Attachment 3.8.1 - Appendix H1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Parcel A.pdf — Chula Vista City Council, November 18, 2025 (part 11 of 24)

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC
Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC‐11) ‐‐ 5400 ‐ ‐
Trifluorotrichloroethane (Freon 113) ‐ 6.4 28000 3 ‐Vinyl acetate ‐‐ 3800 3 ‐Vinyl chloride ‐ 13 0.15 ‐ 10 Notes:1. Detected results were screened against the following criteria. Exceedances are shaded gray and flagged in [ ]:
[A]: Result is greater than Groundwater Protection Level (GPL), (Haley & Aldrich 2014a, 2014b). [B]: Result is greater than Commercial/Industrial Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Level, HHRA Note 3, June 2020 ‐ Revised May 2022. [C]: Result is greater than Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC), CCR Title 22 Section 66261.24.

2. Detected results for trichloroethene (TCE) were also compared to the Health‐Based Remediation Footnotes:
1 Site background2 Cancer Endpoint. If there is no Cancer Endpoint, the Noncancer Endpoint is noted.3 U.S. EPA Region 9 Remediation Screening Level Abbreviations:

BOLD = concentration detected at or above reported detection limit. < = analyte not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

F1 = MS and/or MSD recovery exceeds control limits.

F2 = MS/MSD RPD exceeds control limits
*+ = LCS and/or LCSD is outside acceptance limits, high biased. ‐ = not analyzed or not applicable.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
bgs = below ground surface.

Goal (HBRG) of 1.5 mg/kg (Haley & Aldrich, 2021b). Results shown in this table do not exceed the HBRG for TCE.

DGA‐009‐1 DGA‐009‐5 DGA‐009‐10 DGA‐011‐3.5 DGA‐011‐5 DGA‐011‐10 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 3.5 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
DGA‐009 DGA‐011
South South
< 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0099
< 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0099
< 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0099
< 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 10 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 8.8 3 ‐
1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐ 1.7 7200 ‐ ‐1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 2.7 ‐ ‐1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐ 0.04 5 3 ‐1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.56 16 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.071 350 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐‐ 300 ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐‐ 0.021 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐ 0.818 35 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐‐ 0.057 ‐ 10 1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐‐ 0.16 ‐ ‐
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 28 9300 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.0028 2 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 11 3 ‐1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1500 3 ‐1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 2200 ‐ ‐1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 0.23 11 3 ‐2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐2‐Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) ‐‐ 190000 3 ‐2‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2500 ‐ ‐2‐Hexanone (Methyl Butyl Ketone) ‐‐ 1300 3 ‐2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐4‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2300 ‐ ‐4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) ‐‐ 140000 3 ‐Acetone ‐‐ 1100000 3 ‐Benzene ‐ 0.019 1.4 ‐ ‐Bromobenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐Bromodichloromethane ‐‐ 1.3 ‐ ‐ Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC DGA‐013‐1 DGA‐013‐5 DGA‐013‐10 DGA‐014‐3.5 DGA‐014‐5 DGA‐014‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 3.5 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0097 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.019 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.019 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.019 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.019 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 DGA‐013 DGA‐014
Central Central
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 11 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC
Bromoform ‐‐ 86 ‐ ‐
Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) ‐‐ 30 3 ‐Carbon disulfide ‐‐ 3500 3 ‐Carbon tetrachloride ‐‐ 2.9 ‐ ‐Chlorobenzene ‐ 2 1300 3 ‐Chlorobromomethane ‐‐ 630 3 ‐Chloroethane ‐‐ 23000 3 ‐Chloroform (Trichloromethane) ‐‐ 1.4 3 ‐Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) ‐‐ 460 3 ‐cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ 4.9 84 ‐ ‐cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Cymene (p‐Isopropyltoluene) ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Dibromochloromethane ‐‐ 4.1 ‐ ‐Dibromomethane ‐‐ 99 3 ‐Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC‐12) ‐‐ 370 3 ‐Ethylbenzene ‐ 7.7 25 3 ‐Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ‐‐ 9900 3 ‐m,p‐Xylenes ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) ‐‐ 210 3 ‐Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ‐ 0.019 26 ‐ ‐Naphthalene ‐‐ 6.5 ‐ ‐n‐Butylbenzene ‐‐ 18000 ‐ ‐n‐Propylbenzene ‐‐ 24000 3 ‐o‐Xylene ‐ 6 2800 3 ‐Styrene ‐‐ 32000 ‐ ‐tert‐Butylbenzene ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐Tetrachloroethene ‐ 2.1 2.7 ‐ ‐Toluene ‐ 0.44 5300 ‐ ‐trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.17 600 ‐ ‐trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Trichloroethene (see Note 2) ‐ 27 6 3 2040 DGA‐013‐1 DGA‐013‐5 DGA‐013‐10 DGA‐014‐3.5 DGA‐014‐5 DGA‐014‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 3.5 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
DGA‐013 DGA‐014
Central Central
< 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.019 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0097 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.019 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0097 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0097 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.0019 < 0.002 < 0.002
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 12 of 27 ends

