring B 3, Page 2 of 2 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST .... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS l§ljl ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE .:J ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. Kehoe Testing & Engineering Northing: Date: 26/Jun/2003 Office: (714) 901-7220 Easting: Test ID: CPT-1 Fax: (714) 901-7289 Elevation: Proiect: Bonita Email: [email protected] Client: Geocon Site: Bonita Sunnyside Library Tip Stress COR Blow Count Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR 0 (tsf) 500 O (blows/ft) 1 oo o (tsf) 5 -1 (tsf) 1 o 0 (%) 8 o.-...... ~..-...,...--...-...,...--.--...,...--.--...... --. ,...,_.,,,,,,,"""_,.o ,,.; Sand lnterbedded 15 Sand 15 75'---'---'--....__...~..__._ __.....__.___..__, '"-----'75 Maximum depth: 57.29 (ft) Test ID: CPT-1 sz Estimated Phre!Flle: C26U0301C.ECP K~ Kehoe Testing & Engineering Northing: Date: 26/Jun/2003 T Office: (714) 901-7220 Easting: Test ID: CPT-2 E Fax: (714) 901-7289 Elevation: Proiect: Bonita Email: [email protected] Client: Geocon Site: Bonita Sunnyside Library Tip Stress COR Blow Count Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR 0 (tsf) 500 o (blows/ft) 1 oo O (tsf) 5 -1 (tsf) 1 o 0 (%) 8 0.-.....-..,--....,..~,--...,..~,....-...,..~,....-...,..--, 0 '"'"""·Grsand - 15 Sand 15 '-- Sand Mix -- 30 30 g .c a.Q) Sand 0 45 45 CISlll ~ Sand Sand Mix Cf Slit 60 75'---'---~.._...... __.~_.__....__.~---- 75 Maximum depth: 59.26 (ft) Test ID; CPT-2 s:z Estimated Phre!Filo: C26U0302C.ECP K~ Kehoe Testing & Engineering Northing: Date: 26/Jun/2003 T Office: (714) 901-7220 Easting: Test ID: CPT-3 E Fax: (714) 901-7289 Elevation: Project: Bonita Email: [email protected] Client: Geocon Site: Bonita Sunnyside Library Tip Stress COR Blow Count Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR 0 (tsf) 500 0 (blows/ft) 100 0 (tsf) 5 -1 (tsf) 1 o 0 (%) 8 Or--,.,..-.--,---.--,---r--r---r--r---i -----.. o Sand Send Mix Sand 15 15 30 .- -c:. -. .- "' --. ,_? _, ...... - _, '- ·--'='"" -' I """"'I 30 Sand Mix Send Sand Mix ~0. r~ i i r? i Hr i ~£ i Q) r< 0 I I Send Mix 45L~ JLJS JL~ J ll J lC- - Cl Slit J 45 = Sand 60 60 75...__._~~----__.._...__.____._...._...... ______, 75 Maximum deplh: 54. 16 (ft) Tosi ID: CPT-3 SS Estimated Phre!Fllo: C26Uo3o3c.EcP K~ Kehoe Testing & Engineering Northing: Date: 26/Jun/2003 T Office: (714) 901-7220 Easting: Test ID: CPT-5 E Fax: (714) 901-7289 Elevation: Proiect: Bonita Email: [email protected] Client: Geocon Site: Bonita Sunnyside Library Tip Stress COR Blow Count Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR 0 (tsf) 500 o (blows/ft) 1 oo o (tsf) 5 -1 (tsf) 1 o 0 (%) 8 o,....,,..,..~.,.---..~..,...... ,~..,...~.---,...~..---. 0 oc Sand _;Gr sand,:;;._ 15 Sand 15 --- Sand Mix ,,,,-. Sand Mix 30 Sand 30 g Sand Mix .i: ! Send 45 45 60 60 75,___.__...,___.___..~...__._~.._..... _..___, 75 Maximum depth: 41.26 (It) Test ID: CPT-5 y Estimated Phre!Fila: C26U0305C.ECP APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected, relatively undisturbed drive samples were tested for their in-place dry density, moisture content, and consolidation characteristics. Gradation tests were performed on several bulk samples. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in graphical forms hereinafter. The in-place dry density and moisture characteristics are presented on the exploratory boring logs. Gradation and consolidation test results are presented on Figures B-1 through B-8. Project No. 06963-32-01 August 8, 2003 PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE l FINE COARSEj MEDIUM l FINE U.S. STANDARDiSIEVE SIZE I ~ 16 30 50 I 3" 1-1/2" 31(+" _318" 4 11,0 ·1 2,0 4,0 60 1 1QO 2QO 1- J: (9 ~ >co 0::: w z u:: 1- z w () 0::: w 0. GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL Pl • B1-3 10.0 (SP-SM) Fine to coarse SAND, trace silt IZI B1-4 15.0 (SP-SM) Fine to coarse SAND, trace silt with gravel B1-6 25.0 (SM) Silty, fine SAND GRADATION CURVE BONITA/ SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 06963·32·01.GPJ Figure B-1 PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE U.S. STANDARD1SIEVE SIZE I 30 50 I 3 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 116 20 40 I " ., - - ~10 I 6.0 190 290 I 100 I ~ I I I I I ~~ --...."' ..I I Ii.." ia...... I ti-...._ ~ 90 I I Ir I I " fa, I I I - I I I I ~~ I I I 80 I I ~, I I I I I I I I ~~ \ I ::r:I- 70 : \ I I i ~ ' \I ' ill I I I I I I j I \ I I I I ~ 60 I I >- I I I I I CD I I 'tI I c::: I I I I I w 50 I l'~l \I\ I I I z I I I I I u. I I I\ I I I- I I I I I z 40 I I i I I \ \ I\ I i w I I I Ii (.) I . I c::: I I I ' 'I\· :I , \ ! I w 30 I I I , I I I I 11 I I I Cl.. I I I I I ti I I I \0 20 ! I ! \ : I I I I I I \ I I I 11: ! I I r- II I s,;. I 10 I I I l~i=I~" I I I 0 I I 11 I I 1: I I I 1 1 u. 1 u. 1 u.u 01 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL Pl • B1·8 41.0 (SP-SM) Fine to medium SAND, trace silt B2-3 20.0 (SP-SM) Fine to coarse SAND, trace silt with gravel B2-4 30.0 (SP-SM) Fine SAND, trace silt GRADATION CURVE BONITA/ SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 06963-32-01. GPJ Figure B-2 PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE COARSEj MEDIUM I FINE U.S. STANDARDiSIEVE SIZE I ~ 16 30 50 I 3" 1-1/2" _3/4" 3/8" 4 j10 I 20 40 6,0 I 190 290 :.!/ l:::::l::~:l~======I!I :~I~,~~ ===I ===l======I I ==I =:11 :,11:1 ======·=1 I I ======· 80 I I I'~- i I I .... I 70::::~:~::~~~:::::11:1:~:~:~:"'-~~:::1:::~::~:1:~~::::::~::~~:~~~::::::~:~:~~~1 (.') 1 ~ 60H-+-+-+---,--+-i~-++tl-+-+-l~!i-;-;~~\.~'~,tt'-+-+-+-+--+-~l~-+~:~'+-+-+--+--;~-+l-'-+-~l+-+--+---l---l >co a:: I i Ii I I \ \. J :· .l UJz 50H-t--+-c--t~+-~-++-t-+-+-+r-+-i~+-~~H-;.H-+-l--+-~-++H-+-+-+-l---+-~-+-+-H~-+-+--+-~_, u::: .... 11 \ 111 z 40 I i I i ~, I i I I UJ () a:: UJ 1 I I 1i 11 ! I i \ Ii 11 I a.. '~\ 30~.+-+-~:--+~,1~1~.:~11-t---h!~,~,~~~~-+--t-1~,~1~1-+-i-~+-+++-r!~I +----+-----; I i \,~'\ I: i 20H-+-+-+-+--+r1i~-H-H-t-~[-t-+l-+~-hl+HH-H,~~~~~~~-t-~J irl-+-+-+[-+--+-~-l+H-+J-+-1'--+[-+~--1 1 : i I I ! I I i I i I - ., ' I I I I I ! lo i 0.1 0 .... 1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL Pl • 82-5 35.0 (SP-SM) Fine to coarse SAND, trace silt with gravel 82-6 40.0 (SP-SM) Fine to coarse SAND, trace silt with gravel 82-7 43.0 (SP-SM) Fine to coarse SAND, trace silt with gravel GRADATION CURVE BONITA/ SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 06963-32·01.GPJ Figure B-3 PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE U.S. STANDARDiSIEVE SIZE I I 16 30 50 I 3" 1-1,12" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 I 20 4.0 6,0 I 190 290 100 I , ,_ --1 I I I I h I I I I l"'i~ ~ I 90' I ii I I\.. " ~ I \ II I I I l'I' I i I I ~ I I I! I I \I I I 1 I 80 \1 II I !: I I I I I- 70 I I ,\ \ Ii I I :c ' 1 (9 I I I I I I w I $ I Ii i I Ii I ' \ II 11 I I 60 1 \ >- I I I co I I ' I I I I 0::: I I I I I \ \ I ! w 50 I \ z II 11 i LL I I I- I 1: ~ \ ' I z 40 ' . I I I w ' ·11 I I I I I I I (.) j 11 I I 0::: I I I w Ii . I Ii I ~II I I CL 30 I\ \ I 11! I ! I I I I I 1~iI I ! I ' I I \ ' I I I I ""' 20 i 11 !I l ! I II I' I I i ! I [1 ,111:I I I K. I 11 I 10 I I I i I I 0 I , .I I 11 I 1: I I I 1 u. J u. l 0. 1 JOl GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL Pl • 83-3 10.0 (SP-SM) Fine to medium SAND, trace silt 1% 83-4 17.0 (SM) Silty, fine SAND NP A 83-6 32.0 (SM) Silty, fine to medium SAND NP GRADATION CURVE BONITA / SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 06963-32·01 .GPJ Figure B-4 PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE U.S. STANDARD;SIEVE SIZE I 16 30 50 I 3" 1-1,12" 3/4" 3/8" 4 b10 200 I ~ I I 2,0 4,0 6,0 I 190 100 I I I 11 I I I I I ~~ I I I r I I I I I ,:f I II 11 90 I I I I " I I I i 'I I 80 I I I I I I I II \ I I I I I I I I I I I- ' I I I\ l ' I :::r:: 70 I (9 I I I ! I ili I \ I I I I I ! I 11 I I I I I I, I I s 60 I I I I >- I "' 11 co I I j n::: I I 1\1 UJ I II i I I I Ii I I 50 ii 11 I I z I u:::: I i I I I- I I I\ I z 40 I I I I I I I I UJ I I I . I I (.) I I I I 11 i I I I I n::: I I i UJ I I I ! I I I I I Ii ! I I I I I l a.. 301 I I I I 1 f'li I I I I l 1 I 1 I I I I I': I i I 20! I I l I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I 11 /:1 I ii I I I i I I I I 10' I I 11 I i I I I I I ! Ii ! ol I: : i 1i I I ! I I I .I 11 I I ll - 0. l u.u u .1 01 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL Pl • 83-7 34.0 (SM) Silty, fine to medium SAND GRADATION CURVE BONITA/ SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 06963-32·01.GPJ Figure 8-5 PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 SAMPLE NO. 81-5 -2 I I 0 I I I ~ 2 !".... ~ "' ' I'" I l'i-.. 4 I I z ~~ i 1 0 6 I I ~ Cl ::i 'f\ 0 I I (/) I [\. I z I I I 8 I 0 i I ' () I I- I\ z -1-J_ I w ~L I () [\~ a:: I - I w 10 - a. I ! I i I 12 i i I ! I I I I I I I I 14 I i I I I I 16 I I I I I I I I I l I 1~ .1 lU liJO APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (kg/m3) 93.5 Initial Saturation (%) 100+ Initial Water Content(%) 30.5 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 1.0 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BONITA/ SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 06963-32·01.GPJ Figure B-6 PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 SAMPLE NO. 83-4 -2 0 - ---1 k 2 "Tl4- I I 4 I u I I 1'..'r--.. ...I- z 0 6 I ~ Cl ::J I 0 I (J) z I I I I 0 8 () t- z I w () I I I I 0:: 10 I w I a. ! I 12 I I I I I 14. I I I I I I i 16 I I 1si i I I I 0.1 10 11 JO APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density {kg/m3) 94.0 Initial Saturation{%) 98.3 Initial Water Content(%) 28.3 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 1.0 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BONITA/ SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 06963-32·01.GPJ Figure B-7 PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 SAMPLE NO. 83-6 -2 I I I I 0 I __1 I I _I -- --r-I r-·r "",t...... 2 -...... ~ '-.., I ~ 4 I ... 1...... z 0 6 I I ~ 0 I ::i 0en z I 0 8 0 zt- w 0 0::: 10 I I w a. I 12 i I I I I I I 14 I I 16 I I I I 18 I I I I ! 0.1 1 lU l (J 0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (kg/m3) 113.6 Initial Saturation (%} 100+ Initial Water Content (%} 18.5 Sample Saturated at (ksf} 1.0 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BONITA/ SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 06963-32-01.GPJ Figure B-8 APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR BONITA/SUNNYSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 06963-32-01 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. GI rev. 07/02 2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. GI rev. 07/02 3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. GI rev. 07/02 4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6: 1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Original Ground 2 ~1 /Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Slope To Be Such That - Soil Engineer Sloughing Or Sliding '------== Does Not Occur i--V:....::a=ri=es"---1 L---==~=::::::=--.....,,-r I. See :~,, 1 See Note 2 J No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. GI rev. 07 /02 4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications. 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-00. 6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. GI rev. 07/02 6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-00. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. 6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1. 7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. GI rev. 07/02 6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative. 6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3. l. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the GI rev. 07 /02 required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1196-93, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed. 6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. GI rev. 07/02 6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by representatives of the Consultant. 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. GI rev. 07 /02 7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-00, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. 7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-96, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-00, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using JO-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 7 .6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829-95, Expansion Index Test. 7.6.2. Rock Fills 7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM Dl 196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8. PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. GI rev. 07/02 9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 07/02 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Zhang, Lianyang, Assessment of Liquefaction Potential Using Optimum Seeking Method, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Volume 124, No. 8, p. 739 ff., August, 1998. 2. Blake, Thomas F., FRISKSP, Version 3.0lb, updated 1998. 3. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Special Publication 117, adopted March 13, 1997. 4. Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, December 31, 1997. 5. Tan, Siang S. and Michael P. Kennedy, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, National City 7.5' Quadrangle, CDMG Map Sheet 29, 1977. 6. Youd, T. Leslie and Christopher T. Garris, Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 121, No. 11, p. 805 ff., November, 1995. 7. Landslide Hazards In The Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, National City Quadrangle, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 95-03, 1995. 8. Tokimatsu, K. and H. B. Seed, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 113, No. 8, p. 861 ff., August, 1987. 9. Robertson, P. K. and R. G. Campanella, Guidelines for Use and Interpretation of the Electronic Cone Penetration Test, Third Edition, November, 1986. 10. Seed, H.B. and I. M. Idriss, Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, p. 1249 ff., 1971. 11. 1953 stereoscopic aerial photographs of the site and surrounding areas (AXN-lOM-116, 117). Project No. 06963-32-01 August 8, 2003 • APPENDIX B. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations prepared by Snipes-Dye PRELIMTNAR'V .HYDROLOGY AND HYJ>RAULIC CALCULATION$ FOR 'rflE BONTT A COUNTY LIBRARY PROJECT The project is !ocared on the northerly side of Bonita Road westerly of the Bonita Gc_ilJ Course parking lot and westerly of Oray Lakes Roii!.d. A deveJoped r.esidential apartment comp.lex borders the property to the west. Tb.c site is vacant and utilized as an overt1ow parking ar.ea for the golf ccurse. The golf cou.rse fairway borders the site to the norl11. The project site is cunemly within the lOO year flood pl~in of the Sweetwater River. ln. order co develop the site. the pad elevations must be elevated approximately live feet to provi.dc a flood free l'lite. A conditional lener of map revision ls currently being p:roce:ssed wir.h FEMA to modify the flood plain. Of!''.'>ite drainage from Bonita Road, rhe commercial ~ite along the southerly !)lC:.ie of Bonita Road, ~portion. of the golf course parking lot. n.nd the residential complex co the west discharge drainage to a vegetated ditch located along tile westerly side of the site. The ditch as no apparent outlet and appears to ft.U)ction as n sump. The project will be cJ.eveloped to accommodate ~ public library, a museum building, parking and two future development pads. The proposed drainage scheo.1t::! is to co.llect :.;urface drainage at catch basins, convey the draini:i.ge in stnal1 diameter drains and discharge to the existing sump area located along the westerly portion of the sire. Hydrology calculations for the ten ycar·six hour stonn event indicnte that approxim::i.toly 6.81 ci..ibic feer per second of drainage will dlscharg~ from the sire. A i:;imilnr calculati<.>n for the current site condition indicates that 2.96 cubic feet per second of drainage discharge exists. The increa.i:;ed discharge is dl.1e to the increAsed area of imperviousness and an increased run·off coefficient, .Perimeter areas of the site will discharge to che golf cottrSt'! or to Bonita Road. TI1e interior parking areas will sheet flow to catch basins fitted with filt~rs to reduce the potential for stonn water contamination. Storm.water collected from the adjacent golf course parking lot will be 1:1irected to a vegetated swale located f.l.long the easterly side of the ::;ite. Discharge vdocities will be very low ar ch~ points of di~c.:ha.rge as a result of the relative flktt gradients of the swale and th~ ::;ump condition. Tl1e attached calculations were prepared for the preliminary des1gn An!;llysis prepared ~_y; Snipes-Oy@ Associate~ 8349 C~nter Drivo, Sutte G Lcl Mesa, CA ~1~42-2910 J:o'~x (619)4El0-.7.033 E'hone (61\:1)6~7-9234 !:'.!l..E N.A..~E':: BT0131.0AT 'f!ME/PA'l'E: OF STOO'J:': .l.1:51 0/21/:W0.3 r1:38R !,;[?EC:Z:!l"IE:D f!YDRO'tOG':r:' AND HYDRAULIC MO(>E'.L 1Nll'O~MATION: 1 •:itl~; !'"JAN or e:c~o MAN(JAL CRITERIA tlSER ~PECIFT,'S::D STORM EVENT(YEAR) 10.00 6-!!0tJR Dt:IRATION PRECIPITATION (TNCHESJ = 1,800 Sl?E(.'1F1£[) M!NIMOM PIFE SIZE (INCH)".,., 4, 00 SPC:CH'U:O f?ERCENT 01=' GRADIENTS '('[jJS:CIMAL) TO OSE FOR r:·R1c·noN SLO!?E '"' (). '?:1 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL .. C"-VALUES os:;:o 'CIT:X OF CMCli,.+\ 'i!ISTP. TIME•O.E"-CONCEN'l"'R"-TION MODEL SE:LECTED.'" (DASED ON 07-08-1997 DRAFT MANO~~) NOTE: ON~Y ~EAK ~0NFLUENCE VALOES CONSIDEaEP f'te.Ol'tJSGO DeVGlOPM8'1t17 FLOW PROCE~S FROM N .... r.1SE:R :iPE:C1'E"l~D (~·UBAREA): RONOFF' COE:frICIENT ,.., .8500 \JRBl>.N ABE TOTAL NUM.SER OF STRi!!AM8 •· 2 ~ONf'l.l.JENCE VALUE:S !JS:S:D FOR TNl">E:l?ENDENT S'l'REAM l ~RB; TTME Of CONCENTRJ.l.TlON(MIN.} 9.G~ f.{AX~FALL TNTeNSITY(!NCH/HRl ~ 3.11 '.rDTAL STRE:AM AFtE!A(1l.CRE;S) ··· 0.50 Pf.7\.K l:"'LOW RA.Tf.; (CFS) AT CONF'Ulli:NCE: ,.. l. 32 i<·t.rJW f?ROCE88 b'.P.OM NODE 3.00 TO t-!ODS 2.00 IS CODE ~ 21 >··-:.«;·:•RATlQNAL METHOD !N!T!AL SUBAFl-EA ANALY'Sl'.S<:<.<.<<: '0$81:{ SPEC!FIEO(SrJBAREA.J: RONOF?: COEFFICIENT ...., .aooo t.1RE71.N AR~)\ WA.TE::RSf-!ED (IJ.SED NATOAAL WATERSHED NOMOGl<.Al?'H, APPENDIX X-A.l '!'iME or CONCEN'l'RAtlO'til WITR 6-MINIJTES ADO.ED""' l0.67(MINUTES) rN.tT.CAL StJBAREA E'LOW-T..F.:NGTH ~ :no. 00 UPSTR~~M ~LEVATIO~ = 76.QO DOWNS'L'R.EAM ELEVA.Tl UN ... 7 3. 8 0 E:1.18VA.'.tION DIFF8R~NC.E. = 2. 20 10 YEAR RAtNFALL INTENSIT~(!NCH/HOUR) ~ 2.908 '.;::rJBAREJ>. RONOE"'F(CFS) "" l.33 TOTAL AR£A(ACRES) ~ 0.S7 TOTAL RUNOcc(CFS) ~ l.33 FLOW PROCE$$ FROM NODE 2.00 'l'O NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1 :>>>~·>DESTGNATE INOE:E?ENDEN"r STJ:U!:AM li'OR CONF.'LOENCE:<<<<< >,.:•:··~·/\NC'> <:OMPrJTE VARIOUS! CONFLIJENCED ST.REN:1 VALUES<<·~·=:.,: TOTAL NfJM.BER Ot' STREAM::: .,, 2 CONF'T.OE:NCE VALUE:S L.TS~O e·o~ ll:WE:i!'END!::NT STREAM 2 ARE: TTM~ or CONCE!.'!TRATJ:ON (MIN.) 10. 67 K~lNfAiL lNTE~SttrclNCH/ARJ ~ 2.9l TOTAL STREAM AR£A(ACR~S) ~ 0.57 PEAK FLOW ~T~(CFS) AT C~NfLLIENCE = 1.33 •· • CX>Nf.C.UENCE DATA •"' ~TREAM RONOfF '!'c INTENSITY AAE:,ll. NUMB~R (CFS) (M.l:N.) (It\!CM/!-IO(IR) (ACR£l 1 1.32 9. tl2 3.109 o.so 2 l.33 10. 67 2" Ql'IO 0.57 R~INPALL INTF.NSlTY AND TIME or: CONCENTRATION l:<.A.Tl0 C.ONf:'.LrJEl'-1CE: FORMULA OSl!!O !!OR 2 STRE.1U'f.'!). .. ,., L'EAC< FLOW RATF.: TABLE I' > f>TREAM RlJNOE"F 1'c INTENSITY Nr.JMEER (CFS) (MIN.) (IHCR/HOOR) 1. .2.Sn 9.62 3.l.09 ?. ~.56 1("). 67 L:.~oa COM rrJTED CON l:LrJENCE r.S'!'LMATE:S ARE AS FOLLOWS; P8~K ~LOW R~TECCFS) ~ 2.56 Tc(MIN.) ~ 10,67 'l'Cl'L'AL A.RE.A (AC.RE:Sl = l. Cl7 FLOW ?ROC~~S FRO~ NOD~ ~!. 00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE m 51 -~:~>>>COMl?OTS: TRAPEZOlDAL C:HANN~t .E'Low ..-c:-<<<. >>> > :o't'RlWELTIME ':t'EiRU SODAR'li!~<<<:<~ tJP!l'!'!H,!AM NODE E.LrtVAT!ON = 73. ao DOWNST~EAM NDDt E:LEVATlON ""' 72. 00 CHANNEL LE~GTH THRO StlRAAE:A.(FEET) "" 1130.00 CH~NNtL SLOPE n O.oioo CI-tl~NNE:T.. SASE: ( &"E:ET) "" 5. 00 "zu E'"ll..CTOR = 2. 000 MANNHJG 1 S E"ACTO'R n 0.040 Mti.x.IMOM DEP1'H(!.!'EET) ,... 1.00 C':f.JANt>lf.~L FLOW 'T'H~CJ SOl3AREA(CtS) ... 2.56 FLOW VRLOC!T1(FEtT/SECl 1.52 FLOW DEPTHtFEETJ ~ 0.30 '!'RAVEL T!Ml:;(MIN.) 1.97 TC(MlN.) = 12.64 FLOW PROCESS FROM ~OOE 4.00 TO NODE "1 • 00 I~"> C:ODE = 1 TOTAt, NUM.SE:R OF STREAMS "" 2 t.ONfLOENCE V~tLlES asr.n FOR IND£P£NDENT ST~EhH l ~RE: 'l'TM8 or CONC~~Tru:\.TION(MlN.) 12.64 RAINFALL TNTSNSITY(!NCH/HR) ~ 2.61 't'OTl\.L 91'81-..:AM AREA ( .t\CRES) "" l. 07 r.·~ll.K n,ow RATE (CF'S) AT CCN!i't.f.lENCE = 2. % f::'LOW PROCES!:l li'ROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 4.00 TS CODE~ 21 ---~------~--~------~------~------~---~--- 'C.lSF.R SP.ECIE"rEDlSl'J:ru\.F.l.t:z\): RONOFF COEFFXClSNT = .6000 ORRAN A~ WA.TE:RSHED (USl!!D NATORAL WATERSHED NOMOG!'{A.J?H, Al?i::"ENDIX X-A) ·r l ME: or C:ONCENTP.11.TTON WIT.1-l G-MINfJTES ADDED "" 7. ~5 (MIND'!'.ES) l.NITIAT.• SIJBAREA FLOW-LE:NG'l'li = BO. 00 rJP:>'l'RE:AM EL6:Vt\'!'ION "" 7 5. i 0 rJ(JtllNr:JTREAM ELEVATION "" ·14 • 4 0 ~LEVATION OIFF~R~NC~ = 1.30 10 YEA~ r<.AINFA.LL INTENSit~{lNCH/HOORl 3.516 nOBAREA RONOFF(CFS) 0.SS TOTJ:\.1, A.R&A CACRES} "" 0 •.32 TOTAL 1\tlNO.E"ll' (CFS) 0. 6 8 f.L.OW l?ROc.=.:ss FROM ~ODE 4.00 TO NOD~ 4.00 Is CODE = 1 --~------~~------"------~- ·~·:>-.