BOLD = concentration detected at or above reported detection limit. < = analyte not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

F1 = MS and/or MSD recovery exceeds control limits.

Goal (HBRG) of 1.5 mg/kg (Haley & Aldrich, 2021b). Results shown in this table do not exceed the HBRG for TCE.

DGA‐013‐1 DGA‐013‐5 DGA‐013‐10 DGA‐014‐3.5 DGA‐014‐5 DGA‐014‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 3.5 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
DGA‐013 DGA‐014
Central Central
< 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0097 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0097 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0097 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00097 < 0.001 < 0.001 HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 13 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 8.8 3 ‐
1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐ 1.7 7200 ‐ ‐1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 2.7 ‐ ‐1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐ 0.04 5 3 ‐1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.56 16 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.071 350 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐‐ 300 ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐‐ 0.021 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐ 0.818 35 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐‐ 0.057 ‐ 10 1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐‐ 0.16 ‐ ‐
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 28 9300 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.0028 2 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 11 3 ‐1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1500 3 ‐1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 2200 ‐ ‐1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 0.23 11 3 ‐2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐2‐Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) ‐‐ 190000 3 ‐2‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2500 ‐ ‐2‐Hexanone (Methyl Butyl Ketone) ‐‐ 1300 3 ‐2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐4‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2300 ‐ ‐4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) ‐‐ 140000 3 ‐Acetone ‐‐ 1100000 3 ‐Benzene ‐ 0.019 1.4 ‐ ‐Bromobenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐Bromodichloromethane ‐‐ 1.3 ‐ ‐ Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC DGA‐015‐1 DGA‐015‐5 DGA‐015‐10 DGA‐016‐1 DGA‐016‐5 DGA‐016‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.01
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 DGA‐015
Central Central
DGA‐016
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 14 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC
Bromoform ‐‐ 86 ‐ ‐
Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) ‐‐ 30 3 ‐Carbon disulfide ‐‐ 3500 3 ‐Carbon tetrachloride ‐‐ 2.9 ‐ ‐Chlorobenzene ‐ 2 1300 3 ‐Chlorobromomethane ‐‐ 630 3 ‐Chloroethane ‐‐ 23000 3 ‐Chloroform (Trichloromethane) ‐‐ 1.4 3 ‐Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) ‐‐ 460 3 ‐cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ 4.9 84 ‐ ‐cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Cymene (p‐Isopropyltoluene) ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Dibromochloromethane ‐‐ 4.1 ‐ ‐Dibromomethane ‐‐ 99 3 ‐Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC‐12) ‐‐ 370 3 ‐Ethylbenzene ‐ 7.7 25 3 ‐Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ‐‐ 9900 3 ‐m,p‐Xylenes ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) ‐‐ 210 3 ‐Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ‐ 0.019 26 ‐ ‐Naphthalene ‐‐ 6.5 ‐ ‐n‐Butylbenzene ‐‐ 18000 ‐ ‐n‐Propylbenzene ‐‐ 24000 3 ‐o‐Xylene ‐ 6 2800 3 ‐Styrene ‐‐ 32000 ‐ ‐tert‐Butylbenzene ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐Tetrachloroethene ‐ 2.1 2.7 ‐ ‐Toluene ‐ 0.44 5300 ‐ ‐trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.17 600 ‐ ‐trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Trichloroethene (see Note 2) ‐ 27 6 3 2040 DGA‐015‐1 DGA‐015‐5 DGA‐015‐10 DGA‐016‐1 DGA‐016‐5 DGA‐016‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
DGA‐015
Central Central
DGA‐016
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.01
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.01
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.01
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 15 of 27 ends

BOLD = concentration detected at or above reported detection limit. < = analyte not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

F1 = MS and/or MSD recovery exceeds control limits.

Goal (HBRG) of 1.5 mg/kg (Haley & Aldrich, 2021b). Results shown in this table do not exceed the HBRG for TCE.

DGA‐015‐1 DGA‐015‐5 DGA‐015‐10 DGA‐016‐1 DGA‐016‐5 DGA‐016‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
DGA‐015
Central Central
DGA‐016
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.01
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.01
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.01
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.001 HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 16 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 8.8 3 ‐
1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐ 1.7 7200 ‐ ‐1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 2.7 ‐ ‐1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐ 0.04 5 3 ‐1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.56 16 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.071 350 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐‐ 300 ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐‐ 0.021 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐ 0.818 35 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐‐ 0.057 ‐ 10 1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐‐ 0.16 ‐ ‐
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 28 9300 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.0028 2 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 11 3 ‐1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1500 3 ‐1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 2200 ‐ ‐1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 0.23 11 3 ‐2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐2‐Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) ‐‐ 190000 3 ‐2‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2500 ‐ ‐2‐Hexanone (Methyl Butyl Ketone) ‐‐ 1300 3 ‐2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐4‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2300 ‐ ‐4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) ‐‐ 140000 3 ‐Acetone ‐‐ 1100000 3 ‐Benzene ‐ 0.019 1.4 ‐ ‐Bromobenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐Bromodichloromethane ‐‐ 1.3 ‐ ‐ Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC DGA‐017‐1 DGA‐017‐5 DGA‐017‐10 DGA‐019‐1 DGA‐019‐6.5 DGA‐019‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 6.5 (ft) 10 (ft)
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 F1 < 0.002
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02

0.022 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
CentralCentral
DGA‐017 DGA‐019
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 17 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC
Bromoform ‐‐ 86 ‐ ‐
Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) ‐‐ 30 3 ‐Carbon disulfide ‐‐ 3500 3 ‐Carbon tetrachloride ‐‐ 2.9 ‐ ‐Chlorobenzene ‐ 2 1300 3 ‐Chlorobromomethane ‐‐ 630 3 ‐Chloroethane ‐‐ 23000 3 ‐Chloroform (Trichloromethane) ‐‐ 1.4 3 ‐Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) ‐‐ 460 3 ‐cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ 4.9 84 ‐ ‐cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Cymene (p‐Isopropyltoluene) ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Dibromochloromethane ‐‐ 4.1 ‐ ‐Dibromomethane ‐‐ 99 3 ‐Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC‐12) ‐‐ 370 3 ‐Ethylbenzene ‐ 7.7 25 3 ‐Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ‐‐ 9900 3 ‐m,p‐Xylenes ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) ‐‐ 210 3 ‐Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ‐ 0.019 26 ‐ ‐Naphthalene ‐‐ 6.5 ‐ ‐n‐Butylbenzene ‐‐ 18000 ‐ ‐n‐Propylbenzene ‐‐ 24000 3 ‐o‐Xylene ‐ 6 2800 3 ‐Styrene ‐‐ 32000 ‐ ‐tert‐Butylbenzene ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐Tetrachloroethene ‐ 2.1 2.7 ‐ ‐Toluene ‐ 0.44 5300 ‐ ‐trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.17 600 ‐ ‐trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Trichloroethene (see Note 2) ‐ 27 6 3 2040 DGA‐017‐1 DGA‐017‐5 DGA‐017‐10 DGA‐019‐1 DGA‐019‐6.5 DGA‐019‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 6.5 (ft) 10 (ft)
CentralCentral
DGA‐017 DGA‐019
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02< 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 F1 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 F1 < 0.002
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 F1 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 18 of 27 ends