>:>>DESIGNATE !NDE.li'ENDE:NT STRE:AM f'QR CON'li'LUt:NC.E<:<<<< '-•>>~>AND COMPLlTF.: VAAIOUS CONFI..OENCE:D STR~AM VALDES<«<<-!. '1'0'T't\L NOMS P.R t.l.E" ~TREAMS ·~ 2 CONE'L014NCP': VALCJES OSE!D FOR l'.ND.S:l?!:NOe'NT STf{.E!AM 2 A.ro.:: 'f IME OE" CONCENTMt' !ON ( Mnl. ) "" 7 , 9 ;:, l1J\It\JF'AL1.. INTENS!'X':t'(!NCM/HR) = 3.52 TOTAi.. STEr1;:AM AREA. (ACRES) ·~ 0, 32 P8AK FLOW RATE(CP$} AT CONr1u~NCE = 0.68 • • CONFLUEN1.';E t..JATA ,. * 81''!'\.E;AM l.'V.'1''':''.':"-::- Tc INTENS:CT'.l:' A.Rb;A NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INC Fi/ .HOU!\ l (AC.RE) l 2. 56 1.2.64 2,6G7 l. C>7 2 o. 69 7.95 3.Sl6 0 . .'32 l~INFAi,'(, 1.NT~Ns:r.·n AND TIME OF CONCE:NTAATION Rl\'rIO (,:i()NFLDENCE E'O RM CJJ: ,)\ USED E'Of-t 2 STR~MS. +" L'~AK i:r.. ow .RATE TABL&; "'"' !·:'l:'REAM RO NO FE' Tc INTEND IT'! NUMBER (CF$) (MIN.) ( !NCU/HOOR.) 1 2.57 7.95 3.5l6 :.: 3.0n 12, G4 2.607 COMPrJTED COf.\l~"!..Lil::NCt ESTlMATES AR!i: AS FOLLOWS: E'E.A.!< Ft.OW t{}\TE (CFf:i) 3. 06 'l'c (M!N.) "" 12. 64 TOTA.I. AREA(A.CRES) "' l.39 6.00 TO NOPE 7.00 IS CODE J 21 >>:>:>:>RATTON/\L METH()O INI'l'lAI.. SCJ'BAREA 1\N.i\LY'ST.S •CJGb ~a~~R S~ECI~tED(SOBA.REA): RUNOFF COBFF1CI£NT = .5500 rJi:i.BAN ARF..:A W.A.TE:R.SH8D (USED 't\/ATURAL ~l\'l'.E:RSHE!D NOMOGAAP.H, APl?E:NDTX X~A) TIME Of CO~C~N1RAT!ON W!TH 6-MIN~TES ADDED= 7.~0(MINOTES) INI~T.AL SOBAREA FLOW-L~NGTH ~ 140.00 CJPSTMAM ELF.'!VATION ,.., ?S. 70 OOWN~TREA.£1 ELEVAT!ON ~ 71.00 CLEVATION DTPFrensNCE ~ 4.70 10 'l:'E:J.1.R M!NFALL 1NTENSI'l'Y ( INCH/fl()0R.J ·-=- :L 7J. 7 ~UDAREA RONOFF(CtS) c 0.2q TC)T).l.L AREA(ACfl.t.!S) "" 0.14 ·roTAL RtJNOf'F(CfS) 0.29 rLoW PROCES~ PROM NODE 10. 00 TO NOOE: 11.00 IS CODE ~ 21 >:>:->:•RATIONAL ME:THOD 'CN!TIAL !HJSAREA ANAJ• .'tSIS<<-r.<< ~usER s~~C!FIED(SUSAREA): RONOrr COEFFTCIENT n .5500 rlRBAN l\RJJ:A WATE:E?.SHED (US.E:D NATORAI. WATERSHED NO~OGRAt'f:l, AP!?8NDIX X-~) TIME (")F' CONCENTAA't!QN WITR 6-MINO~E:S A.DDED ,..,, 7. 47 (MINOT£$) T.NT'r J.AI. srJ'81\.REA. FLOW-LENGTH .• 90. 00 Oi:•:::n~EAM BL.£VATION = 75. YO L)OWNDT!i(E:.ll.M ELEVATION ,. '/ 5. 00 ELEVATTON DirFERE~CE - 0,90 lO '{E:J\..R ~JUNFAt.t. lNTENST't'Y (INCH/HOOR) "" 3. 661 !>DBMEA Rf.JNO'il'F (CFS! '"' 0, 2 4 'j'("Y.('AL A.REA(ACR.ES) ·c 0.12 TOTAL F<.UNOF!i"(CS'S) 0.24 1''.t.OW PROCE:SS FROM NODE: 12. 00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE · ~l ------~------~------·-----~------~--- >>:•>:•!U\TIONAL METHOD .J:NITI!l..L SO'BAREA ANAL".t'SIS<<<<< •(JSE:R SPEC!F.'IEO(SUEAR!Z7\): RUNOFF COEFr!C!ENT = .7000 IJRB.l'\N ARF.A WATERSHE'.D (USED NATURAL WATERS.Hl!:D NOMOGRAl?f.l, AC'.E'E:NDIX X-A) TIME or 1'0'£.A.I. Nl)M BER CF. STREAMS = 2 CO~FLtJE:NC.E V:ZU:,flr~S USED FOR TNDEPEND~t-JT STRli:.11.M 1 A~E: ·r:cMt:: or CONCENTRATION I MIN.) "" i;. 9'7 RAINF.U..LL IN'tli:NS!TY (!NCH/HR) "'-· 3. 0 4 T(lTAL ::l't'R£AM ARE:i.\.(AC:Rl!:!':l) "" o.ao 1.:.0.:Ar:< FLOW RATE (CcS) AT CONIE"LTJENCE: "" l. 70 15,00 TO NODE 13.00 I~ COD£ ~ 21 ~us~R GPEClF!ED($0SAREA) : RU~OFF ~OEFFTCIENT ~ ,5500 TlRB~N AREA WA'!'ERSRE:D (OSE:O N.l\'.t:'UAAL WA'r£.Rs1u:o NOMOGRAf'H, APPENDIX X-A) 1'YMf..i OE' C:C>NCt::NTAAT!ON WITfl 6-MINOT~S A.ODED = 6. 84 (~l;(IJl.JTE~) I NITI ..'\l. fo!U~A.!'{E~A 1;'10111-LENGTrl = go, 00 UPSTRE.!\t4 t;LEV.i\'l'J;ON - 7 5. 90 OO~NBTR£AM EL8VATION ~ 72,00 r:;:r.,£VA1'ION DT'FFERENCE = 3. 90 .10 '{.E!.i\R '8A!NF1\LL rt-lTE:NSITY ( INCH/HOOR) ""' :3. 876 :.:oEAREA .E\lJNOl?F(CE'~) ..... 0.23 TCT!>..L ARE:A.(ACRS:SJ O.ll TOTAL RONOFF[CFS)"' 0.23 ·~••~•··~~~·••~~•~•••~•~~••••••••••w••••••~••*••~•~••••~•~••••••+•••~•*~•ww• 1::-J...OW PR.OCF.S!:i FROM NODE LL 00 TO NOOE 1.3. 00 Ts cont: ... l ------.:->:.->-·f)813lGNA'J'E IND8P~NDEN'r STREAM J:O;-~;;;~~~~;~;;;;;------~---- ;:. >:'>~AND COM!?UTE Vt\RIOOS CONFtOENCEO S'l.'RE'AH VALUES«~<<-~· ,.-==~f':':'lc::::J.il.•··..i==r:ini:=.:::::i:::::i==r"le:ic::1r.1.:1c::::i=:i1,_,,r":!:c:::=:r;;;uc:::il"ll!'\ef:=1'li;::::,~J':==~w::i::=,r"'\e==:':"')u::u::::imil"""le::c:::iC"')=:i;:::::ir""1~t:::::.ic:cu·•"l~~=-=-=·t.. c::;l'!"'lr""t~==\"::.ic:::: '1'0TAf, NUMSE;R OE' S'1'RB.AMS = 2 CONF'Ltla:NCE VA.LUEr.; USED f;(')R INDJi;l?tNDENT STREAM 2 ARt: 1'H1€ OF CONCENTRATION (M.J:N, l "" 6. 8 4 R.AJ.NFAiiL .iNTENSITY (INCH/HR) ..,. 3. 88 TOTAL ~'!REAM .2\.REJ\.(ACRE:S} ....., 0.ll ?~AK cLOW RATE(CF8) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.2~ "~· CONF.'LUE.NCE f.>AT.A. • • ::.:TJ,U:l~M RCJNOF:E' Tc INT~N$l'I'Y AREA NOMBER (CS'S> (MIN.) ( WCfi/HOr..JR) (ACRE;) ., 1. 70 9.97 3.038 0.80 2 0. 2~ 6.~4 3. 876 0.1.l RJ\!NF'ALL .!i:llTP.NSITY AND '!!ME or CONCENT~ATION ~ti.trn CON F.''LrJENCE P.ORMtlLA LlSS:D FOR 2 STREAMS. ". PP.A.K FLOW 'AA.T.E: TAB)',.,~ -:\.•-J.· S'T'RF\At-1 !iUNOFF 'T'i:: INTfi!lil.SIT'.t' NOMBER (CfS) (H!N.) (!NCH/HOOR.J l l. 57 6.84 3.8?6 7. 1 . 88 9. 91 3.038 COMl?UTED C(>NFLUENCt E:STIMfl..'l"~S ARE J\S E'OLLOW$: .E'El\K fi'LOW RA.TE rc:rs) '·' 1. 8 s 'f'C !Miiii.) = TOTAT. AREA(A.CRE:SJ ·~ 0, !'.ll FLOW P~OCESS FROM NOD~ 13. llO TO NODS: l4 . 00 rs CODF: = 4 >>;•;>.'>COMPOTE .El!J?EFLOW TMVELT!M~ THRCJ StllaA..R.E;A<<<<<: >>>>~USING USER-SPEC!rIED PIP~SIZECCC<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH f!PE rs 5.2 INCHES I: l l?E Fl.OW VELOCITY ( FE:8l' I SEC . ) = 5 • 8 OPSTR8AM NODE 8LEVATION e 7C.CO DOWNSTREAM NOOE ELEV~TION • 68.50 r.·r.oWLENG'C'rl(E''EET) "" 75.0(,J MANN!Nt.1':-i NI""\ 0.013 GIVEN f'H'.I:: DI.A.MS.'1'ER (INCH) = 12. 00 NCJt"lSER OF l?!?E::. ""' J. f?!l?f::F.'LOW TF!RC.T SOBAREA(CFS) ~ 1.~8 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. I = 0.2l TC(HlN.) ~ io.19 FLOW PROC:l!:SS E'R.OM NOD!::: 16.00 TO NOOF.: 17. 00 IS CODE ,.,., 21 -----·------·------.,.;-.,.,-, .... >AATIO!\IAL MET.HOD :J;NtTIAL SrJBAR~A ANALYSIS<<<<< "'t.l~ER f:H'l::CIFIEPISUEi\REA): .Rr...TNC".lf'k' COEFFICIENT ..... asoo URBAN AREA WATERSHED ( rlSS:D N~TIJRAL WATE 'I'TME OG' <:ONCE:N't'RATION WlTfl tS~MINtl'.1'ES ADOi;;p T'l 7. !:>2 ( M.rnUTE::~~) TNITIAJ,, ~UEAR~l\. FLOW-LENGTH =- 110. 00 m~sTi: FLOW ~R~CESS FROM NODS l'/. 00 TO WODE: 1. 8. 00 IS CODE "" '>':• :• ., "·COMPC.1'1'~ ~!t:'F'.F'LOW TRJWl':I.TI~ ".l'iili\U SUBAREA<<<<< ~~>>>UStNG U8ER-S~ECiftED PIPESIZE<<<<< DEl?'T'H (.1.f E"U)W IN 1.2. 0 INCH erl?E IS .:L 1 INCHES P!PEFLOW V8LUCITY(FB£T/SE~.l ~ 2,7 l.H'STREAM NOOE F..LEVATION = 71, 50 DOWNB~R~AM NOD~ ELEVAtION ~ 69.62 FT.OtllL.ENCTM(FE:E:T) "" 250.00 MANNTNG'S N = 0.013 G.!.VEN PTPC: DIAM!;::'I'E:.R(INC::A) "" 1£.00 Ni:JMBE.K OF l?TPES l P.IJ?F.,F''f,()W T!lRCJ StJBARE.A (CFS) - 0. 43 TRAV~~ TIME(MXN.) = 1.53 TC(H!N.) = 9.05 11:1 • 0 0 1'0 NODE 18.00 IS CODE ~ LO ------~---~------~------~------*"' •~•••••*~*~~·~~•• 6 •~~-·~••••~•••~•~•*•~~··~•••w•••w•~~•~•k•+•••~••••••••• l!T,QW f?R(lc.:i:.:ss !:'ROM NODE l 9. 00 TO t-JODS 20. 00 1S CODE ""' 21 ~------~------~------~------ =.c::l~== ... Jc::::::ii=i~c. .. ::,c:::ii=:i,...,~l!::::.•..1c:::ic:::r°"ee~=~r.:"1~l:l:oac=i=i,..,~::: 1 c:=:::::i~l""'i~t=:=;:::i;::::imr-ir.-,..cc:::i=~t-:lo"":!~==~"~t'""J====Q,.:Jt~===:=-,~~~ ""VSER 8L'E:CI!i'!~D(SC1SAREA): RUNOFF COEFFIC78NT c .asoo URBAN AREA W~T.ERSHEO (USED NATURAt WAT~RSHED NO~OGRA~H, AP.PENDIX X•A) 'L'lME C)ff' CONC:F.:NTRA'l:'tON WITH 6-M!NO'TES A.ODEO "" '7. 25 (M!NCJ'rES) J:N!TTA.L SOEAAE.i!. FLOW... LF.!NGT.f-l "" 100. 00 UP8~~£AM F.t~VATION ~ ?6.50 DOWNSTREA~ ELEV~TION ~ 74.60 F.:J,P,VJl.TION DI.E'lrE:RE~Cfoi: = l. 90 lO YEAR ~AINc'A.LL TNT~NSiiY(INCH/HOOR) ~.7J3 :;iUBARt~ RC.1t\IO~F'(CFS) '"' 0.92 TO'T"A.,1.., /\REACACREG) "" 0.29 TO'I'i\L RCJt:'IOE'E'(CFSl 0.92 !'i"L TOTAL NUMBER Of STREAMS e 2 CONFUJ8NCE V/l.I.UE.S tJSED E'OR INDEPENDENT STRP.Ji.M l ARE: '!'IM~: Or" CONCENTAAT:CON 21.00 TO NOOE 20.00 TB CODE = 21 ------~------~------~~------>.:-.>~·:Hu:\TTONA!.c METHOP .rnITl.!\L ~UBAREA ANALY'S!S<<<<< *U;JJ:::~ .SP!::.:CIE"Iti:D (SUBAP..E:A) : RUNOFF CO~EFICIENT b • • 8500 r.JREli-1.N AREA l'JA"l'BRSHED (tlF:E:D NAl'tJRA.L. W.!:.TERSA.E:D NOMOGiRAr:>H, l'... Ell?F;Nl.HX X-A.) TTME c.>E' CONC8NTRATl;ON WITH 6-L':l.!NUT!!.S A.DDED "' 7. 33 (M!Nr.1T8Sl l~lTIAL SU~AREA :~OW-LENGTH = lU0.00 UPf.'r.REAM ELtVA.TlON ..., 76,20 DOWN:.~T.RE:l\M F'.L,E:VATIObl = 74. f\0 1~.LEVATION Ll!l:'E'E:RENCE: •• 1. 6r) J.O YBA~. Rl\INFALL INTE!NB!TY (INCH/HOIJR) .3. 705 :::;rJDA.RE:A RfJNOE"F' (CFS} 0. 4 4 TO'rA1., A.REA(ACRE:S)"" 0.14 TOTAL RtJNOE'F(Cll'Sl U.44 F~OW ~ROC~SS F~OH NOOE 20.00 TO NOOE: .20.00 LS CODE ..., l ----~------~~------~------·----·--~~---~ .>.'>>>'->Dt.:SlGNf\'.rJ:.: !NDEPENDC:NT STREAM fi"OR CON!i'I..t:JENCE<<::<<< "'::•>':>:.AND COM?t1TE VJ\Rl'OOS CONFI..rJENCE:D STREAM VA.t.tlE:S«<<< 1'0T1\I. 'NUM13E:R Of ~'l'REAMS .,, 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEl?8NDE:NT STREAM 2 ARI!':: 1'lM.E or (.X:l'NC'$W!'AA'UON (M!N. l ...., 7. :u AAINFAf... L INTENSITY(INCH./H.Rl = 3.7t 'l'OTAT. S1!'R.E:Jl..M AAE!.i\ (ACRES) ..., 0 .14 P~~~ ~LOW RJ\.TE(CFS) AT CONFLUE:NCt ~ 0.44 .,,., CC>lllF.'UJENC:E DATA """" t:rl'RE:AM RtJNOFF 'l'c: '!NTEN.S '!TY' ~REA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN,} ( r NC:rl/ HOU~) (ACRE) l 0.'32 7.25 3. 7 JJ o.~9 2 (). 44 7. 3:'.:l 3.705 0. l RA HJI:'ALL TN'.l'.'ENSI'l'Y AND 'l'IME OF CONCF.NTRATIOtll MT!O C':(lNFLl1ENC.E f'O~Mf.JLA OfolEL'> FOR 2 STREAMS. • .. P!!:A..K FLOW AA.TE TABLE! "'"' '.::T.RE:AM Rf.lNOFE' Tc INTSNS!T;( NfJMBER (Ci:~S) (MI~.) ( INCH/.HOOR) 1 1. 38 7.25 3.733 2 l.35 '7.33 3.?0S COM?.OTED CONFLtJENCE ES'..l'IMA.'.l"li:$ ARE: ~S FOLI..OtllS: P.£A~ ~LOW RAT~(CFS) ~ l.36 t~(MIN,) ~ 7.25 TOTAL A.RF".A.(ACRE:S) "' 0.43 !:LOW PROCESS ~ROM NOOE 20. 00 TO N(XJ'E: l~.oo .(S COOE = ·:..·.~ ~>.'>C0~1l?t11'E l?H'EFLOW TAAVE:L'!'IMS: THRU SUSA.REA<<<.:·~< >~>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED P!PESIZ8<-::ccc DEiPTH OE' E"LOW 1N 12. 0 INC!•l PIPE: IS 5. 2 INCH.E!S PIPE!f'LOW VI::!..OCiTY (FEET/~~EC.) 4. 2 OPS'TREAM NODE ELF.!VA.T!ON ..., 70.00 OOW~STR~~M NODE ELSVATlON = fig,62 FLOWLE:NGTH(f"EETl"' 38.00 MANNINIC::'S 'N .c 0.0'.l.3 G!VE:N ?!l?E: D.'.l'.A.1:-!E'l'EF.l(!NC.H) "' 12.00 t-Jt.JMBER OE' E'!F.'ES "" J. PlP~FLOW THRO SUBAREACCFS) 1.36 'l'LUWEL TrME!MI'N.) "" 0.15 TC!t>:!IN.) ,.., 7.40 J:T,("JY,I PROCP,SS E'ROM NODE 18.00 TO NODli< \8,00 IS CODE c 11 •-----~----~-~------~------w••------N•------~-- ., :>.:»>CON~'!..UENCt:: MEMORY l:)ANK ./'r l WITH THE MAIN-STREAM ME.MORY<«:c:«~. '• MA.IN STR£AM CONF'LUENCE DATA ** ::JT.R8AM RUNOFF Ta INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFSI (M!N.) flNCR/MOUR) (ACRE) 1 l.3~ 7.40 3.68« 0, 0 ·•' MF.MORY BAN!< # l CONlrLUreNCE D~TA ~M !:>TRE:AM Rl.JN01"f' Tc !NT~N~!TY A.REA NUMBER (CFS) {M1N, l ( INCrI/HOOF\) (ACM) 1. 0. 4 3 9. 05 3. 2:15 0.14 k ' PF;JU'\ FLOW AATE 'r.Al.ILE ~"' S't'R~.A.M RUNOFF Tc IN'£ ENS I TY NO MEER ICE'S) (MI~. l (.(NCH/HOOR.) L 74 7.40 3.684 •'"• l. t!i3 9. ()!i .3. 235 C:OMPrJTEO C'ONFLOtNCE ESTIMATES ARE; AS FOLLOWS; l?l!'.A'F< E"LOW ru:vrE:/CFS) 1..74 To(MlN.) = 7.40 '!'<">'TAJ., 11.REJ>. (AC.:.RJ;:S) '"' Cl. 5 7 FLOW PRQCE~G FROM NODE 18. 00 1'0 NODE 14. 00 T!:;; CODE = 3 >'>'>>'•COMPOT!:: E'IPEFLOW T:RAVE!LTIME THEW S!JBAREA.<<<<<; ··"':•.:-'l-tJfitNC.? COMf'01J;;R .. E:S'l'!MATEC PT?€S!ZJ::: {NON•PRS:SSOR.~ E"LOW)., •:<<.•: D~PTH OF FLOW !N 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6,5 !NCH!S ~lP~FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC,) • 4.0 f.lPSTREAM NODE E:.!..E:VATION = fi 9. 62 DOWNSTREAM NODE EL!::VATION,.,, fie.so rLOWLENGTH(FEET) e 145.00 MANNING'S N ~ 0.013 G:S1'1MATEO PTPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NrJMEER OP PIPl!:S = 1 F"rP8J:'LOW THRU SCJBARE:A(C.:E'S) ,.., l. '/4 'i"RP.VE:L T!'M8(M!N.) "" 0.60 TC(MIN.) = 8.00 F'T.c)W !?ROCE:SS FROM NODE 22. 00 ·ro NOO.E: 23.00 IS CODE ~ 21 >~>>~RATION~L METHOD IN1TIAL SUEAR~ ANALYSIS<<<<< •o:3E;R Sl?~CIFIED (~:.i\JBflREA): RUNOF'P. COEF'F'1CIENT ,.., • !i500 UCl.13AN AREA WATERSHED ( OSED NA.TUAAT... WATERSl11l':D NOMOGAAP..H. A.Pl?i::!:'>lDIX X-1\) TIME OP CONC:F.NTMTTON WITH 6-M1NOTE$ AODF.:D -= !L23 (M!NfJ'l'E:S) .!.NITTl\..L SUBAl:t.EA F'LOW ... L.£'NGTH ,..,, 2:,0. 00 fJP!"~"('~~AM 8LG:VAT!ON "" '76.00 liOWN$TREiAM Er.. F.:Vi\TICN = 7J. !..>() 1£.:J..E:VAT'l:ON DIFJ:'B:RE:NCE "" 2. 50 10 '(E:l\f-< RA.0.1FALL .tNTENS!TY(!NCH/HOO~> ~ .'3 .1911 !;tJBABEA RONC.)E"F(CF$) = 0.'H TOTAL l\.RE:ACA.Cl?.ES) "'" 0.!32 TOTAL .EUJNO.Ff(CE'S) 0.91 ®IV{)/TltJA/5 ~~LOW E'ROCF:i::iS !:ROM NODJ:".: 24. 00 ·ro NOD£ 2s.oo ts coo~~ 21 ------~·------··------~------ 'USER s i.:>r~CIE".!!i:D l SUEl'1RE1\.) : RUNOFF CO~FFICIENT = .BSOO l.JRSAN ARE.A WATERSHED ws.e:o NA.Tt7RAL Wll.TE:RSHED NOMOG n.ow PR()(:ESS FROM NODE 25.00 't'O NODf, 26.00 IS CODE ~ 52 ------~~------~------~------'.•'>:•.:.·>COMPtrTE:: NA'.I'URAL VALLEY. Cfu"\NNE1 li'l(!W«<<< ., .. :"" :>1'MVG:f~'t' .CME 'l'fl~U StJBi'\REA<<<<.._ rJp:JTL'\EA..1-1 NtltlE: ELEVATION = 71. 50 DOWNt:Tfl..E:AM NODE ~LEVATION . I 71. 00 CHANNEL T.i:;N(.;Tll 'CHRtr SOSA.REA ( F't:ETl ,.., :no. oo CHANNEL $LOPE 0 Q,0014 CHANNEL t'LOW Tf-11?.tl SCJEJAREA (~F'S) ..... l. ;:n Pl,QW VF.T,.OC!TY ( f~.ET /SEC) ·• 0. 59 ( e>.SR PLATE D .... 6. 1) 'l'Rl\VF.T" '.l"IME:(MlN.) ""' 10.53 TC(t-:t!N.) 2l. l:c1 b'!..OW PRC..)CE.SS F'l\OM NODE 26. Q(J TO N<.)DE 26.00 rn CODE= 1 ------~------~------ WrTAL f.IWM8I:;R OF STREAMS = :3 CONl:LUENCE Vt\.!,.O~S usr.n ~"OR !NOE:PENDE'NT STREAM 1 A['l..£; TIME Of' CONCE:NTRATrON (MIN.) 2;!,. l2 R.!\XNF.'AI..L JNTE~S:i:TY(INCH/H.R) 1.87 TQTl\L STREAM ARE:A(.t\.CRE$) ~, 0.55 r.•f.JU; FLOW RATE (CfSJ AT CONE'LrJE:NCF.: = 1. 3/ PLOW PROC~~1$ FROM NOOE 27,0C> TO NODE 26.00 rs CODE: = 21 ------~-----~-~-·------~~------~------ •t.J.SER :::r>!J:CH'I.E.:O (SUBAAEA.): R~NOPP COtFFIC!ENT = .700C rJR9.21.N A.REA WJ\''C'G:RSHE:D (1,ISl!:D NATOAAL WATE:RS!-1ED NOMOGRAl?.f;!, APPEN01X X-A) TTMri; OF CC>NC;J::NTRATTON WITH 6-M!mnes ADDED = 9. 97 (MINUTES l \N.LTIA.L ~1f!B."1.REA r't.OW•LENG'tri ... 350.0U UPSTREA.M .I::LEVATION '-' 76.00 DOWNSTREAM E:LS:VATION"" 72.00 F.l,f.VATIO~ DIFFERE:NC£ ·- 2 £L 00 TD NODE 26.00 IS CODE -~~------•w------~------•-~---~--••- TOTAL NUMBER or STREAMS ~ ~ CONf.L..fJENC8 VALUES ns~o FOR INDE:PEND!:':NT STRE:A.M 2 ARE: TH1E OF' CONCEN"!"RA'l'ION (MIN. J "" 9. 97 M!NFA.C.L INTE:NSIT'l::'(I\\!CH/I'iR} = 3.04 TOTAL STREA~ ARE1>.(ACRES) = O.SO e'Ei\K t'LOW 'RA'l'E (Cli'~) AT CONF'T...t'J.E:NCE <=> l. 70 28.DO '1"0 NODE 26.oo I8 COOP. = 21 ···»">>>RA".£'IONAL METHOD HIITil\.L 3tJ.BA~. AN,)l,,L':c'SIS<.«:.<.-:. •[JSf<~R. ~l?E:CTr!EO (O'C.JSA..l:IBA): RON(lE"'E' COEf'e'!CIENT = , 4 !.>00 rJ~SAN ARP.)\ WATE:RSHeo (USED £1lATORAL WATE:RSHE:D NOMOGAAf'H. [1.pt,:ir.,l)ll)IX x~A) '!'lME OF C()N(;E:NTAA'l'!ON WITH 5-t-1INtn"tS ADDED o:'\ 1:3.85(MUH.JT.E:S) lN ITT.At .;>rJBAAE1' f'LOW-L8NG1'H "" 350. 00 CJP8T.RE:AM E:T,EVATION = ? 1. 50 DO~NSTUEAM ELEVATJON ~ 71.00 ELEVATT.0N DIFFE~ENCE = 0.50 1.0 '(SA.R RATNFA.LL IN't'~NSITY(T.NCH/HOUR) "" 2.4!Hl !10RARE:J\ RONOf.E' (CFS) 2. 96 TOTAL ARF.A(A.C[(ES) "' :?..GS TOTAL ~tiNOf?'f(CE'S) ·• 2.:>6 !:LOW L'l~OCE:~S ~'RO~ NOD!:: 2.6.00 TO NODE 26.00 rs CODE: = .l ~------·------~-~------~-----·------~------"-~·:-·•::-DEf.lTC~N.A.TE 1NDEPENDr.NT STRE:A.M FOR CONFLUJ:::WG8<<<<< .,.,..,,;,. •ANIJ CC>MPOTP, VAAIOCJS CONFLO!i'.:NCE:O STREAM V~L(JgS<<<<< 'WTZ\L NUH.BE:R OF' STREAAS "' ;3 CONFLt1F!'.NC:E VALOE.S osi.::n S"OR !NDl!!PEt-10ii:NT STREAM 3 AR.Ii:: 'l."!ME OI:' CONCP.N'.t'MT!ON (~IN. ) "" l 3. 8 5 RAHJt'P.LL INTE:NSITY(!NCli/HR) = 2.16 TO'r'A.J.. STREAM A.REA (A.CRES) = 2. 66 P~AK fL0W RAT~(CFS) AT CON~LOENCE ~ 2.96 '• <:'<)1-lf'Li'.J!:;;NCE DATA 1'" STRRA~ RUNOFU' 'l'c !Nt£NSITY r...ru:)l NOHH~R (CFS) (MIN.) (!NCH/HOUR) (ACRE:) .l l. 37 :a.12 l. 8'/3 0.55 ~ 1. 70 9.97 3. O.Hl o.so :i ~ • !) 6 13. s::. 2. -\158 2.68 [-\!\.! N E"ALL IN'T'ENSITY AND Titi'IE OF CONCl!!NTRA'!' ION RA.TIO C:ONFLll~NCb: FORMr.llA t:JSEO f<.)R :-i 81' .E\JS:AMS • • • P8AK FLOW AA'l'E TABLE .... :'.J'ri:UUIM RONOFP '\"o INTENS;t't''t NrJMBER (CFS) (MIN. l ( INCH/HOURJ l 4. 94 9. ':l7 3.0.38 2 s. :rn i:-i. 85 2.458 3 4. 67 21.12 i.a·;:i COMP\11'8[) CONFr,CJENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS ~·otLOWS: PEAK 2LON RAT~(CFS) ~ ~.30 TclMIN.) ~ 13.85 TOTA~ ~REA(h~R~S) = 4.03 P.ND or STUDY SUMMARY: F' ~:AK fLOW r.i.AT .E: ( c rs ) '"' Ti;: (MIN. J "' D.85 TOTAt AMEA(ACRES) ~ . · lNTfNSITY.-DUMTION DESJGtJ CHMT 198.4. . . .· -.,, • : .. ~ - ·_· ...... • .....: ..... • I .. ·rrrhnonalrn·hl•H+n•rmm11u.nmu=-+-1..,1 ..,1~11mf. . Ofrecttons for.J\pplicat1on: 9, Equntlon; I -• 7.44 p 0--· 645 I. 6 _· l 1) From prectpftation maps determine 6 hr. and · 24 hr, aMounts for.the selected frequency. I i: Intensity (In./Hr.) These maps are printed in the County Hydrology r.. Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in th Oes1gn and Procedure ManuaJ). • Dutation Olin.) 2) Adjust 6 hr. prE!tip1tation (if n~cessary) so 1mn that 1t ts wfthtn the range of 45X to 65% of the 24 hr. preclp1tit1~n. (Not n~p,icable to Oesert) 3) Plot 6 hr. precfpf tat1on on the right side of the chart. · 4) Draw a 11ne through the pofnt parallel to the plotted lfnes. . ___yr • • --· p6 :r: %* Pz4 t .t. 2) Adjusted ~P 6~ in. 3) tc = min. ,1 4) 1 • in/hr. I, J.O •Not App lf cable to Desert Regfo rt /,' tn ·, .. .,··' Th1s chart replaces the Intensity~ Duration-Frequency curves used s\nce ~ .. ',i1111111111~Jl(ll!!lllllll!!!llµJ.JJ.tJil'1llLl.llllllWl'll" r I'' ''l.J'lll'JWlll {"\ 1965. :--.... ' lO! l 5 20 30 40 50 l . - z . 3 4 . 5 6 ,• . ~ C~UNTY OF SAN DJEG{} 0£PJ\RTMEHT OF Sl\N lTATtCU f.. FlOOD CONTROL 1*5' JO' i t \ '\ I 1 I In ' I l -i ~~f r \ r ' 33° 1 ft5 ·t I I . • .. , _f;IG~tiEw;LI. -5 ------.. ------.. - - w- .. l'1>1;i • APPENDIX c. Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY BONITA LIBRARY CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August27,2003 Revised: October 20, 2003 Prepared for: BRG Consulting, Inc. ENGINEERS 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 CM/JPK 3-03-1291 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE Introduction...... 1 Project Description ...... 1 Existing Street System ...... 4 Existing Traffic Volumes...... 7 Project Traffic Generation...... 9 Project Traffic Distribution/Assignment ...... 10 Cumulative Project Analysis ...... 10 Significance Criteria Discussion ...... 15 Traffic Analysis Methodology ...... 18 Access ...... 21 Construction Traffic Impacts ...... 22 Conclusions ...... 22 LIST OF TABLES DESCRIPTION PAGE 1. Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...... 9 2. Project T raffle Generation ...... 1O 3. Cumulative Projects Traffic Generation ...... 15 4. Signalized Intersection Operations ...... 20 Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS LIST OF FIGURES DESCRIPTION PAGE 1. Vicinity Map ...... 2 2. Project Area Map...... 3 3. Conceptual Site Plan...... 5 4. Existing Conditions Diagram ...... 6 5. Existing Traffic Volumes...... 8 6. Project Traffic Distribution ...... 11 7. Assignment of Project Traffic ...... 12 8. Existing+ Project Traffic Volumes ...... 13 9. Assignment of Cumulative Projects Traffic ...... 16 10. Existing+ Project+ Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ...... 17 APPENDICES A. Intersection Manual Count Sheets B. Methodology and Intersection Calculation Sheets Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY BONITA LIBRARY CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Revised: October 20, 2003 INTRODUCTION Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has completed the following traffic impact study to determine and evaluate the potential traffic impacts on the local circulation system due to the development of the Bonita Library project in Chula Vista. This is a County library project located in the City of Chula Vista. The project site is approximately 3.0 acres, and is located on Bonita Road west of Otay Lakes Road, next to the clubhouse at the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. The site· is currently undeveloped. The proposed project would construct an 8,300 square-foot public library and a 1 ,600 square-foot community center. A 4,400 square-foot museum is also proposed, and would be constructed subsequent to the development of the library and community center. Figure 1 shows the project vicinity map. Figure 2 shows the project area map. The traffic expected to be generated by the project has been added to the existing on street traffic voiumes and the traffic impacts were anaiyzed at severai intersections and street segments within the project area. Included in this traffic assessment is the following: • Existing Conditions Assessment • Project Traffic Generation/Distribution/Assignment • Cumulative Project Discussion • Intersection/Street Segment Capacity Analysis • Access Discussion • Construction Traffic Impacts • Conclusions/Recommendations PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to construct an 8,300 square-foot public library on a vacant site west of the clubhouse at the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. A 1,600 square foot community center and a 4,400 square foot museum are also proposed. Operating hours for the project would begin at 10:00 AM. Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -1- ;------~ .) ' , __,,,.,,...... '--..... RIVERSIDE COUN1Y ; ~--- - "SAN" DiEGo couN1Y CAMP PENDLETON ALPINE ·::::::::::: . .. .-:-:·:-:-:.:.:::.:-:.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.. '...... ·: ·:: .. ::::::: .·.·.:.:·:.:.:-:-:-:·:-:-:·:·:-:·:·: ...... 0 8 SOURCE: LLG Engineers, 2001 MILES LLGVCITY.DWG Figure 1 VICINITY MAP -2- ENG NEERS BONITA L!BRARY NO SCALE LLG1291.DWG Figure 2 l!INISG011Utl i ru~~~&if,': ; PROJECT AREA MAP RE~.ISl;SeJtl : -3- ENG N E E R S BONITA UBRARY LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Parking will be provided for about 56 cars. The current access to the site is via a single, unsignalized, full access "tee" intersection to Bonita Road. Prior to opening the library, the County of San Diego will relocate the site access to Bonita Road, such that the project driveway aligns opposite the existing access to the shopping center south of Bonita Road. The County will also close the existing Bonita Road access to the golf course parking lot. Concurrently, the City of Chula Vista will install a traffic signal at the new intersection, to be in place prior to the opening of the library for public use. At no point in time will an unsignalized, realigned project driveway be operating. The project was analyzed for two access conditions, both of which propose access via a single driveway: one for the existing unsignalized "tee" intersection at the clubhouse/project driveway to Bonita Road, and the other for a realigned, signalized driveway to Bonita Road, as described above. While the project site is currently undeveloped, it should be noted that it is heavily used as a de-facto parking area for recreational users of the adjacent Rohr Park north of the site, which has walking/jogging loop that begins/terminates at the project site. Figure 3 shows the conceptual site plan. EXISTING STREET SYSTEM Figure 4 shows an existing conditions diagram for the project area. The following is a description of the street system in the project vicinity. Bonita Road is classified as a Major Road on the County of San Diego Circulation Element, and as a Four-Lane Major Street on the City of Chula Vista Circulation Element. Bonita Road is also identified on the County of San Diego's Bicycle Network System. Bonita Road is constructed as a four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane. Bike lanes are provided in both directions. Curbside parking is generally prohibited on the south side (eastbound direction). Bus stops are provided at intervals, and the posted speed lim.it is 50 mph west of Willow Street, 35 mph from Willow Street to Otay Lakes Road and 45 mph east of Otay Lakes Road. Strip commercial is present on the south side of Bonita Road in the project area, and strip commercial, multifamily residential and golf-course/park land uses are present on the north side of Bonita Road. Bonita Library City of Chula Vista -4- 3-03-1291 PROPERTY CJYmEO BY CITY OF CHULA VISTA 59.200S.f. EXISTING GOLF COURSE PAR.KfN~ EXISTING DRIVEWAY FOR GOlFCOURSE / (TOBE VACATED) Ft.n-URE ORNEWAY BY COUNTY OFSAND!EGO Note: Botfi. existing and future driveway alig~ments. are shown on this site plan. Only a single dnveway is proposed in either case. NO SCALE REV. 08/15/03 LLG1291.DWG Figure 3 SITE PLAN -5- BONITA LIBRARY ENGINEERS NOTE: - A signalized, realigned project LEGEND driveway would have the following @ - Traffic Signal configuration: TWLTL - Two way left turn lane RTOL - Right turn overlap NTOR - No turn on red Fs~--1 BL Bike Lane 1 __} \~1 BS Bus Stop l.... 3-...... ) FUTURE NP No Parking INTERSECTION 2U - Two lane undivided roadway CONFIGURATION 4U - Four lane undivided roadway REV. 10/3/03 NO SCALE LLG1291.DWG Figure 4 l INJSGOH~i4 L~w,;&~~,, :' "!' ' EXISTING CONDITIONS DIAGRAM ~R'.fE~SJ>,,~:J~ -6- ENGINEERS BONITA LIBRARY LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Otay Lakes Road is classified as a Prime Arterial on the County of San Diego Circulation Element, and as a Class II Collector on the City of Chula Vista Circulation Element. Otay Lakes Road is also identified on the County of San Diego's Bicycle Network System. Otay Lakes Road is currently constructed as a four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-tum lane. Bike lanes are provided in both directions, and curbside parking is generally prohibited. Bus stops are provided at intervals, and the posted speed limit is 40 mph. Collector streets feed Otay Lakes Road in the vicinity of the project area. Willow Street is classified as a Major Road on the County of San Diego Circulation Element, and as a Class 11 Collector on the City of Chula Vista Circulation Element. Willow Street is also identified on the County of San Diego's Bicycle Network System. Willow Street is constructed as a two-lane roadway in the project area. South of the bridge crossing the Sweetwater River, Willow Street is constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway within a 4-lane right-of way, which permits curbside parking in both directions. Bus stops are provided at intervals, and no speed limit is posted in the immediate vicinity. Willow Street narrows from a relatively wide two-lane roadway to a narrow two-lane roadway over the Sweetwater River. Commercial fronting is present on both sides of Willow Street between Bonita Road and the Sweetwater River. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 5 shows the existing PM peak hour turning movement counts at the three key intersections listed below. Traffic Data Services Southwest conducted these PM peak hour counts in April and May of 2003. • Bonita Road/Willow Street • Bonita Road/Clubhouse DrivewayNons Driveway (two "tee" intersections) • Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road Again, PM counts were conducted since the project will open at 10:00 AM, well after the AM peak. Figure 5 also shows the most recent available existing daily traffic volumes (ADTs) on the key street segments in the project area. The existing daily volumes were obtained from City of Chula Vista records. Where count records for segments in the area were outdated or not available, 2003 ADTs were estimated assuming that the PM peak hour volumes comprise 10% of the ADT. Table 1 shows the existing ADTs. Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -7- _.. ·· _.. ·-·········:·;:;··l I ...... \ ; ~~ ~ 00 j ...___ 75/ 49\ : ) \.. -1638/1086: \ 67/ 45_} \ \927/1744- j \... ..•...... iji$ii;iG"················ INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION NOTES: ADTs are shown midblock AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections A signalized, realigned project driveway would have the following volumes: .···-··••H••:;_"'°N""•••••···--·····•····"'·· ..• i ~.::::. ! \ ~t ~ 75/ 4J. : .) \.._ 1638/1os5: : r 33/ 61: ~ 67/ 45_) ' ; ;927/1744- 1 r ; 1 49/ 178~ ~~ l :.. ge; .... ·················Furui:iF.················ INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION REV. 10/3/03 NO SCALE LLG1291.DWG Figure 5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES -8- ENGINEERS BONITA LIBRARY LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 1 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Street Segment Source Date Volume Bonita Road West of Willow Street LLG Engineers 2003 25,400E Willow Street to Otay Lakes Road City of Chula Vista 2000 36,600 Otay Lakes Road to City Limits City of Chula Vista 2000 39,300 Otay Lakes Road Bonita Road to RidgeviewWay City of Chula Vista 2000 37,100 Willow Street Sweetwater Road to Bonita Road LLG Engineers 2003 12,300E SOURCE: City of Chula Vista count records, except as noted. Volume is average daily traffic volume (ADT). E =Estimated volume assuming PM peak hour volumes comprise 10% of the ADT. Appendix A contains copies of the manual intersection count sheets. PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION The number of trips generated by the proposed project is based on traffic generation rates published in the SANDAG Brief Guide to Traffic Generators (April 2002). The only rate available for any of the three designated project land-uses (library, community center and museum) is "library". It appears that the community center would function as an auxiliary use to the library; it is believed that library patrons would likely use components of the community center (such as the "safety center") during the same trip, rather than driving to the site specifically to use the community center. The same holds true for the museum. To account for these atypical land-uses in the trip generation calculations, LLG applied the published rate for "library" (50 trips/1,000 sf) to the 8,300 square-feet of proposed library, and then half the rate (25 trips/1,000 sf) to the balance of 6,000 square feet. While SANDAG rates do include percentages for the AM peak hour, this project in particular is not proposing to open before 10:00 AM, therefore no AM peak hour traffic generation was considered. The 14,300 square-foot project is therefore calculated to generate approximately 565 ADT with 29 inbound/29 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Table 2 shows the project traffic generation calculations. Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -9- LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE2 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Daily PM Peak Hour Size Land Use Rate Trips (sf) %of ln:Out In Out (ADT) ADT Split Library 8,300 50 415 10% 50 50 21 21 Auxiliary Uses 6,000 25 150 10% 50 50 8 8 Total 14,300 565 29 . 29 Source: SANDAG Brief Guide. 2002 (sf) = Square feet ADT = Average Daily Traffic PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The project trips were distributed and assigned to the street system based on the relative location of existing residential areas to the site, as well as the existing volumes at the key intersections. The majority of trips are expected to be local in nature. Figure 6 shows the estimated project traffic distribution. Figure 7 shows an assignment of project traffic based on this distribution. Figure 8 shows the existing + project traffic volumes. CUMULATIVE PROJECT ANALYSIS LLG conferred with both City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego staff to determine any major, pending near-term cumulative projects that should be included in the analysis. The following is the name and a brief description of the of seven projects that were identified: 1) San Miguel Ranch - This project is a proposed 1394-unit residential community in the extreme north of the City of Chuia Vista. The project is iocated north of East "H" Street/Proctor Valley Road. It is planned to build the project in four phases. Phases I through 111 consist mainly of residential lots and a school. No commercial uses are planned. Phase IV is located south of Proctor Valley Road and extends to south of East "H" Street. Phase IV includes commercial land uses to serve the project/neighborhood and multi-family dwelling units south of East "H" Street. The full project would generate 12,616 ADT with 869 inbound/373 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. At the time this study (Bonita Library) was commissioned, 892 single-family units were permitted to be constructed, and 156 single-family units were already constructed and occupied. Therefore, the balance of 736 units (892 permitted minus 156 built/occupied) was considered in the analysis as the cumulative project. Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -10- LEGEND ~ - Bi-directionol Traffic Distribution REV. 08/21/03 NO SCALE LLG1291.DWG Figure 6 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION -11- ENGINEERS BONITA LIBRARY .· _/'_ / ..... "" ! : ...... : : .... _. : • 1')....J • \ ) \... ~5/17\ f/12_) .\ ··...... •.. Eiiisr1iiCi··-··· INTERSECllON CONFIGURAllON NOTE: ADTs are shown midblock AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections A signalized, realigned project driveway would have the following volumes: (.. ·-i~·············· ..l [ .) \... ~5/1; b;12...J' ~ t...... FUiuRE°··-·) INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION REV. 10/3/03 NO SCALE LLG1291.DWG Figure 7 PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT -12- AM/PM PEAK HOURS & ADT ENGINEERS BONITA LIBRARY .···-······ .. :·;.;,···J../ ...... : e>VJ : ~'"Vi : ; ,,,.., ~ 80/ 66\ \ ) \,. -1538/1086 \ \ 70/ 57__} \ ;927/1744- : \_····-·············5'isiii-iG ...... -··.: INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION NOTE: AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections A signalized, realigned project driveway would have the following volumes: =-···-··--·····i·~··········--··········"'··-..: : ~~ : : » ..., '-.. BO/ 65; ! I I -1638/1086! i A' ~ r 33/ 61: ~ 70/ 57 _) ' ,,.. ! ;927/1744- 1 ( : .. ~-.:~:. :.~.~-~----·~~--·········-·)FUTURE INiERSECTION CONFIGURATION REV. 10/3/03 NO SCALE LLG1291.DWG Figure 8 EXISTING + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES -13- AM/PM PEAK HOURS & ADT ENGINEERS BONITA LIBRARY LINSCOIT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 2) TM 4927 - This project consists of 12 single-family residential units and is located north of Central Avenue and east of Frisbee Street in Sunnyside. This project is calculated to generate 120 ADT with 12 trips (8 inbound and 4 outbound) in the PM peak hour. 3) TM 5205 - This project consists of 19 single-family residential units and is located north of Central Avenue and west of Belle Bonnie Road in Sunnyside. This project is calculated to generate 190 ADT with 19 trips (13 inbound and 6 outbound) in the PM peak hour. 4) TPM 20392 - This project consists of 10 single-family residential units and is located north of Central Avenue between Hazelhurst Place and Yah Way in Sunnyside. This project is calculated to generate 100 ADT with 10 trips (7 inbound and 3 outbound) in the PM peak hour. 5) TM 5156 - This project consists of 14 single-family residential units and is located east of Long Canyon Drive in Sunnyside. This project is calculated to generate 140 ADT with 14 trips (4 inbound and 14 outbound) in the PM peak hour. 6) TPM 20162 E - This project consists of 2 single-family residential units and is located east of Long Canyon Drive in Sunnyside. This project is calculated to generate 20 ADT with 2 trips (1 inbound and 1 outbound) in the PM peak hour. 7) TPM 20413 - This project consists a professional building on a 3.88-acre site and is located south of Bonita Road between Correlle Lane and Andorra Way. This project is calculated to generate 698 ADT with 105 trips (21 inbound and 84 outbound) in the PM peak hour. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation for the cumulative projects. Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -14- LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE3 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION Daily PM Peak Hour Size Land Use Rate Trips %of ln:Out In Out (DU/AC) (ADT) ADT Split San Miguel Ranch 1,394 -- 12,616 ------869 373 TM 4927 Single Family 12 10 120 10% 7 3 8 4 TM 5205 Single Family 19 10 190 10% 7 3 13 6 TM 20392 Single Family 10 10 100 10% 7 3 7 3 TM 5156 Single Family 14 10 140 10% 7 3 4 14 TM 20162 E Single Family 2 10 20 10% 7 3 1 1 TM 20413 Prof Office Bldg 3.88 180 698 15% 2 8 21 84 TOTAL 13,884 923 485 Source: SANDAG Brief Guide. 2002 (DU/AC} = Dwelling Units/Acres Rate is trip ends per DU or AC. ADT =Average Daily Traffic The seven cumulative projects described above are calculated to generate at total of 13,884 ADT with 923 inbound/485 outbound trips in the PM peak hour. Figure 9 shows the assignment of the cumulative projects traffic. Figure 10 shows the existing + project + cumulative projects traffic volumes. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA As stated in the project description, the project is a County project located in the City of Chula Vista. Project traffic is distributed to both County and City roadways. The following is a description of both the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista significance criteria: Bonita Library City Of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -15- .· .· / .. (_ ...... :i·············-··"\ \-m/ss\ : :-\5:;/212- \ \ ...•...... "ExisriN·G········-··} INTERSECTION coNFIGURA'TION NOTE: ADTs are shown midblock AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections A signalized, realigned project driveway would have the following volumes: .... -...... -.... I -177/981 ~53/212- ~ l. .. _...... i'ITTuRE"········-··J IN'TERSECTION CONFIGURA'TION REV. 10/03/03 NO SCALE LLG1291.DWG Figure 9 CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT -16- AM/PM PEAK HOURS & ADT ENGINEERS BONITA LIBRARY \,,·_ ----~~'~.:;;::.~ ) \.._ \:: \ 70/ 57 __} ~90/1955- .•· '···················E:x1siit.ic; .. ···•··••·•· INTERSECTION CONFIGURAllON NOTE: AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections A signalized, realigned project driveway would have the following volumes: ...... oooo00000.;.:0;.;000 .. 0HUOOOOoo00HOOO-oo 0000 : Ol-VI ' l 1!~ '- 80/ sJ ; I\ ...._1815/1184! ~ .4! ,,.._ r 33/ s1: l 70/ 57 _) .,._ T : ~90/1956- ~'... ~ ~49/ 178'i ~~ : \ ...... FUTU~E~ ...... / INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION REV. 10/3/03 NO SCALE LLG1291.DWG Figure 10 EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES -11- AM/PM PFAK HOURS & ADT ENGINEERS BONITA LIBRARY LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CRITERIA The County of San Diego does not have adopted quantitative significance criteria. Since in order to determine development thresholds a quantitative measure is required, the SANTEC significance thresholds of 2 seconds of intersection delay and a 0.02 increase in v/c ratio for segments were utilized to determine when a significant impact is calculated at an LOS E or LOS F operating location. CITY OF CHULA VISTA CRITERIA The City of Chula Vista Significance Criteria states that project impacts will be defined as either project specific impacts or cumulative impacts. Project specific impacts are those impacts for which the addition of project trips result in an identifiable degradation in level of service on freeway segments, roadway segments, or intersections, triggering the need for specific project-related improvement strategies. Cumulative impacts are those in which the project trips contribute to a poor level of service, at a nominal level. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The traffic analysis assesses the key intersections in the project area. The following three intersections are analyzed in this report and are signalized: • Bonita Road/Willow Street • Bonita Road/Realigned Clubhouse/Project DrivewayNons Driveway • Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road LLG referenced both the SANDA G 2002 Congestion Management Program Update and the SANTECllTE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region to determine the extents of the project area. These documents indicate that the need for a traffic study for a project not in conformance with the general or community plan is 500 ADT. Table 2 shows that the project is calculated to generate about 565 ADT, or just slightly more than the minimum threshold. Both documents also state that any street segments or intersections that receive a minimum of 50 peak hour trips in either direction should be analyzed. A review of the project traffic volumes on Figure 7 shows that the maximum number of peak hour trips at any intersection (including the project driveway) is 29 trips, which does not meet the published criteria. LLG did however analyze the project driveway and the first signalized intersections in either direction. No street segment analyses were conducted since the project does not add more than 50 peak hour trips to any segment, and because the results of computer-aided intersection analyses are widely regarded as more accurate indicators of street-system Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -18- LINSCOTI LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS operations than the relatively simplistic volume/capacity methods used to calculate street segment impacts. The following is an explanation of the signalized intersection analysis methodologies. The signalized intersections were analyzed by determining the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. The delay was determined using a computer program that utilizes the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The delay values (seconds) were qualified by giving a Level of SeNice (LOS) or "Grade" to the corresponding delay values for the intersection as a whole. Levels of Service for signalized intersections vary from A (free flow, little delay) to F Uammed conditions). Appendix B provides a more detailed explanation of the methodology and the intersection calculation sheets. The unsignalized intersection was analyzed by determining the delay and Levels of Service based on Chapter 17 of the HCM. The software used to determine unsignalized intersection operations gives delays and Levels of Service for one-way, two-way and all-way stop intersections. The delay and LOS outputted for two-way stop controlled intersections represents the individual minor-street left-turn movements for the intersection. The amount and percentage of project trips, as well as their contribution to the critical and non-critical mover:nents were also considered. Appendix C contains a detailed explanation of the HCM methodology. It also contains the unsignalized intersection calculation sheets. Table 4 shows a summary of the signalized and unsignalized intersection operations in the project area during the PM peak hour. Since the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista are planning to improve the Bonita Road/Clubhouse/Project Driveway intersection to include a realignment and signalization prior the opening of the project, LLG analyzed this intersection as both unsignalized (existing condition), and signalized (future condition). The following is a summary of the existing, existing + project and existing + project + cumulative project scenarios. Existing Street System Operations Table 4 shows that the intersections in the project area are calculated to operate at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour. There is a heavy demand for movements to/from Otay Lakes Road, but dual right-turn and left-turn lanes are currently provided, as is a right-turn overlap phase. The Bonita Road/Clubhouse/Project DrivewayNons Driveway is analyzed as both the existing unsignalized "tee" intersection, and as a reconfigured and signalized intersection. Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -19- lrlNSG:ol't~}~ u~w~~·~~~~:,: GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS EXISTING+ PROJECT EXISTING + PROJECT + PEAK EXISTING INTERSECTION CUMULATIVE PROJECTS HOUR DELAY LOS DELAY LOS b. SIG? DELAY LOS b. SIG? Bonita Road/Willow Street PM 27.5 c 27.7 c 0.2 No 29.4 c 1.7 No Bonita Road/Clubhouse/Project Driveway (Unsignalized)1 PM 22.1 c 24.3 c 2.2 No 28.4 D 4.1 No Bonita Road/Clubhouse/Project Driveway (Signalized)2 PM 12.0 B 12.8 B 0.8 No 13.4 B 0.6 No Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road PM 26.3 c 26.3 c 0.0 No 26.8 c 0.5 No DELAY is measured in seconds SIGNALIZED LOS = Level of Service 0.0 :;: 10.0 A 11 =Project Attributable Increase in Delay 10.1 to 20.0 B I 1. This is the existing, unsignalized "tee" intersection configuration. 20.1 to 35.0 C ('.'.) 0 2. This intersection is assumed realigned and signalized in the near future. 35.1 to 55.0 D I Sig? = Significant Impact? 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.0 F N:\1291\text,tabs\Tab4.rev.8-27-03.1291.doc LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Existing + Project Operations Table 4 shows that the intersections continue to operate at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour with the addition of project traffic volumes. Existing + Project+ Cumulative Project Operations Table 4 shows that the intersections continue to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of cumulative project traffic volumes with the exception of the Bonita Road/Clubhouse/Project Driveway unsignalized intersection, which degrades to LOS D during the PM peak hour. This intersection· is calculated to operate at LOS B as a signalized intersection. The significance of these impacts is discussed later in this report. ACCESS As discussed in the project description, the project will share access to Bonita Road via the existing unsignalized golf course clubhouse driveway. The traffic volumes at this existing driveway are higher than would be expected for a golf course due to the very high auxiliary use of the parking area for runners and joggers who use the footpath around the golf course. LLG calculated the generation for the golf course using published SANDAG rates, and found that the golf course would be expected to generate 49 AM and 64 PM peak hour trips. However, a comparison with the existing volumes at the driveway (shown on Figure 5) show that the golf course driveway currently experiences 208 AM and 154 PM peak hour trips, much more than would be expected. As discussed in the project description, the County of San Diego will realign the project driveway on-site to align opposite of the existing shopping center access south of Bonita Road. Concurrently, the City of Chula Vista will install a traffic signal at this location. Both of these improvements will be made prior to the opening of the library for public use. The project only proposes a single driveway, and at no time will a realigned, unsignalized driveway be operational. Table 4 shows that with the existing unsignalized "tee" intersection configuration, the project driveway is calculated to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the PM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. Table 4 also shows that the realigned Bonita Road/Clubhouse/Project DrivewayNons Driveway with a traffic signal is calculated to operate at LOS B operations during the PM peak hour. In addition to improved vehicular operations at the project driveway, a traffic signal would allow for controlled pedestrian access across Bonita Road, whereas Bonita Library City of Chula Vista -21- 3-03-1291 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS the unsignalized midblock location does not. Pedestrians must cross Bonita Road at the signals provided at Otay Lakes Road and at Willow Street. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACTS The development of the proposed project will require an estimated 17 ,000 - 24,000 cubic yards of imported fill for grading. A typical tractor-trailer hauls approximately 20 cubic yards, which would result in about 850-1,200 trucks. Initial estimates indicate that the fill process would require about three weeks (15 days, assuming 5-day work-weeks) to complete. If the construction occurs in fifteen days, it would generate less than 160 trip ends per day (ADT)-(1,200 trucks x 2 Trip Ends!Truck ~ 15 days). Bonita Road is heavily utilized during the commuter peak hours as an arterial between residential neighborhoods and 1-805. It is therefore recommended that fill operations be scheduled off of the commute peak (i.e. after 9:00 AM and before 4:00 PM) to eliminate impacts during the peak hours. This recommendation coupled with the short duration of the process would reduce any construction traffic impacts to below a level of significance. CONCLUSIONS The proposed 8,300 square foot library project would include an auxiliary 1 ,600 square foot community center, as well as a 4,400 square foot museum. Using published SANDAG rates, the project is calculated to generate 565 ADT with 29 inbound/29 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. No AM peak hour traffic is expected to be generated since the hours of operations begin at 10:00 AM, well after the AM peak hour. The analysis was conducted for two possible driveway configurations; the existing single unsignalized "tee" intersection and a reconfigured and improved single signalized intersection aligned opposite of an existing retail driveway on the south side of Bonita Road. These improvements are planned prior to opening day of the project. The unsignalized "tee" intersection project driveway analysis showed LOS D operations during PM peak hour with the addition of cumulative project traffic volumes. However, no significant cumulative impacts are calculated, and no mitigation is required. The planned reconfiguration and signalization of the project driveway would improve operations in all scenarios by allowing for good LOS B operations, as well as for controlled pedestrian access to the site from the south side of Bonita Road. Finally, the traffic associated with fill importation was calculated and analyzed. No fill related impacts are expected if the duration is short (approximately 3 weeks), and the truck trips occur off-peak. Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 -22- LINSCOIT LAW&, GREENSPAN ENGINEERS APPENDIX A INTERSECTION MANUAL COUNT SHEETS Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 ------...._. Traffic Data Service Southwest llfllth1r : ClHr & Dry 9773 Maine Avenue Study Ncme1 03077011 Counted by: S. Wood Lakeside, CA 92040 Site Code : 00077011 Board # : 01·1429 (619) 390·8495 fax <619) 390-8427 Start Date: 04/10/03 Location : ~illow Street@ Bonita Road P1.1ge : 1 Group 1 I\.Ii l low street !Bonit.!I Road Jwillow Straet Jsonita Road !Southbound Jwestbound INorthbound /Eastbound stsrt I I I I pntvl. Tim• I bli!f t Tbru Right Pedsl Left Thru Right Pedsj Left Ihru Right Pedsl L.eft Thru Rfpht Pods! Tote! 04/10/03 I I I I 16:0DI 169 2 23 01 4 216 85 01 10 2 0 01 35 306 6 Dj 858 16:15 j 145 4 20 oI 4 207 BO 01 4 D 1 01 30 315 4 01 814 16130 I 156 2 22 01 3 190 73 9J 4 1 5 3j 29 304 9 01 810 16:451 m 2 21 DI 3 225 82 1/ 3 0 0 OJ 39 373 5 DI 905 Houri 621 10 86 oI 14 838 320 101 21 3 6 31 133 1298 24 01 3387 J J I I I 11:00 I 176 0 13 01 2 213 74 01 7 7 1 21 35 339 6 01 875 17: 15 I 170 2 18 11 3 202 93 21 7 2 OJ 39 326 4 OJ 870 17:301 165 1 26 oI 4 225 78 11 6 2 5 11 30 378 2 01 924 17;45 I 191 4 16 01 2 177 79 OJ 6 4 0 O! 51 274 5 01 809 Houri 702 7 73 , I 11 817 324 31 26 14 8 31 155 1317 17 01 3478 I I I I I - • 'I j; "I 6', , ., <., .<.I t;, nl JCtrH I 1323 159 'I 25 1655 .... i3/ "ti ,, 14 .... , 288 2615 -1 W.:5 % Apr. I 88.2 1 .1 10.6 · I 1.0 70.8 27.5 0,5/ 55.9 20.2 16.6 7 .1 J 9.7 as.a '!.3 ·I % Int. I 19.2 0.2 2.3 -1 0.3 24 .1 9.3 0.1 ! 0.6 0.2 0.2 -J 4.1 38.0 o.s · I Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Perfod: 16:00 on 04(10/03 to 17:45 on 04/10/03 Time 1 16:4s I 16:45 I 16:45 I 16:45 I Vol. I 662 5 78 , I 12 865 327 4J 23 10 8 3J 143 1416 17 0/ Pct. I 88.7 0.6 10.4 0.1 J 0.9 71.6 27.0 0.3/ 52.2 22.7 18. 1 6.51 9.0 89.8 1.0 0.01 746 1208 I Total I I I 44 I 1576 I I High I 17:30 I 16:45 . I 17:00 I 16:45 I Vol. I 165 26 OJ 3 225 62 11 7 7 21 39 373 5 0/ Tota t I 192 I 311 I 17 I 417 I PHF I a. 911 I 0.971 I 0.647 I 0.944 I H I r-;. - .1. -r -- .,,;;;_ .....,. .._. -...... _ • - - , ••• iraffic Data service southwast \./Hther ! Clear & Dry 97T3 Main& Avenue Study ~ame: 03077011 Counted by: S. ~cod Lakeside, CA 92040 Site Code : 000770i' Board# 01~i429 C619) 390·8495 fax (619) 390-8427 stert Date: 04/10/0 Location Willow Street@ Bonita Road Page 2 Group 1 I\Ji l low Street jBonita Road IWit lo1o1 Street !Bonita Road !Southbound IWestbound IWorthbound jea~tbound Ste: rt I I I l I lntvl. Time I Left 'fhru Right Peds! Left Thry Right Pedsj Left Thru Right Pedsl J,.eft Tl'!ru Right Pedtl.J..2!~ l, I I I I I Willow s t:reoe t 1 5 480 78 66:2 ~ l ~ t 1226 Bonita Rn..:.d 4 t.. 327 966 -e-- 041'1~/03 0~:4 PM 9 !~ PM 143 -1' f- B6!'i 254Z 35?4 3294 14.16 ~ -¥ .1.2 17 ~ ---"' 2986 I Bonita Road N ?B I fl i I 1' p 34 10 23 8 3 Willow Str>liH!t t""'ll r;..~..L.-r-- J:..,~<;.....1-.> I..., __ ,...... I...... ""' ...... ~·· ------·-. Trattic Date Service Southwest wee th er ; Clear & Dry 9773 Maine Avenue Study Name: 03077021 Counted by: D. \.Je l lmen Lakes! de 1 CA 92040 Site Code = 00077021 Board ti : oi-1430 c6i9) 390·8495 fax (619) 390-8427 Start Data: 04/10/03 CV Muni Oo\f Clubhouae Drwy ~ Bonita RQ Page 1 Group 1 jclubhouse Driveway !Bonita Road !Bonlte Road JSouthbound jweetbourid IEastbound start I I I I tntrvl. T lrne I Left Biebl P!i:d!i: I Ihr!J Rl9ht Pedsl Left ihry P~g~I Total 04/10/03 J I I I , 6~00 I 2 6 OJ 264 11 OJ 8 423 11 715 16:15 J 6 10 oI 232 15 DJ 12 4$1 OJ 726 16~3o I 6 13 OJ 223 17 OJ 13 432 oJ 704 12i~:l I 6 , 1 21 223 6 QI 12 419 OJ 279 !lourJ 20 40 21 942 49 OJ 45 1725 , I 282t. I I I I 17:00J 7 4 3J 235 15 DI 8 430 01 702 17:1SJ 11 20 21 220 5 OJ 22 373 01 653 17:30 I 14 6 2J 265 9 , I 23 444 01 764 m~~ I n 11 1 J 219 10 ~I 1~ 398 01 eQ§ HourJ 45 41 BJ 939 39 41 66 1645 oj 2787 I I I I Total I 65 81 1Dj 1881 88 i.j 111 3370 ii 56ii % Apr. ! 41 .6 51.9 6.4J 95.3 4.4 0.21 3, 1 96.7 ·I " lnt. I 1.1 Lt. 0.11 33.S 1.5 -1 1.9 60.0 · J Peek Hour Analysis BY Entire tntersectlon for the Period: 16:00 on 04/10/03 to 17;45 on 04/10/03 T1111e l 16;00 1 16~00 I 16:00 I Vol. I 20 40 21 942 49 OJ .'.5 1725 11 Pct. I 32.2 64.5 3.21 95.0 4.9 o.oj 2.5 97.4 5.6! Total I 62 I 991 I 1771 I ~igh l 16!30 I 16:00 I 16! 15 I Vol. I 6 13 01 264 11 01 12 451 Oj Total I 19 I 275 I 463 I PHF I 0.815 I 0.900 I 0.956 I Traffic Data Service southwest weather : clear & Dry 9773 Maine Avenue study ~ame: 03077021 Counted by: D. ~allman Lakeside, CA 92040 Site Code ; 0007702' Board# ; D1·1430 (619) 390·8495 fax (619) 390·8427 Start Date: 04/10/Q; CV Muni Golf Clubhouse Drwy@ Bonita Rd Page : 2 Group 1 !Clubhouse Driveway IBonita Road !Bonita Road !Southbound IW6stbound !Eastbound Start I I I I lntrvl. Time I Left Right reds! They Rjght Ped$1 Left ihru Pads! Total I I I Clubhou•Q D~ivewa~ 2 40 94 20 ~ ~ t 1:16 Roni 'b1. Road t_ 982 ~ 04/1Q/Q3 49 1114: litlapi.. 134:45PM -1' 45 2753 2824 2736 f- 948 / 17Z5 -7 "' ~ 1?45 .1 ' Bonita :Roa.a N I..._.. ___ l"lt-1 I -.c....::;)-..G..o:;...o~~ ,L. .I.. - ..L -r ~·· ------·-. Traffic Data Service Southwest \.le11ther Clear & Dry 9773 Mafne Avenue Study ~ama: 03116011 Countod by : S. \./cod Lel:eslde, CA 92040 site Code : 00116011 Board # 01-2172 <619) 390·8495 fa~ C619l 390-8427 Start Date: 05/21/03 Location Vons Ctr Orfve & Bonit! Rd Paga : 1 Group 1 JBonlta Rocd !Middle Driveway of Von !Bonita Road l1Jastbound !Northbound !Eastbound Start I I I I lntrvl. Timo J ~~f:t Tbr!J F'edsj Llli"t Riilb! E!:glil Tbru R!sih~ e~&J~I Total OS/21/03J I I I 16:001 14 317 OJ 18 12 01 426 40 01 827 16: 15 J 16 251 oj 18 i7 OJ 402 39 01 743 16:301 16 244 oI 19 18 01 408 39 oj 744 1~;:12 I 1£ ~95 oI ~~ 1Q O! 22~ 38 ot 7124 Houri 65 1107 01 78 63 OJ 1629 150 OJ 3098 I I I I 17:001 ,, 257 01 11 18 OJ 450 45 01 792 17: 151 15 279 oI 12 24 OJ 407 63 OJ 800 17;301 17 288 oJ 14 29 OJ 350 36 01 734 l7i:l2! 18 '~~ Qj 13 1§ QI 537 ~:! OJ §~Q Houri 61 1086 oj 50 87 01 1744 178 01 3206 j I I I Total I 126 2193 oI 128 150 01 3373 334 Oi 6304 % A.pr. I 5.4 94.5 . I 46.0 53.9 ·I 90.9 9.0 -1 % Int. 1. 9 34.7 · l 2.D 2.3 · I 53.5 5.2 -I Peek Hour Analysis By Entire lntersection for the Period: 16:00 on 05/21/03 to 17:45 on 05/21/03 Time I 17:00 I 11:00 I 17:00 I Vol- I 61 1086 OJ 50 87 01 i744 178 01 Pct. I 5.3 94.6 0.01 36.4 63.5 0.01 90.7 9.2 0.01 Total I 11<.7 I 137 I 1922 l High I 17:30 I 17:30 I 17:45 I Vol. I 17 288 oI 14 29 oI 537 34 01 Total I 305 I 43 I 571 I PHF l 0.940 I 0.796 I 0.841 I Traffic Data Service Southwest \.leather Claar &Dry 9773 Maine Avenue Study Warne: 03116011 Countsd by ! S. l.lood Lakas!da, CA 92040 Sita coda : 00116011 soerd # 01·2172 (619) 390·8495 f8X (619) 390·8427 Start Dnt•: 05/21/03 Location Vons Ctr Drive &Bonita Rd Page : .2. Group 1 \Bonito Rood !Middle Driveway of Von jBonita Road !Westbound !Northbound !Eastbound Start I I I I lntrvl. Time I Left Thry Peds! Left Right Pedsl Thru R!snt Peds I Totn t I I Berni fa1 Ro•~ 11.36 ~ 0~1~!103 f-- 1996 la l PM I 1?9 w -T 1831 r Bonita Ro.oa.d N 376 , ~ 1 r 2:39 07 50 Mi ii.ale DX\ivewa9 of Von' s; Cent&~ ...... ---~- - ' ------. ------·-. Traff le Datn service Southwest Weather ; Clear & Dry 9773 Maine Avenue Study Mame; 03077031 counted by: M. Stutz Sr & J. Stutz Lakeside, CA 92040 Site Coda : 0007703, Board ft : D1·1427 & D1·1433 C619) 390·8495 fex (619) 390-8427 Start Dste: 04/10/03 Location ~ Ot2y Lakes Rd@ Bonita Road Page : 1 Group 1 Jllonlt11 Ro11d jotey lakes Road !Boni te Road J1Jestbcund INorthbound Jeastbound Start I I I j lntrvl. Time I ~~f~ Thi"!,! Peds! Lef~ ~jgbt ?eds! Thru Bisht ?ads! Tr,n:!il~ 04/10/03 J I I 1 16;001 106 91 11 153 70 3j 165 292 01 881 16;151 138 86 DI 156 107 Oj 170 289 oI 946 16!301 117 99 01 129 64 01 201 250 01 860 16:451 1!t~ zz 01 157 7§ j I 154 274 01 887 Houri 507 353 11 595 :)19 41 690 1105 oI 3574 I I I I 17:001 , 18 74 21 156 81 SI 157 294 01 857 17:151 144 66 6j 169 106 5 I 140 255 01 891 17;301 124 83 41 145 67 01 156 309 01 888 17:45 I ]49 2J 11 155 84 11 ,,2 294 01 ~7Q Houri 535 284 13 j 625 338 111 578 1152 01 3536 I I I I ~1 Totatj iOt.2 637 14 i 1220 657 15j 1260 2257 Vj ..,.""'"r I IV X Apr. I 61.5 37.6 o.a 1 64.4 34.7 C.71 35.9 64.0 ·I % Int. I 14.6 8.9 0.11 17. 1 9.2 0.21 '17 .B 31. 7 ·I Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 on 04(10/03 to 17:45 on 04/10/03 Ti mo I 16: 15 I 16: 15 I 16:15 I Vol. l 519 336 21 598 330 61 682 1107 oI Pct. I 60.5 39.2 0.21 64.0 35.3 0.6j 38.1 61.8 0.01 Total I 857 I 934 I 1789 I High I 16: 15 I 16:15 I 16: 15 I Vol, I 138 86 01 156 107 01 170 289 DI Total I 224 I 263 I 459 I PHF l 0.956 I 0.887 I 0.974 I r"1I I I'- .... -, ------_ - - • • , • Traffic Data servlce southwest weather ! Clear & Dry 9773 Maine Avenue Study »am1: 03077031 counted by: M. Stutz Sr & J. Stutz Lakeside, CA 92040 Site Code ! 00077031 Boerd # : 01-1427 & 01-1433 (619) 390·8495 fax (619) 390·8427 Sturt Date: 04/10/03 Location : Otey Lekes Rd ID Bonite Road Page : 2 Group 1 Jsoni te Road IDtey Lakes Rosd !Benita Road l\.Jestbound INorthbound !Eastbound Start I I I I !ntrvl. Time L Lt!t Tbru Pedsi Left Right Pedsl Thru Rlaht Pedsl Total I I I I - ~.--nit& Road 2 934 ~ 1114/'iQ/93 r- 336 04: 05: ~SP"'}>tot 683 -+ 272:3 S5S0 1869 w 519 11.B? "\1,- ~ 1.12112 I Bonita Ro.ad N 256111 '1t 1 p 1626 380 sis 6 Otal.I La es Ro-.d. - LINSCOTI LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CALCULATION SHEETS Bonita Library City of Chula Vista 3-03-1291 LINSCOIT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS ·: 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Level of Service for signalized intersections is define in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, Level of Service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15- m inute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. · Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the vie ratio for the lane group or approach in question. LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROLLED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A < 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 c 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F > 80.0 Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of l0.1 to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in the level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersections without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation (i.e. when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Level of Service for unsignalized intersections is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Level of Service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The criterias are given in the following table, and are based on the average control delay for any particular minor movement. LEVEL OF AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY EXPECTED DELAY TO SERVICE SECNEH MINOR STREET TRAFFIC A 0.0 -< 10.0 Little or no delay B 10.1 to 15.0 Short traffic delays c 15.1 to 25.0 Average traffic delays D 25.1 to 35.0 Long traffic delays E 35.1 to 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Level of Service F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to safely cross through a major street traffic stream. This Level of Service is generally evident from extremely long control delays experienced by side-street traffic and by queuing on the minor-street approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size; that is, the critical gap remains constant no matter how long the side-street motorist waits. LOS F may also appear in the form on side-street vehicles selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. lt is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior, which are more difficult to observe in the field than queuing. In most cases at Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC) intersections the critical movement is the minor street left-turn movement. As such, the minor-street left-turn movement can generally be considered the primary factor affecting overall intersection performance. The lower threshold for LOS F is set at 50 seconds of delay per vehicle. There are many instances, particularly in urban areas, in which the delay equations will predict delays of 50 seconds (LOS F) or more for minor-street movements under very iow volume conditions on the minor str~et (less than 25 vehicle/hour). Since the first term of the equation is a function only of the capacity, the LOS F threshold of 50 sec/vehicle is reached with a movement capacity of approximately 85 vehicle/hour or less. This procedure assumes random arrivals on the major street. For a typical four-lane arterial with average daily traffic volumes in the range of 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day (peak hour, 1,500 to 2,000 vehicle/hour), the delay equation used in the TWSC capacity analysis procedure will predict 50 seconds of delay or more (LOS F) for many urban TWSC intersections that allow minor-street left-turn movements. The LOS F threshold will be reached regardless of the volume of minor street left-turning traffic. Not-withstanding this fact, most low-volume minor-street approaches would not meet any of the volume or delay warrants for signalization of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) since the warrants define an asymptote at 100 vehicle/hour on the minor approach. As a result, many public agencies that use the HCM Level of Service thresholds to determine the design adequacy of TWSC intersections may be forced to eliminate the minor-street left-turn movement, even when the movement may not present any operational problem, such as the formation of long queues on the minor street or driveway approach. ex pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:29:59 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Bonita Road/Willow Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 115 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.741 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.5 Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: c ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: o o l! o o 1 1 O O 1 1 o 2 o 1 1 o 2 o 1 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 23 10 8 662 5 78 143 1416 17 12 865 327 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 23 10 8 662 5 78 143 1416 17 12 865 327 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 25 11 9 720 5 85 155 1539 18 13 940 355 Reduct Vol: O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 11 9 720 5 85 155 1539 18 13 940 355 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 25 11 9 720 5 85 155 1539 18 13 940 355 ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.95 0.85 0.87 0.93 0.83 0.87 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 0.58 0.23 0.19 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 971 422 338 3355 25 1615 1650 3538 1583 1650 3538 1583 ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.09 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.16 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.18 0.60 0.74 0.02 0.74 0.60 0.51 Uniform Del: 55.0 55.0 55.0 37.0 37.0 30.6 45.2 17.4 9.9 56.7 24.4 23.1 IncremntDel: 38.5 38.5 38.5 3.1 3.1 0.2 4.0 1.5 0.0 96.0 0.7 0.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 93.5 93.5 93.5 40.0 40.0 30.8 49.1 18.8 9.9 152.7 25.1 23.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 93.5 93.5 93.5 40.0 40.0 30.8 49.1 18.8 9.9 152.7 25.1 23.8 DesignQueue: 2 1 1 34 0 4 9 45 0 1 36 13 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:29:37 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Bonita Road/Proj Dwy (unsignalized) ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: c ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT R LT R LT R LT R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 40 0 20 45 1744 0 0 1086 49 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 40 0 20 45 1744 0 0 1086 49 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 43 0 22 49 1896 0 0 l180 53 Reduct Vol: O o O o o o o O o o o 0 Final Vol.: O o O 43 O 22 49 1896 o o 1180 53 ------1------11------11------11------1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 4 . l xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2. 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2253 xxxx 617 1234 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 36 xxxx 438 572 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 4 xxxx 438 572 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap : O O xxxxx 211 O xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ------1------11------11------11------1 Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 26.4 xxxx 13.7 11.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move : * * * D * B B * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap. : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 22.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * c * * Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:29:59 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Bonita Road/Project Driveway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : 120 Critical Vol. I Cap. (X) : 0.702 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.0 Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: o O O o o O o o o o o o Lanes: O 1 O O 1 o 1 O o 1 1 O 2 o 1 1 o 2 o 1 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 50 O 87 40 O 20 45 1744 178 61 1086 49 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 O 87 40 O 20 45 1744 178 61 1086 49 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 54 0 95 43 0 22 49 1896 193 66 1180 53 Reduct Vol : o O O o O O O O o o o O Reduced Vol: 54 O 95 43 o 22 49 1896 193 66 1180 53 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 54 O 95 43 O 22 49 1896 193 66 1180 53 ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.68 1.00 0.85 0.68 1.00 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1298 O 1615 1283 O 1615 1769 3538 1557 1769 3538 1583 ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.54 0.12 0.04 0.33 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.76 0.76 0.05 0.75 0.75 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.00 0.70 0.41 0.00 0.16 0.44 0.70 0.16 0.70 0.44 0.04 Uniform Del: 52.6 0.0 53.5 52.2 0.0 51.1 54.2 7.2 3.8 55.9 5.4 3.8 IncremntDel: 3.7 0.0 15.3 2.5 0.0 0.6 2.8 0.8 0.1 21.1 0.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 56.3 0.0 68.9 54.7 0.0 51. 7 57.0 8.1 3.9 76.9 5.6 3.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 56.3 0.0 68.9 54.7 0.0 51. 7 57.0 8.1 3.9 76.9 5.6 3.8 DesignQueue: 3 0 6 3 0 1 3 34 3 4 21 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:29:59 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.685 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 26.3 Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: c ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Protected Protected Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 598 O 330 O O O O 682 1107 519 336 O Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 598 O 330 O O O O 682 1107 519 336 O User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 650 O 359 o O O O 741 1203 564 365 o Reduct Vol : o O O o o O o o o O O o Reduced Vol: 650 O 359 o O O O 741 1203 564 365 o PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 650 O 359 O O O O 741 1203 564 365 o ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.73 0.90 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3432 O 1583 o o O O 3538 2786 3432 3538 o ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.43 0.16 0.10 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.69 0.24 0.59 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.63 0.68 0.17 0.00 Uniform Del: 33.1 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 10.5 41.5 11.0 0.0 IncrernntDel: 0.7 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 33.8 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.4 11.2 43. 9 11.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.8 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.4 11.2 43. 9 11.1 0.0 DesignQueue: 30 0 17 0 0 0 0 34 28 30 10 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex + proj pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:30:01 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Bonita Road/Willow Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 115 Critical Vol. I Cap. (X) : 0.745 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.7 Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: c ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT R LT R LT R LT R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green : o O O O O O O O O O O 0 Lanes: o O l! O O 1 1 O O 1 1 O 2 O 1 1 O 2 O 1 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 23 10 8 668 5 78 143 1422 17 12 871 333 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 23 10 8 668 5 78 143 1422 17 12 871 333 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 25 11 9 726 5 85 155 1546 18 13 947 362 Reduct Vol: o o o O O O o O O O O O Reduced Vol: 25 11 9 726 5 85 155 1546 18 13 947 362 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 25 11 9 726 5 85 155 1546 18 13 947 362 ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.95 0.85 0.87 0.93 0.83 0.87 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 0.58 0.23 0.19 1.99 0.01 1. 00 1. 00 2.00 1. 00 1. 00 2.00 1. 00 Final Sat.: 971 422 338 3355 25 1615 1650 3538 1583 1650 3538 1583 ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.09 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.16 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.18 0.61 0.75 0.02 0.75 0.61 0.52 Uniform Del: 55.0 55.0 55.0 37.0 37.0 30.6 45.3 17.5 10.0 56.7 24.5 23.3 IncremntDel: 39.5 39.5 39.5 3.2 3.2 0.2 4.1 1. 5 0.0 97.9 0.7 0.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 94.5 94.5 94.5 40.1 40.1 30.7 49.4 19.0 10.0 154.7 25.2 23.9 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 94.5 94.5 94.5 40.1 40.l 30.7 49.4 19.0 10.0 154.7 25.2 23.9 DesignQueue: 2 1 l 35 0 4 9 46 0 1 36 14 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA .ex + proj pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:29:38 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Bonita Road/Proj Dwy (unsignalized) ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: c ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT R LT R LT R LT R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 57 0 32 57 1744 0 0 1086 66 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 57 0 32 57 1744 0 0 1086 66 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 62 0 35 62 1896 0 0 1180 72 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: o o o 62 o 35 62 1896 o O 1180 72 ------1------11------11------11------1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 4 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2288 xxxx 626 1252 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 34 xxxx 432 563 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap . : xxxx xxxx xxxxx 31 xxxx 4 3 2 5 6 3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: O O xxxxx 2 O5 o xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ------1------11------11------11------1 Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 30.1 xxxx 14.1 12.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move : * * * D * B B * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS : * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 24.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * c * * Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex + proj pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:30:01 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Bonita Road/Project Driveway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.702 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 12.8 Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: O O O o O O O O o O O O Lanes: o 1 O O 1 O 1 O O 1 1 O 2 O 1 1 O 2 O 1 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 50 o 87 57 o 32 57 1744 178 61 1086 66 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 O 87 57 O 32 57 1744 178 61 1086 66 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 54 O 95 62 O 35 62 1896 193 66 1180 72 Reduct Vol : O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 O 95 62 O 35 62 1896 193 66 1180 72 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 54 o 95 62 O 35 62 1896 193 66 1180 72 ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.67 1.00 0.85 0.68 1.00 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00 2.00 1. 00 1.00 2.00 1. 00 Final Sat.: 1273 O 1615 1283 0 1615 1769 3538 1557 1769 3538 1583 ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.54 0.12 0.04 0.33 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.76 0.76 0.05 0.74 0.74 Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.00 0.70 0.58 0.00 0.26 0.45 0.70 0.16 0.70 0.45 0.06 Uniform Del: 52.7 0.0 53.5 53.0 0.0 51. 5 52.9 7.2 3.8 55.9 6.1 4.3 IncremntDel: 4.2 0.0 15.3 7.7 0.0 1. 0 2.4 0.8 0.1 21.l 0.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 56.8 0.0 68.9 60.7 0.0 52.5 55.3 8.1 3.9 76.9 6.3 4.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 56.8 0.0 68.9 60.7 0.0 52.5 55.3 8.1 3.9 76.9 6.3 4.3 DesignQueue: 3 0 6 4 0 2 4 34 3 4 22 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex + proj pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:30:01 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.685 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.3 Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: c ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------1------11------11------I 1------1 Control: Protected Protected Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 604 O 330 O O O O 693 1113 519 347 O Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 604 O 330 O O O O 693 1113 519 347 o User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 657 0 359 0 O 0 0 753 1210 564 377 O Reduct Vol: O O o O O O O o o o O o Reduced Vol: 657 O 359 O O O O 753 1210 564 377 o PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 657 O 359 o o O o 753 1210 564 377 o ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.73 0.90 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 o.oo o.oo o.oo 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 o.oo Final Sat.: 3432 O 1583 O o O O 3538 2786 3432 3538 o ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 o.oo 0.23 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 0.21 0.43 0.16 0.11 o.oo Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.69 0.24 0.59 o.oo Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.00 0.69 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.63 0.69 0.18 0.00 Uniform Del: 33.2 0.0 34.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 10.5 41.5 11.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 34.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 11.2 43. 9 11.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 34.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 11.2 43.9 11.1 0.0 DesignQueue: 31 0 17 0 0 0 0 34 28 30 10 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex + proj + cuml pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:30:02 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Bonita Road/Willow Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : 115 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.817 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 29.4 Optimal Cycle: 75 Level Of Service: c ******************************************************************************** _i\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT R LT R LT R LT R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 23 10 8 733 5 78 143 1569 17 12 954 348 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 23 10 8 733 5 78 143 1569 17 12 954 348 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 25 11 9 797 5 85 155 1705 18 13 1037 378 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 11 9 797 5 85 155 1705 18 13 1037 378 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 25 11 9 797 5 85 155 1705 18 13 1037 378 ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.95 0.85 0.87 0.93 0.83 0.87 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 0.58 0.23 0.19 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 971 422 338 3357 23 1615 1650 3538 1583 1650 3538 1583 ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.09 0.48 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.45 0.45 Volume/Cap: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.18 0.65 0.82 0.02 0.82 0.65 0.53 Uniform Del: 55.4 55.4 55.4 38.0 38.0 30.6 46.3 18.7 9.8 56.8 24.3 22.5 IncremntDel: 60.2 60.2 60.2 5.4 5.4 0.2 6.0 2.6 0.0 134.9 0.9 0.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 115.5 116 115.5 43.4 43.4 30.7 52.3 21.3 9.8 191.7 25.2 23.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 115.5 116 115.5 43.4 43.4 30.7 52.3 21.3 9.8 191.7 25.2 23.3 DesignQueue: 2 1 1 38 0 4 9 51 0 1 39 14 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex + proj + cuml pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:29:39 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Bonita Road/Proj Dwy (unsignalized) ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT R LT R LT R LT R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 57 0 32 57 1956 0 0 1184 66 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 57 0 32 57 1956 0 0 1184 66 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 62 0 35 62 2126 0 0 1287 72 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 62 0 35 62 2126 0 0 1287 72 ------1------11------11------11------1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2510 xxxx 679 1359 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap . : xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 4 xxxx 3 9 9 513 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap . : xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 2 xxxx 3 9 9 513 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: o o xxxxx 177 o xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ------1------11------11------11------1 Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 36.0 xxxx 14.9 13 . 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * E * B B * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS : * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 28.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * D * * Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex + proj + cuml pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:30:02 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Bonita Road/Project Driveway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.774 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 13.4 Optimal Cycle: 75 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: O O O O O o o o o o o o Lanes: O 1 O O 1 O 1 O O 1 1 o 2 o 1 1 o 2 o 1 ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 50 O 87 57 O 32 57 1956 178 61 1184 66 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 O 87 57 o 32 57 1956 178 61 1184 66 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 54 0 95 62 0 35 62 2126 193 66 1287 72 Reduct Vol: O O O O o o o o o o o o Reduced Vol: 54 O 95 62 O 35 62 2126 193 66 1287 72 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 54 O 95 62 O 35 62 2126 193 66 1287 72 ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.67 1.00 0.85 0.68 1.00 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 o.oo 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1273 O 1615 1283 O 1615 1769 3538 1557 1769 3538 1583 ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 o.oo 0.06 0.05 o.oo 0.02 0.04 0.60 0.12 0.04 0.36 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.78 0.78 0.05 0.75 0.75 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.00 0.77 0.64 0.00 0.28 0.48 0.77 0.16 0.77 0.48 0.06 Uniform Del: 53.6 0.0 54.5 53.9 0.0 52.4 53.5 7.5 3.4 56.4 5.8 3.9 IncremntDel: 7.6 0.0 26.0 13.4 0.0 1. 3 2.9 1.4 0.1 34.7 0.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00 0.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 61.1 o.o 80.4 67.3 o.o 53.7 56.4 9.0 3.5 91.1 5. 9 3.9 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 61.1 0.0 80.4 67.3 0.0 53.7 56.4 9.0 3.5 91.1 5.9 3.9 DesignQueue: 3 0 6 4 0 2 4 37 3 4 23 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex + proj + cuml pm Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:30:02 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 0.726 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.8 Optimal Cycle: 57 Level Of Service: c ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT R LT R LT R LT R ------1------11------11------11------1 Control: Protected Protected Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 o o o 1 o o o o o o o 2 o 2 2 o 2 o o ------1------11------11------11------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 665 ·o 334 o o o o 766 1252 520 384 o Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 665 O 334 o o o O 766 1252 520 384 o User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 723 0 363 O O O 0 833 1361 565 417 O Reduct Vol : O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O Reduced Vol: 723 O 363 O O O O 833 1361 565 417 o PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 723 O 363 O O O O 833 1361 565 417 O ------1------11------11------11------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.73 0.90 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 o.oo Final Sat.: 3432 0 1583 0 0 O 0 3538 2786 3432 3538 O ------1------11------11------11------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.24 0.49 0.16 0.12 o.oo Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.70 0.23 0.61 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.70 0.73 0.19 o.oo Uniform Del: 35.6 0.0 36.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 10.7 43.0 10.4 0.0 IncremntDel: 1.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1. 00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 37.2 0.0 41. 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 11.8 46.4 10.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 37.2 0.0 41. 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 11. 8 46.4 10.4 0.0 DesignQueue: 35 0 17 0 0 0 0 36 30 30 11 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA • APPENDIX D. Biological Resources Assessment and Results of Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation prepared by Vincent Scheidt VINCENTN. SCHEIDT Biological Consultant 3158 Occidental Street • San Diego, CA • 92122-3205 • 858-457-3873 • 858-457- f:ax 1650 • email: [email protected] Mr. Ralph Kingery April 14, 2003 BRG Consulting, Inc. 304 Ivy Street San Diego, CA 92101 RE: Results of a Focused Vernal Pool/Wetlands Assessment- the Bonita Library Project Site Dear Ralph: You recently asked me to field examine and assess two minor depressions located on a portion of the proposed Bonita Library project site in order to determine whether they constitute vernal pools, or supported vernal pool indicators or habitats. You also asked me to address more general concerns about potential wetlands on or adjoining the site. The proposed project site is located on a vacant portion of APN 593-240-24 between the Sweetwater River and Bonita Road in the City of Chula Vista. In order to make this determination, I visited the Bonita Library project site on the afternoon of 7 April 2003. The subject depressions were quickly located and very carefully assessed for signs of vernal pool indicator plants and/ or animals. I slowly walked around the edges of each of the depressions, both of which contained standing water from the prior weeks heavy rainfalls. Three other dry areas appeared to formerly have supported shallow standing water - these were also examined in detail. Because these depressions are located in a mostly-barren parking area, the vegetation observed was very sparse and primarily ruderal or absent. In any case, the vegetation was closely inspected at regular intervals for signs of amphibian larvae, aquatic invertebrates, inundation-phase plants, and other features, which are known to be characteristic of vernal pools in San Diego County. All plants and animals encountered in or adjoining the depression were inventoried (Table 1, attached). None of the small depressions I examined on the Bonita Library site would qualify as vernal pools, based on their total lack of indicator species. As shown in Table 1, the majority of the plants in and adjoining this depression are upland species. A few wetland plants were observed; however, these were located along a man-made ditch that runs along the western edge of the vacant lot, beyond the limits of the proposed project. One interesting observation was the presence of a mature African Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis), a noxious aquatic anuran, in the larger depression. This vacant lot is known to support this species, and the adjoining golf course and ditch also support clawed frogs. The California Department of Fish and Game is attempting, somewhat unsuccessfully, to eradicate this species from California. Absent from the site were the classic inundation-phase pool indicators, including water starwort, quillworts, fairy shrimp, etc. All of these were readily detectable in bona fide vernal pools in the region at the time of the survey. In summary, the proposed Bonita Library project site does not support vernal pools or wetland habitats, although wetlands are located nearby. The implementation of project-appropriate BMPs should preclude any discharge into nearby wetlands, and completely avoid the need for responsible agency permitting. I hope that this information will be appropriate for your needs. Please contact me should you need further information or clarification. Sincerely, ~)Eii-~ Vincent N. Scheidt, MA Certified Biological Consultant BIOLOGICAL INVENTORIES • RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS • CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS • HABIT AT RESTORATION • REVEGET A TI ON TABLE 1. FLORA AND FAUNA DETECTED-THE BONITA LIBRARY PROJECT, CHULA VISTA SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Amaranthus albus White Tumbleweed Chenopodium murale Goosefoot Cotula coronopifolia African Brass Buttons Cyperussp. Sedge Lythrum h:yssopifolium Loosestrife Malva parviftora Cheeseweed Polygonum arenastrum Yard Knotweed Portulaca oleracea Common Purslane Rumex crispus Curly Dock Salix sp. Willow Spergularia rubra Ruby Sand Spurry Tn"lmlus terrestris Puncture Vine Urtica urens Dwarf Nettle Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Animals Cladocera Water Flea Culicidae Mosquito (larvae) Xenopus laevis African Clawed Frog VINCENT N. SCHEIDT Biological Consultant 3158 Occidental Street • San Diego, CA • 92122-3205 • 858-457-3873 • 858-457-1650 fax • email: [email protected] August 1, 2003 Mr. Jeff Redlitz County of San Diego Department of General Services 5555 Overland Avenue, Building 2, Room 220 San Diego, CA 92123-1294 RE: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library project Dear Jeff: This letter presents the results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library project located off Bonita Road in the City of Chula Vista. This delineation is being provided in response to your request to identify areas of the project site that would be subject to federal, state, and county wetland regulations. The attached exhibit shows wetlands as we have delineated them in association with this project site. The project site supports mostly disturbed, ruderal vegetation. A manufactured earthen swale is located near the western edge of the property - this feature supports standing water during part of the year, and is suspected of supporting jurisdictional wetlands or "waters". The swale enters the site at two points near the southwest property corner and crosses along the edge of the property in a more-or-less northerly direction before abruptly disappearing just south of the golf course located north of the project site. This study is intended to establish jurisdictional limits of this resource in compliance witl1 the Unified Federal Method for Wetland Delineation (1987). Should site development result in measurable wetland impacts, one or more of the following permitting documents may be required, depending on jurisdictional regulatory authority as established by this study: • A Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in compliance with Fish and Game Code; • A U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (ACoE) Individual Section 404 Permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act (1990, as amended), and/ or qualification under the Nationwide Section 404 Permit; and/ or • Clean Water Certification in compliance with California's Cologne-Porter Act per the Regional Water Quality Control Board; Section 401 requirements. BIOLOGICAL INVENTORIES • RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS • CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS • HABITAT RESTORATION • REVEGET ATI ON Mr. JeffRedlitz Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Libran; Wetland Evaluation Letter City of Chula Vista Page 2 In order to assess and delineate the onsite wetland resources, Shannon M. Allen, Biological Consultant and I visited the subject property on the afternoon of 23 July 2003. I had completed an earlier site survey on 7 April2003. We examined the onsite habitats (as indicated, mostly disturbed vegetation) and offsite habitats located in all directions to determine drainage connectivity. The onsite drainage feature was inventoried for indicator flora (Table 1), measured in terms of average width (Attachment A), and assessed for hydrophytes, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology. The Bonita/Sunnyside Branch Library project site supports habitat-areas that would normally qualify as both state and federal wetlands, pursuant to the Unified Federal Method, as shown on the attached exhibit. The federal regulations implementing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act define wetlands as follows: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water (hydrologij) at a frequenC1J and duration sufficient to support, and that under nonnal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation (hydrophytes) typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (hydric soils). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (40 CFR 232.2(r). Jurisdictional wetlands - those that are regulated by the ACoE under Section 404 - must exhibit all three of the above characteristics: hydrology, hydrophytes, and hydric soils (US ACOE, 1987). Areas that may function as wetlands ecologically, but exhibit only one or two of the three characteristics, do not currently qualify as ACoE jurisdictional wetlands and thus activities in these wetlands are not regulated under Section 404. According to the definition used by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), wetlands are "lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is covered by shallow water, " and they exist where any one of the following conditions are present: A) predominantly undrained hydric soils (soils with low concentrations of oxygen in the upper layers during the growing season); B) a predominance, at least periodically, of hydrophytic plants (plants that have adapted to the low availabilihj of oxygen and others stresses in saturated soils); C) a nonsoil substrate (such as a rocki; shore) that is saturated with water or covered by shallow water each year at some point during the growing season. In this case, state wetlands are regulated by the CDFG and also by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As previously stated, federal wetlands are regulated by the ACoE. However, in January of 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal Clean Water Act does not apply to "isolated" wetlands. Isolated wetlands are those that are not adjacent to or connected to a navigable Mr. Jeff Redlitz Bonita/Sunnyside Branch LibranJ Wetland Evaluation Letter Citi; of Chula Vista Page3 water body, such as a river, lake or marine waters. Based on the result of our delineation, the only areas that qualify as ACoE-defined wetlands on the Bonita/Sunnyside project site are isolated, with no apparent connectivity to offsite drainage features. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the ACoE no longer has regulatory oversight of most isolated wetlands, and the wetlands on the Bonita/Sunnyside site would be non-jurisdictional. This suggests that the County would not need a permit from the ACoE to develop this site. The CDFG and RWQCB, however, would likely regulate wetlands associated with this drainage. To that end, it may be necessary to secure a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement and a Section 401 Clean Water Certificate in order to ensure adequate mitigation for project-related wetland impacts. The above state resource agencies typically recommend that wetland impacts be (1) avoided to the extent feasible, (2) minimized if complete avoidance cannot be provided, or (3) mitigated if complete avoidance cannot be achieved. The project as currently being designed can avoid most wetland areas. Because this feature is highly degraded, and supporting mostly non-native hydrophytes, significant enhancement opportunities are available. To that end, it is recommended that wetlands restoration/ enhancement be provided within the undisturbed segment of the drainage in order to compensate for minor impacts to the most xeric area near the feature's southern end. The details of mitigation, including recommended mitigation ratios, etc. should be developed in consultation with the CDFG and RWQCB. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this study. Please contact me should you need further information or clarification. Sincerely, Vincent N. Scheidt, MA Certified Biological Consultant Attachments: Table 1. Flora Detected in Drainage Area Attachment A. Wetland Delineation Exhibit Attachment B. Four Site Photos Showing Existing Conditions Table 1. Flora Detected in Drainage Area - Bonita Sunnyside Branch Library, Chula Vista Scientific Name Common Name Ambrosia psilostachya Western Ragweed Axonopus affinis * Axonopus Grass Brassica geniculata * Perennial Mustard Bromus diandnts * Ripgut Brome Chenopodium murale * Goosefoot Chenopodium sp. Goosefoot Conyza bonan·ensis * Horseweed Conyza canadensis * Common Horseweed Cynodon dacti;lon * Bermuda Grass Cyperus eragrostis Tall Flatsedge Cyperus esculentus * Yellow Sedge Cyperus sp. * Sedge Heliotropium curvassavicum Wild Heliotrope Lactuca serriola * Wild Lettuce Melilotus albus * White Sweet Clover Nicotiana glauca * Tree Tobacco Polygonum arenastrum * Yard Knotweed Portulaca oleracea Common Purslane Raphanus sativus * Wild Radish Rumex crispus * Curly Dock Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow Schinus terebinthifolius * Brazilian Peppertree Setaria pumila * Yellow Foxtail Sonchus oleraceus * Sow Thistle Tribulus terrestris * Puncture Vine Xanthium strumarium * Cocklebur * - non-native taxon Attachment A. Wetland Delineation Exhibit / -~" \;;- / PRO~s.R:rf·t::E:.ASED TO . P- / eJlJNTY OF SAN DIEGO \ -,.;_ ::-_ ·. 59;204 S.F. \ ------1 \ / -> SEAT WALLS PER L-1 / / / D D / c 0 / COURrfARD ·PAVING PEB L1 NEW LIBRARY I COMMUNITY CEI PHASE 1 (i 5 LIBRARY: 8.000 S.F. COMMUNITY CENTER: . .2...Q.Q.Q_S.£, TOTAL: 10,000 S.F. EXISITNG 2 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING Scale: 1 " = 3 l , -O" . '- 15' EXIS!TNG 2 STORY APARiMENT BUILDING EX!SffNG CONCRETE HEADWALL EXiSffNG------,1' GARAG£ i --_) I I / ------ilSITNG ! RAG£ I I --...J ··~ Attachment B. Site Photos (4) Showing Existing Conditions Photo 1. Looking south at start of the drainage. Flowage enters the site from a gap beneath the fence on the right side of the photo (arrow). Bonita Road in background. This area would be modified and the drainage feature impacted. Most of the vegetation in this location consists of weedy upland species. Photo 2. Looking north at dense annual vegetation within the drainage. Golf course in background. This area could be enhanced via removal of exotics and planting with natives. Note vertical cut bank on south side of swale. Photo 3. The main source of water enters the property from this storm drain culvert (arrow) located approximately 100 feet north of the southwestern property corner. This area could be en hanced and restored with native wetland species Photo 4. Large Arroyo Willow (Salix lasiolepis) growing on the south side of the drainage. The adjoining areas could be enhanced with similar species to significantly increase the habitat value of this feature. • APPENDIX E• Cultural Resources Study prepared by Gallegos and Associates CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FOR THE BONITA LIBRARY PROJECT CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: BRO Consulting, Inc. Gallegos & Associates 304 Ivy Street 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A San Diego, California 92101 Carlsbad, California 92008 (619) 298-7127 (760) 929-0055 PJ. No. 13-03 National Archaeological Data Base Information Type of Study: Survey Area Covered: 3 acres USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: National City Key Words: Negative Survey Authors Dennis R. Gallegos Project Manager Monica C. Guerrero, RPA Project Archaeologist April 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE EXECUTIVE SU11MARY 11 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description 1-1 1.2 Environmental Setting 1-1 1.3 Cultural History 1-1 1.4 Record Search and Literature Review Results 1-4 2 METHODS, RESULTS, AND REC0111v1ENDATIONS 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Survey Methods 2-1 2.3 Survey Results 2-1 2.4 Summary and Recommendations 2-1 3 REFERENCES CITED 3-1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE 1-1 General Location of Proj~ct Area 1-2 1-2 Project Area Shown on National City 7.5' USGS Map 1-3 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE A Personnel Qualifications (Resumes) A-1 B Record Search Request B-1 P.J. 13-03 April 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Cultural Resource Survey for the Bonita Library Project Chula Vista, California AUTHORS: Monica Guerrero and Dennis R. Gallegos Gallegos & Associates 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 DATE: April 2003 SOURCE OF COPIES: South Coastal Information Center San Diego State University 4283 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 250 San Diego, California 92105 ABSTRACT: This study provides the results of a cultural resource literature review, record search, and field survey for the 3-acre Bonita Library Project. This study was conducted in compliance with the City of Chula Vista and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. In April 2003, Gallegos & Associates conducted a record search, literature review, and survey of the Bonita Library project area. The literature review and record search identified no prehistoric or historic cultural resources within the parcel. Ground visibility was excellent throughout the project area. Disturbance within the project area includes possible grading and placement of gravel in the western portion of the project area, parking of vehicles for the adjacent jogging trail, and temporary stock piling of sand within the northeast portion. The field survey was negative, identifying no cultural resources within the property. Given the developed nature of the project are~ monitoring by an archaeologist is recommended if ground disturbance is to occur during construction. PJ 13-03 11 April 2003 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This cultural resource study was prepared by Gallegos & Associates for the Bonita Library Project. The City of Chula Vista required performance of a literature review, record search, and field survey for the 3-acre property. The project area is located in the City of Chula Vista, and is depicted on the USGS National City 7.5' quadrangle (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The project area is proposed for the development of a new library. This study was conducted in compliance with the City of Chula Vista and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Resumes are included in Appendix A. 1.2 ENVIRONMENT AL SETTING The project area is situated on a flat, floodplain within the Sweetwater Valley. Tue property is bound on the west by apartment complexes, on the south by Bonita Road, on the east by a parking lot, and on the north by the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. Vegetation consists of sparse, small patches of non-native vegetation (weeds). Disturbance within the project area includes possible grading and placement of gravel in the western portion of the project area, parking of vehicles for the adjacent jogging trail, and temporary stockpiling of sand within the northeast portion. 1.3 CULTURAL HISTORY Native Americans occupied San Diego County for the past 10,000 years. The period from 10,000 to 1,300 years ago is referred to as the Early Period or the Archaic Period. The San Dieguito are generally accepted as the first inhabitants of the region, occupying San Diego County as early as 10,000 years ago. The initial occupation, the San Dieguito Complex, is believed to represent a group of people who entered San Diego County from the desert. Occupation after 1,300 years ago (Late Period) is well documented by numerous Kumeyaay/Dieguefio and Luisefio habitation sites. Artifacts and cultural patterns reflecting Late Period occupation include small projectile points, pottery, obsidian from Obsidian Butte, and cremations. The project area falls within Kumeyaay territory as defined by Kroeber (1925). PJ 13-03 1-1 April 2003 r-··-< ...... Camp Pendleton l .. __ .. Riverside County San··-··--··- Diego County ··--· --·· Escondido -· 0 t N I Scale: l"= JO miles Mexico Gallegos & Associates FIGURE Regional Location of Project 1-1 SCALE 1:24000 0 0•14· 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET E3:::::E:=c::E3.5=:s=====3:::::io======:il KILOMETER Galle os & Associates FIGURE Project Area Shown on USGS Map 1-2 1.4 RECORD SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS The record search and literature review were completed at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), San Diego State University, San Diego, California (SDSU). Twelve studies have been conducted that are adjacent to or within a one-mile radius of the project area (Berryman 1991; Corum 1989; Crafts 1992; Fink 1978; Gross 1974; JL Planning 1988; Kelsay 1988; Lloyd 1981; Noah 1992; Robbins-Wade and Gross 1991; Wade 1985; Westec 1977). Seven cultural resources (CA-SDI- 4635, -4676, -4677, -9237, -9895, - 10077, and -10990) have been previously recorded outside the project area, within a one mile radius. No previous surveys or cultural resource sites have been recorded within the project area. Early USGS maps (1904 National City 15'; 1930 National City 15'; 1944 National City 7 .5'; and 1953 National City 7 .5') were reviewed for early historic structures, however no historic structures were identified. Record search request is included in Appendix B. PJ 13-03 1-4 April 2003 SECTION 2 METHODS, RESULTS, AND RECOMMEND ATIO NS 2.1 INTRODUCTION The current study included a record search, a literature review, and a field survey of the 3- acre project area. The survey was conducted for the Bonita Library Project. Survey methods, results, and recommendations are provided below. 2.2 SURVEY METHODS The property was intensively surveyed on foot using a 10-m interval between survey transects. Larry Tift completed the field survey on Monday, April 21, 2003 for a total of 1 person-hour. 2.3 SURVEY RESULTS Ground visibility was excellent, as sparse patches of non-native vegetation (weeds) cover portions of the project area. Disturbance within the project area includes possible grading and placement of gravel in the western portion of the project area, parking of vehicles for the adjacent jogging trail, and temporary stockpiling of sand within the northeast portion. The field survey was negative, identifying no cultural resources within the project area. 2.4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMEND A TIO NS The study included a literature review and field survey of the 3-acre project area. The literature review and field survey were negative, identifying no prehistoric or historic resources. Given the developed nature of the project area, monitoring by an archaeologist is recommended if ground disturbance is to occur during construction. PJ 13-03 2-1 April 2003 SECTION3 REFERENCES CITED Berryman, Stanley 1991 Environmental Constraints Study for the Central-Brairwood Connector. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Corum, Joyce 1989 Extended Phase I Investigations at Sites CA-SDI-10,986, 10987, 10,988, 10989, and 10990, II-SD-54 P.M. 1.8/5.7, 11208-01030. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Crafts, Karen 1992 Negative Archaeological Report Third Addendum. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Fink, Gary 1978 Sweetwater Regional Park, Bonita, California, A Cultural Resource Assessment, Project No.Uj0234. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Gross, Timothy 1974 A Report of Cultural Impact Survey Phase II Project: P .M. 1. 9-16 3 11- SD-54 Rte. 805 to Rte. 8. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. JL Planning 1988 Focused Environmental Impact Report GPA 88-03.. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Kelsay, Richalene 1988 An Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Interchanges and Widening on State Route 54, San Diego County, California 11-SD-54 P.M. 1.8/5.7 11221-010130. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California (first edition). Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. Lloyd, Deborah T. 1981 Archaeological Reconnaissance Investigation of the Morrison Sand Plant Property Sweetwater, California. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. PJ 13-03 3-1 April 2003 Noah, Anna C. 1992 Archaeological Survey of Acacia A venue, Bonita Long Canyon Earthen Channel. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Robbins-Wade, Mary and G. Timothy Gross 1991 Cultural Resources Inventory Bonita Road Widening, Bonita, San Diego County. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Wade, Sue A 1985 Cultural Resource Survey of the Valley Road Project Area, National City, California. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1977 Rancho Robinhood III Archaeological Study. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. PJ 13-03 3-2 April 2003 APPENDIX A PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (RESUMES) RESUME DENNIS R. GALLEGOS PRINCIPAL Gallegos & Associates 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 929-0055 EDUCATION B.A. Anthropology, California State University, Northridge, 1974 B.S. Business, California State University, Northridge, 1973 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION San Diego Presidio Peer Review and Oversight Committee 2000-2001 San Diego Archaeological Center Board Member 2001 to Present Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission 1989-1993 Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology San Diego County Archaeological Society PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Gallegos & Associates 1990 to Present Principal Investigator for cultural resource studies within southern California for federal, State and local compliance. These projects include constraint level evaluations, surveys, CEQA testing programs, evaluations for National Register status, and data recovery programs. Mr. Gallegos is lmowledgeable of Federal legal requirements as well as, City, County and CEQA requirements, having worked on over 500 projects within the past 30 years. He has served as principal investigator for a number of recent federal cultural resource projects which involved agency and 106 compliance. These projects include: surveys and test programs for SR 905 and the widening of Otay Mesa Road, the Otay Mesa Management Plan, Camp Pendleton Santa Margarita River Valley Inventory (5,000 acres), NAS Miramar inventory (sample inventory of 20,000 acres), Naval Radio Receiving Facility inventory, Cleveland National Forest report preparation; and testing of a 5,000 year-old site along the San Luis Rey River Valley to determine site significance. Major cultural resource overviews include San Dieguito River Valley Park (80,000 acres); and overviews for the City of Escondido, San Marcos planning areas, City of Encinitas, Otay River Valley, and San Luis Rey River Valley. Recent projects managed by Mr. Gallegos include: an inventory for Anza-Borrego Desert State Park; Oceanside-Escondido Bike Trail; Viejas Village inventory and test; survey and testing for Carlsbad Ranch, constraint level study for Carrillo Ranch Specific Plan; Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project; and inventories for Subareas ill (3,000 acres), Subarea IV (1,500 acres), and Subarea V (2,000 acres) for the City of San Diego. DENNIS R. GALLEGOS Ogden/ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company 1978 to 1990 Project manager responsible for management and direction of cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and data recovery programs. Major projects include the data recovery programs for Ballast Point, Batiquitos Ridge, Twin Oaks Valley Ranch, Kuebler Ranch - Otay Mesa, Fieldstone Northview, and Daon's Santa Fe Ridge. Utility line projects involving FERC, NEPA, and 106 compliance include the SCE Palo Verde/Devers 200-mile transmission line corridor survey, testing, and data recovery program; SDG&E La Rosita transmission line; and the SDG&E La Jet solar study. Large-scale Class II cultural resource inventories include the Bureau of Land Management's 2.5-million acre Central Mojave and Colorado Desert regions and the BLM's 250,000-acre East/West Mesa Imperial Valley studies. Archaeological Consultant 1977 to 1978 Archaeological consultant with Wirth Associates, Inc. for SDG&E including: Talega Substation survey (field director); Phase II archaeological inventory report, plant site to Devers and Miguel Substations, Sundesert Nuclear Project transmission system environmental study; archaeological study of the Jamul Mountain Alternative, Sundesert Nuclear Project transmission system environmental study (field director); and Phase I archaeology report, plant site to Victorville/Lugo and Devers to Victorville/Lugo, Sundesert Nuclear Project transmission system environmental study. Bureau of Land Management 1975 to 1977 Archaeologist for the USDI, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Staff, Sacramento/Riverside, California. Lead archaeologist for the Saline Valley Unit Resource Analysis (cultural resource inventory of 500,000 acres). Assisted in the cultural resource inventory, unit resource analysis, and management framework plan for the East Mojave Planning Units (2,000,000 acres in the California Desert). Developed survey inventory and data collection methods for computer input and analysis. Developed a predictive model for locating prehistoric sites on the basis of environmental variables. This model also identified site type and relative site density for each site type on the basis of environmental setting. State of California 1975 Archaeologist for the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation. Responsible for site testing and excavation of the 1812 Russian Fort Ross, Fort Ross, California. Archaeological Consultant 1972 to 1974 Archaeological consultant for historic and prehistoric sites to include mapping, survey, excavation, and data recovery programs for private contractors, utilities, universities, Caltrans, HUD, and museums. Project areas include: Ventura Mission site, Ventura, California; Kirk Creek, Big Sur, California; Salton Sea area, Imperial County, California; Crowder Canyon, San Bernardino County, California; and Cuyama, California. Responsibilities included data recovery, analysis, photography, and report writing. 2 DENNIS R. GALLEGOS State of California 1970 to 1973 Park aide for the Department of Parks and Recreation. Responsible for survey, excavation, payroll, and disbursement of funds for the Castaic, Hardluck, and Pyramid projects, Los Angeles National Forest, California. AWARDS Special Achievement A ward, presented by the Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Staff, April 1977. Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Historic Preservation, Leo Carrillo Ranch Master Plan, California Preservation Foundation, February 1998 MAJOR REPORTS 2002 Otay/Kuchamaa: Cultural Resource Background Study, prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. For this 30,000 acre overview, the final report included a record search and literature review, mapping of previously recorded cultural resources using GIS, identification of significant cultural resources, preparing sections on Kumeyaay Native Americans in both the US and Mexico and the historic period, and providing management recommendations. 2002 Data Recovery Program for the McCool/Lohman Homestead: 1880s to 1940s, Otay Mesa, San Diego, California. Project completed for the Larkspur Generating Facility under CEC review. This project included a literature review, record search, field survey, test to determine site significance and eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources, mitigation program through data recovery, and monitoring during construction. The literature review identified occupation by the McCool and Lohman families from circa 1880 to 1940. Features documented include four cisterns and three privy/dumps with materials documenting the early historic occupation of Otay Mesa. 2001 Cultural Resource Test, Data Recovery and Monitoring Program for the Otay Mesa Generating Project. This study included determining site significance and eligibility to the National Register for 13 cultural resources, data recovery for site CA-SDI- 9975, and monitoring during construction of the power plant and related facilities. Tasks included survey, artifact collection using GPS and GIS, excavation of STPs and units, artifact analysis, special studies, and a report of finding. This study was prepared for the California Energy Commission. 2000 Cultural Resources Evaluation Report for the Palomar College Science Building Project, San Marcos, California. Literature review, review of collections made by Palomar students, field survey and testing of one prehistoric site for Palomar College. Testing of this 3600 year old site included surface collection, excavation of STPs and units, artifact analysis, special studies, and a report of finding. The site was identified as significant under CEQA criteria and mitigation of impacts through data recovery excavation was scheduled for student programs over the next five year. 3 DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 2000 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the North Sand Sheet Full Buildout program, Owens Lake California. Literature review, inventory of 5,000 acres and testing to determine National Register eligibility for 14 cultural resources sites. Testing included surface collection of artifacts, mapping using OPS and GIS, subsurface excavation, artifact analysis and a report of finding. Report prepared for Los Angeles Department of Water & Power. 1999 Historical/Archaeological Inventory Report for the Otay Mesa Generating Company, LCC. Project. Literature review, field inventory of 250 acres, and site recording for the Otay Mesa Generating Company. 1999 5000 Years of Occupation: Cultural Resource Inventory and Assessment Program for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project. Report prepared for the City of Carlsbad. 1999 (with others) Oceanside-Escondido Bikeway Project: Cultural Resource Inventory and Significance Test for Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-14340. Report (HPSR and technical attachments) prepared for the City of San Marcos and Caltrans. 1998 (with others) Cultural Resources Survey for the Alternate Route of Travel for the Coyote Canyon Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Feasibility Study. Report prepared for State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998 Management Plan for Otay Mesa Prehistoric Resources, San Diego, California. Preparation of a management plan for prehistoric resources within a 10,000 acre study area. Report prepared for Caltrans and City of San Diego. 1997 (with others) Route 905 Reports: HPSR, Survey of approximately 2,000 acres, and Test Report for Sites CA-SDI-6941, Loci G and Y; CA-SDI-11423; and CA-SDI-11424. Reports and technical attachments prepared for City of San Diego and Caltrans. 1997 Batiquitos Lagoon Monitoring Program, Archaeological Test at Site CA-SDI- 11953, Carlsbad, California. Report prepared for City of Carlsbad. 1996 Carlsbad Ranch Survey and Test Report. Field survey, testing to determine site significance, mitigation through data recovery excavation, and monitoring. Report prepared for Carltans and the City of Carlsbad. 1995 (with others) Otay Mesa Road Widening Project Cultural Resources Technical Report. Literature review and field survey of 1,750 acres. Report prepared for City of San Diego and Cal trans. 1995 (with others) Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for Subarea V Future Urbanizing Area, San Diego, California. Literature review and field survey of approximately 2,000 acres in north San Diego County. 4 DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 1995 (with others) Cultural Resource Inventory of the Santa Margarita River Valley, Camp Pendleton. Background study and field inventory of approximately 5,000 acres for Camp Pendleton, north San Diego County. 1994 (with Kyle) Archaeological Testing of Seven Sites for the Stardust Golf Course Realignment Project, City of San Diego, California. Testing program to determine site significance for 10 prehistoric sites. Two major habitation sites within the San Diego River Valley were identified as significant. 1993 (with others) Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for the Reclaimed Water Distribution Master Plan for the Northern and Central Service Areas Phase Ia, San Diego County, California. Literature review and field survey for approximately 100 linear miles. 1993 (with Strudwick) The Archaeological Investigation of CA-SCLI-847 San Clemente Island, California. Data recovery program for a 4,000 year old site on San Clemente Island for conducted for the U.S. Navy. 1993 (with others) Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Subarea III Future Urbanizing Area, San Diego, California. Literature review and field survey for 3,000 acres in north San Diego County. 1993 (with others) Historical/Archaeological Survey Report, One City Block Within Downtown Oceanside Redevelopment Core Block Area, Oceanside. Testing program to determine presence/absence of historic resources and the significance of resources. 1993 (with others) Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Subarea IV Future Urbanizing Area, San Diego, California. Literature review and field survey of 1,500 acres in north San Diego County. 1992 (with Strudwick) Historical/Archaeological Test Report for Daley Ranch, Escondido, California. CEQA test program to determine importance for 23 prehistoric and historic sites. 1992 (with Strudwick) Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for Montecito Ranch Property, Ramona, California. Literature review and field inventory for 953 acres producing 36 prehistoric and historic sites. 1992 (with Kyle) Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test for Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California. Literature review, field survey and significance testing conducted for five sites. 5 DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 1992 (with Schroth and Strudwick) Historical/Archaeological Sample Inventory for Naval Air Station, Miramar, San Diego, California. Fifteen percent sample inventory of the 18,433 acre facility to provide data for GIS ARC-INFO and site probability modeling for land use planning. 1992 (editor) Cultural Resource Evaluation for the Village of Tenaja, CA-RIV-271 and CA-RIV- 3973, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest. Testing program conducted to determine National Register eligibility. 1992 (with Kyle) Historical/Archaeological Survey and National Register Evaluation Report for Camp Pendleton Military Family Housing, San Diego, California. Survey and testing program to identify and determine National Register properties. 1990 (with Schroth) Archaeological Investigations of a Five Hundred Year Old Settlement at Twin Oaks Valley Ranch, San Marcos, California. A data recovery program for a late period habitation site in compliance with federal, state and local requirements. 1990 (with Kyle) Early Period Occupation at the Kuebler Ranch Site SDi-8654, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. A data recovery program for a 7,000 years old1 site on Otay Mesa prepared for the County of San Diego. 1989 (with others) Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing Program for Lilac Ranch, Valley Center, California. Survey of 1,000 acres and testing program for 20 prehistoric and historic sites. 1989 (with others) Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing Program for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista, California. Survey of 1,000 acres and testing of historic and prehistoric sites for site importance under CEQA. 1988 (with others) Cultural Resource Inventory and Data Acquisition Program, GEO East Mesa Geothermal Project, Imperial Valley, California. Cultural resource inventory of 1000 acres for geothermal energy development on USDI, BLM lands in the California desert. 1988 (with others) Cultural Resource Inventory for a Series of Drill Sites within the Amir, Indian Rose Area Lease. Inventory conducted in southeastern California for the development of gold exploration on federal lands by Amir Mines, Ltd. 1988 (with others) Cultural Resource Inventory and CEQA Test for Site Importance, Rancho Bernardo Lake Course. Inventory of 315 acres, identification and testing of ten prehistoric sites for the J.W. Colachis Company. 6 DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 1988 (with others) Cultural Resource Survey and Testing Program for the East Mesa Detention Facility, San Diego California. Project involved the survey of 523 acres, the identification of eight prehistoric and one historic site, and the testing of these sites with respect to CEQA. Three of these sites were quarry localities on Otay Mesa. Report prepared for the County of San Diego. 1988 (with others) Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164), San Diego, California. Report involved the excavation of a 2.5 percent sample within a coastal shell midden site, dated from 6000 to 1500 years before present. Report prepared for the U.S. Navy. 1987 (with others) Historical/prehistoric Inventory for the Green Dragon Colony, La Jolla California. Report documents the historical development of the Green Dragon Colony. EIR report for the City of San Diego. 1987 (with others) Cultural Resource Inventory for Rancho La Quinta. Inventory of 1272 acres identifying six prehistoric sites within Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California. Report prepared for the Landmark Land Company. 1987 (with others) Subsurface Testing Program to Identify and Evaluate Cultural Resources for the Santa Barbara Retail Revitalization Project. Testing program to identify historical and prehistoric sites within four city blocks of downtown Santa Barbara. Report prepared for the City of Santa Barbara. 1986 (with others) Cultural and Paleontological Survey and Testing for Pacific Rim, Carlsbad, California. Project involved the survey of over 1,000 acres along the northern shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, the identification of 14 prehistoric, 1 historic, and 1 paleontological site, and the testing of prehistoric and historic sites to determine importance under CEQA. Report prepared for the City of Carlsbad. 1986 (with Cheever) Cultural Resource Testing Program for Archaeological Sites SDI-607, -612, -212, 6825 and W-105, Carlsbad, California. Testing program for five sites located along the south shore of Batiquitos Lagoon for the City of Carlsbad. 1986 (with Cheever) Carmel Mountain Ranch Data Recovery Program for Early Period Archaeological Site SDI-6087. Report prepared for Carmel Mountain Ranch. 1986 (with others) Lake Cahuilla Prehistoric Occupation at IMP-4434 and IMP-5167, Imperial Valley, California. Data recovery for Ryerson Concrete Company. 1985 Early and Late Period Occupation at Rogers Ridge (SDI-4845, W-182), Carlsbad, California. Data recovery program to include the excavation of 94, 1 by 1 m units at six loci dating from 850 to 7000 years B.P. for Resource Microsystems Inc. and Daoninc. 7 DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 1984 (with others) Archaeological Investigations at SDI-5130, Mar Lado Project, Oceanside, California. Data recovery program for L and L Development. 1984 Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDG&E's Imperial Valley to La Rosita 230-kV Transmission Line. Report prepared for SDG&E, San Diego, California. 1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-131 (Agua Hedionda), Carlsbad, California. Excavation of a 5 percent sample at a 7,000 to 8,500 year old site for Hunts Partnership. 1984 West Mesa Cultural Resource Survey and Site Evaluation, Imperial Valley, California. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. 1983 Excavation of Dieguefio/Ipai Subsistence Camps above Encinitas Creek: A Data Recovery Program for Fieldstone Northview, Encinitas, California. Report prepared for the Fieldstone Development Company. 1983 Archaeological Overview for the City of San Marcos, Business/Industrial, Richman, Lake San Marcos, and Barham/Discovery Community Plan. Report prepared for the City of San Marcos. 1980 (with others) Cultural Resource Inventory and National Register Assessment of the Southern California Edison Palo Verde to Devers Transmission Line Corridor (California portion). Prepared for Southern California Edison, Rosemead, California. 1980 (with others) Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of East Mesa and West Mesa Regions, Imperial Valley, California. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California. 1979 (with others) Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Central Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California. 1978 (with White) An Archaeological Survey of the Talega Substation Site. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, California. 1978 (with others) Documentation of the Phase II Archaeology Inventory Report, Plant Site to Devers and Miguel Substation, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transmission System Environmental Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, California. 1978 Jamul Mountains Alternative Route Suitability Review, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transmission System Environmental Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, California. 1977 (with others) Phase I Archaeology Report, Plant Site to Victorville/Lugo and Devers to Victorville/Lugo, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transmission System Environmental 8 DENNIS R. GALLEGOS Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wirth, Associates, Inc., San Diego, California. 1977 Saline Valley Unit Resource Analysis - Cultural Resources. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, California. 1976 (with Hanks) East Mojave Management Framework Plan - Cultural Resources. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, California. PUBLICATIONS Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDi-48 (W-164), San Diego, California. (with Carolyn Kyle). Coyote Press, Salinas, California, No. 40, 1998 Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County (with Patricia Masters, Ph.D.). In: Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, University of California, Los Angeles, California, Vol. 4, 1997. A Review and Synthesis of the Archaeological Record for the Lower San Diego River Valley. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego, California, Volume 8, 1995 Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years Ago. In: Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, No. 10, 1992. Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In: Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1991. A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In: San Dieguito - La Jolla, Chronology and Controversy, San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper, Number 1, 1987. Relocation of the Ballast Point Tryworks Oven Foundation (with Adella Schroth). In Fort Guijarros Quarterly, 3:2,1989 Early Man and a Cultural Chronology for Batiquitos Lagoon. In: Casual Papers, Cultural Resource Management Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1986. Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. In: Casual Papers, Cultural Resource Management Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1985. Class II Cultural Resource Inventory, East Mesa and West Mesa Region, Imperial Valley, California, (with others). USDI, BLM, 1980. Cultural Resource Inventory of the Central Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions, (with others). USDI, BLM, Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology, 1980. 9 MONICA C. GUERRERO PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Gallegos & Associates 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 929-0055 EDUCATION M.A. San Diego State University, 2001 B.A. Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara 1996 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION Society for California Archaeology 1997- Present Register of Professional Archaeologists 2001- Present Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California 1997- Present PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Gallegos & Associates 2000 - Present Duties include literature reviews, record searches, direction of field crews for survey and testing programs, ceramic analysis, creation of surface collection maps, graphics, report editing, and contributing author for various San Diego County reports. San Diego State University San Diego, CA 09198-05101 Laboratory Assistant: Duties included the identification, sorting, and cataloging of artifacts from a San Diego County late prehistoric archaeological site. Additional duties included artifact and pottery analyses and updating State of California site record forms. Teaching Assistant: Assisted professor in teaching archaeological field methods class. Duties included instruction and supervision in surveying, mapping, excavating, water screening, flotation, site documentation and unit documentation, illustration of unit profiles, and laboratory analysis. Collections Management: Duties included revitalization of artifact collections, identification and re-cataloging of artifacts, entering data into CoUection Management's database, and provided public based educational programs to local elementary students. University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 6199 - 7/99 Archaeological Assistant: Assisted with archaeological field class in Mocollope, Peru. Duties included student field instruction and supervision of excavation, dry screening, artifact sorting, profile illustration, and level record forms. Central Coast Information Center Santa Barbara, CA 3196- 6196 Data Management: Duties included mapping newly recorded archaeological sites onto USGS quadrangle maps, entering new site infonnation into the CCIC database, updating quad maps by mapping all previous sites onto new quad maps, and assisting local archaeologists with site record form requests. PUBLICATIONS AND CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORTS-PRIMARY AUTHOR 2001 Hual-Cu-Cuish: A Late Prehistoric Kumeyaay Village Site in the Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Masters Thesis on file at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. RECENT PUBLICATIONS AND CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORTS CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR 2001 Cultural Resource Test Program for the Wilson Property, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad. 2001 Cultural Resource Letter Report for the Rancho Santa Fe Force Main Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2001 Cultural Resource Letter Report for the Vista-Oceanside Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates. 2001 Historical/Archaeological Survey for the Palomar Transfer Station Project, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2001 Cultural Resource Test Report for the Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project, Oceanside, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2001 Historical/ Archaeological Survey for the Brookside Plaza Project, Vista, California.Prepared for Land Planning Consultants. 2001 Archaeological Test Program for CA-SDI-14112, Mesa Norte Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Hunsaker & Associates. 2001 Cultural Resource Test Program for CA-SDI-12508, San Diego, California. Prepared for Garden Communities. 2001 Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Otay Mesa Generating Project - Gas Line Corridor. Prepared for the California Energy Commission. 2001 Historical/Archaeological Survey for the Vineyard Project, County of San Diego, California. Prepared for Shapouri & Associates. 2001 Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Great Oak Ranch Property, Riverside, County, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2002 Historical/Archaeological Survey for the Vintage Timberworks Project, Temecula, California. Prepared for Vintage Timberworks, Inc. 2002 Cultural Resource Letter Report for the California State University San Marcos Student Housing and Associated Facilities Project, San Marcos, California. Prepared for O'Day Consultants. 2002 Historical/Archaeological Survey for the La Costa Greens Trunk Sewer Replacement Project, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2002 Data Recovery Program for Pacbell Site CA-SDI-5633, San Marcos, California. Prepared for Joseph Wong Design Associates. 2002 Cultural Resource Literature Review for National Enterprises Major Use Permit, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for National Enterprises, Inc. 2002 Cultural Resource Letter Report for the Hu Residence, City Required Update Study. Prepared for the Sea Bright Company. 2002 Cultural Resource Survey for the Creekside Marketplace and Adjacent Retail Project, San Marcos, California. Prepared for P & D Consultants. 2002 Cultural Resource Survey for the Rancho Vista Del Mar Property, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. Prepared for National Enterprises, Inc. 2002 Cultural Resource Survey for the Perris Valley Lateral "B" Stage 2 Project, Moreno Valley, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2002 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Steele Peak Property, Riverside County, California. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management. 2002 Otay/Kuchamaa Cultural Resource Background Study, San Diego County, California: Prepared as Part of the Otay/Kuchamaa Resource Management Plan. Prepared for USDI Bureau of Land Management. PAPERS PRESENTED 2000 Archaeological Investigations at CA-SDI-945, San Diego County, California. Presented to San Diego Archaeological Society, San Diego, California. 2000 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at Hual-Cu-Cuish (CA-SDI-945), San Diego County, California. Presented at the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting,, Society for California Archaeology, Riverside, California. 2001 Boundary Identification Through the Use of Ceramics in San Diego County. Presented to the Annual Southern Data-Sharing Meeting Society, for California Archaeology, San Luis Obispo, California. APPENDIXB RECORD SEARCH REQUEST 5671 Palmer Way. Suite A Carlsbad. California 92008 (7 60) 929-0055 lGJA LL E G 0 s & Associates RECORD SEARCH REQUEST South Coastal Infortnation Center San Diego State University April 2, 2003 4283 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92105 To Whom It May Concern: Project Name: Bonita Library Survey Project Number: 13-03 Map(s): National City 7.5' USGS Quad Acreage: I-mile perimeter Gallegos & Associates requests a record search for the Bonita Library Survey Project in accordance with the study area defined on the enclosed USGS Quadrangle. Please provide a record search for the project area and 1 mile perimeter. I have enclosed a copy of the USGS map th.at shows the project area (in red) and a 1-mile perimeter. Send completed record search to: Gallegos & Associates 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 a. 9-Y ""7:~ ~,...,;/~;L;::g, ~e-/- ~ If you have any questions or need any other information, please calJ at (760) 929-0055 Best Regards, Enclosure South Coostol lnformotion Center 5i)S(J College of Arts ond letters Son Diego State University 4283 El Cojon Blvd., Suite 250 Son Diego CA 921 OS TEL 619·594·5682 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH Source of Request: Gallegos & Associates (Larry Tift) Date of Re.quest: April 10, 2003 Date Request Received: April 10, 2003 Project Identification: Bonita Library Survey (Gallegos Project #13-03 Search Radius: 1 mile () The South Coastal Information Center historical files DO NOT show recorded - prehistoric or historic site location(s) within the project boundaries, nor prehistoric site location(s) within the specified radius of the project area. (X) The South Coastal Information Center historical files DO show recorded prehistoric or historic site location(s) within the project boundaries and/or prehistoric site location(s) within the specified radius of the project area. Historical Site Location(s) check: MAC Date: April 10, 2003 Archaeological (CA-SDI) and Primary (P-37) site maps have been reviewed. All sites within the project boundaries and the specified radius of the project area have been plotted. Copies of the site record forms have been included for all recorded sites. Bibliographic Materials check: MAC Date: April 10, 2003 Project boundary maps have been reviewed. The bibliographic materials for reports within the project boundaries and within the specified radius of the project area have been included. Historic Map(s) check: MAC Date: April 10, 2003 The historic maps on file at the South Coastal Information Center have been reviewed, and copies have been included. Historic Resources check: MAC Date: April 10, 2003 If there are historic resources within your project boundaries, information from the National Register of Historic Properties, California Register, California State Landmarks, California Points of Historic Interest, and other historic property lists, has been included. A map generated from Geofinder, a historic database and mapping program, has been included. HOURS: 3 Hour(s) COPIES: 35 RUSH: no This is not an invoice. Please pay from the monthly Billing Statement THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY • Bakersfield • Channel Islands • Chico • Dominguez Hills • Fresno • Fullerton • Hayword • Humboldt • long Beoch • Los Angeles • Maritime Academy • Monterey Boy • Northridge • Pomona • Socromento • Son Bernardino • Son Diego • Son Francisco• Son Jose • Son Luis Obispo • Son Marcos • Sonoma • Ston~lous • APPENDIX F. Will-Service Letters CllY OF CHUIA VISfA POLICE DEPARTMENT May 21, 2003 Kathie Wilkerson BRG Consulting, Inc. 304 Ivy Street San Diego, CA 92101 SUBJECT: Bonita Library Dear Ms. Wilkerson: We received your request for information regarding public services to the proposed project area. 1. The proposed project site is served by the City of Chula Vista Police Department. The Police Department is headquartered at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. I am attaching our latest annual report describing our physical capabilities. 2. We report response times for Priority 1 and Priority 2 Calls for Service. The city wide normalized response times for FYO 1-02: Priority I: 5:07 Priority 2: 10:04 3. It is true that there are no plans to construct a new police station at or near the project site. 4. I am attaching beat and sector maps. Officers are assigned to each beat. Beats fall within 3 sector areas. There are 3 watches per day. It is true that in an emergency situation, officers from other jurisdictions can be requested to respond. 5. The existing facilities, personnel, and equipment of the Department are adequate to provide a sufficient level of service throughout the project area with the implementation of the proposed project. Finally, because this proposed project is located within the City of Chula Vista and is served by the City of Chula Vista Police Department, we would like to have input in the 276 FOURTH AVENUE• CHULA VISTA• CALIFORNIA 91910 @ Post·Consumer Recycled Paoer CllY OF CHUlA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT plan review process. Please route plans for review by the City of Chula Vista Police Department to: Richard E. Pruess Community Relations Unit Chula Vista Police Department 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information. Sincerely, Crime Analyst Chula Vista Police Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911 (619) 691-5158 276 FOURTH AVENUE• CHULA VISTA• CALIFORNIA 91910 @ Post·Consumer Recycled Paper City of Chula Vista, California ll W*H 2 3 4 5 6 .--Bonita - Sunnyside------ FIRE CHIEF Fire Protection District Scott Walker BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 10, 2003 Robert "Scott" Scott Tom Pocklington Kathie Wilkerson Tom Hazard BRG Consulting, Inc. DISTRICT SECRETARY 304 Ivy Street Rita Cyman San Diego, CA 92101 RE: Bonita Library Dear Ms. Wilkerson, Thank you for the informative letter regarding the proposed Bonita Library. Although this project appears to be located in Bonita, and Bonita Fire Department (Station 38) would be first to arrive at any emergency for the Bonita Library, the actual jurisdiction having authority is the City of Chula Vista. All preliminary plans, consultations, fire code requirements, etc. would be through the City of Chula Vista Planning and Fire Department. Bonita Fire Department has an automatic aid agreement with the City of Chula Vista wherein the closest fire station responds to an incident regardless of the jurisdictional boundaries; this would be the situation with the Bonita Library. To reduce some of your research time, I shall provide you with this information about Bonita Fire Department: • Our primary fire engine, Medic Engine 38 (ME38), is staffed with 4 personnel 24- hours per day; two of which are firefighter/paramedics. • The response time from our location at 4900 Bonita Road to the proposed Bonita Library location would be less than 2 minutes. • Currently American Medical Response (AMR) has a transport paramedic ambulance housed and responding with ME38 from 8 am until 11 pm Monday thorough Sunday staffed with 2 paramedics. • In the event ME 38 is unavailable to respond to the Bonita Library, Chula Vista Station 52 or Chula Vista Station 51 wouid be the next responding engine. Their response times and locations would be supplied to you by Chula Vista Fire Department. If there are any further questions or concerns Bonita Fire Department can assist you with please call Captain Bob French at (619) 479-2346. Thank you. s;ncere1y,U j-µ..,J_ Captain Bob French Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Is Everyone's Business 4900 Bonita Rd., Bonita, CA 91902 Phone: (619) 479-2346 FAX (619) 479-2393 ATTACHMENT A SWEETWATER AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD JAMES "JIM' DOUD. CHAIR 505 GARRETT AVENUE W.D. "BUD" POCKLINGTON, VICE CHAIR POST OFFICE BOX 2328 A. MITCHEL BEAUCHAMP CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328 NICK INZUNZA· (619) 420-1413 MARGARET COOK WELSH FAX (619) 425-7469 J.S. "SKI" WOLNIEWICZ http://www.sweetwater.org CARY F. WRIGHT WANDA AVERY April 24, 20~1?-- "' , R ~uRER , 8 1 1 '' ;'-, \ i~ ':"! ':~ !J 1y LS l'f.'~l~AFARPON-FRJEDMAN ·: ' !""------. ·----~'SECRETARY . : 2v;:;2003 lluii Ms. Kathie Wilkerson ~ :.._.. / ' BRG Consulting, Inc. ·~- - -v -. ~ ·--··------J 304 Ivy Street .•~-. -~. :"\ ~ ... - . ·:~ ... : : ; :. ~~-· ~ : San Diego, CA 92101-2030 ,__ :::~--. ____ ._.:: ______.., ------ Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY S'NA DEV. FILE: BONlTA LIBRARY Dear Ms. Wilkerson: This letter is in response to your request for information for the subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is a water main on the north side of the site. However, this is a transmission main, and the Authority's policy does not permit water services to be connected to transmission mains from Otay Lakes to approximately 200 feet east of Allen School Road. There is no water main in Bonita Road fronting the property. Therefore, a main extension would be required to serve this project. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 58 map that shows the existing water facilities. The sizing of a new main is largely contingent upon the fire fiow requirements; the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the Chula Vista Fire Department stating fire flow requirements. If the Owner provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure ranging from a minimum of 87 p.s.i to a maximum of 97 p.s.i. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at (619) 422-8395, extension 639. Sincerely, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ~-C,,~ Hector Martinez Deputy Chief Engineer HM:RC:ss Enclosure: photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 58 map l:\engr\Dev\Bonita Library\Cor\water availablility.doc A Public Water Agency Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas ..,, ,, L; BLANKET EASEMENT TO CW & T CO. FROM G. & £.I.I. PETTIT & RX & M.B. WILSON BK. 1960, SER. 1, PG. 24646. REC. 11-3-60 COVERING PAR. A,B.C. & D (:.-SW-358) @ WELL NJ.W7 t.10Nl'fORING913 0 ,95 w.o.A2 • • 12· 130 LEGEND LOWERED 9001 AC '68 W.O. ------MAJN __ ... --- .. ------FIRE SERVICE ------DRAIN 12"GV :._-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_:EASEMENT s"FH ·51 ------OTHER w.o.! A994.4 37158 ----- ~=YMAJN ACO. 6"FH '77 ,,,.,.,,, : ''''""' '"''''" "'''"' DISTRICT W.O. A354.2 BOUNDARY ~:.;;::. .. :~ ~:;:~.::;::.,, :;.. .. ::: .. ;;:,.;.;..,;::. #iUN;~i?Al.. BOUNDARY """°'*"""''~"""'''"'*"""'"''"' PRESS.BOUNDARY ZONE (3 • ANODE 0 AJR VALVE s BUTTERFLY VALVE 0 BLOW-Off CP 1EST STATION ~ ACQ. 6"FH '77 o .• w,o•• A.3?:4 •.2 .. @ CHECK VALVE "'"'...... "'"' ... ,,, ., DEEP WEl.L ANODE z (/) HOLD HARMLESS "'"' L1.l :. 12"G (5-SW-123) "r...,.,,.,''"'' 12"fS 39444 w EXHIBIT 'C' FIRE HYDRANT _l; u W.0. A2486.2 ~--~ _l < ·28065 .SONGBI Ro····Lr\f ® GA1E VALVE 9 STREAM GAUGE 6"fS 39445 W.0. A2486.2 @ WELL (W/20' -6" ST. OFFSET FITTING) @ ZONE VALVf. TM land end parcel data ia proprietary informatioo: INDEX TO ADJOINING QUARTER SECTIONS QUARTER SECTION NO. Ac;e""" to and u:se of thi3 information i3 re:stricted Location of water facUltles ere opprox'-nate only, by o sub-license agreement. No sale, transfer, or ~AlER AUTHORITY based "" reeocd information. For o moro oc:eurote 505 Awnue 74 48 assignment of this information is permitted. Corrett 1ocotlo" water focUltlos must be fiol« 1oeoted. Chulo Vista, CA 91910 0 CoU U.S.A. 0 1-:800-422-413;3 two wc>'kinQ da)CS SCALE:1"=100' 73 47 San Diogo Dato Processing Corporation Toi: 61Q-420-1413 prior to exco'«ltlOO. 5975 Sant• Fe Street 72 46 Son Diogo, CA 92109 REVISED: JULY 2002 100 0 100 200 300 400