BOLD = concentration detected at or above reported detection limit. < = analyte not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

F1 = MS and/or MSD recovery exceeds control limits.

Goal (HBRG) of 1.5 mg/kg (Haley & Aldrich, 2021b). Results shown in this table do not exceed the HBRG for TCE.

DGA‐017‐1 DGA‐017‐5 DGA‐017‐10 DGA‐019‐1 DGA‐019‐6.5 DGA‐019‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 6.5 (ft) 10 (ft)
CentralCentral
DGA‐017 DGA‐019
< 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.01 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.001 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 19 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 8.8 3 ‐
1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐ 1.7 7200 ‐ ‐1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 2.7 ‐ ‐1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐ 0.04 5 3 ‐1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.56 16 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.071 350 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐‐ 300 ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐‐ 0.021 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐ 0.818 35 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐‐ 0.057 ‐ 10 1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐‐ 0.16 ‐ ‐
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 28 9300 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.0028 2 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 11 3 ‐1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1500 3 ‐1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 2200 ‐ ‐1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 0.23 11 3 ‐2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐2‐Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) ‐‐ 190000 3 ‐2‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2500 ‐ ‐2‐Hexanone (Methyl Butyl Ketone) ‐‐ 1300 3 ‐2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐4‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2300 ‐ ‐4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) ‐‐ 140000 3 ‐Acetone ‐‐ 1100000 3 ‐Benzene ‐ 0.019 1.4 ‐ ‐Bromobenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐Bromodichloromethane ‐‐ 1.3 ‐ ‐ Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC DGA‐021‐1 DGA‐021‐5 DGA‐021‐10 DGA‐022‐1 DGA‐022‐5 DGA‐022‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 F2 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
North North
DGA‐021 DGA‐022
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 20 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC
Bromoform ‐‐ 86 ‐ ‐
Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) ‐‐ 30 3 ‐Carbon disulfide ‐‐ 3500 3 ‐Carbon tetrachloride ‐‐ 2.9 ‐ ‐Chlorobenzene ‐ 2 1300 3 ‐Chlorobromomethane ‐‐ 630 3 ‐Chloroethane ‐‐ 23000 3 ‐Chloroform (Trichloromethane) ‐‐ 1.4 3 ‐Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) ‐‐ 460 3 ‐cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ 4.9 84 ‐ ‐cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Cymene (p‐Isopropyltoluene) ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Dibromochloromethane ‐‐ 4.1 ‐ ‐Dibromomethane ‐‐ 99 3 ‐Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC‐12) ‐‐ 370 3 ‐Ethylbenzene ‐ 7.7 25 3 ‐Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ‐‐ 9900 3 ‐m,p‐Xylenes ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) ‐‐ 210 3 ‐Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ‐ 0.019 26 ‐ ‐Naphthalene ‐‐ 6.5 ‐ ‐n‐Butylbenzene ‐‐ 18000 ‐ ‐n‐Propylbenzene ‐‐ 24000 3 ‐o‐Xylene ‐ 6 2800 3 ‐Styrene ‐‐ 32000 ‐ ‐tert‐Butylbenzene ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐Tetrachloroethene ‐ 2.1 2.7 ‐ ‐Toluene ‐ 0.44 5300 ‐ ‐trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.17 600 ‐ ‐trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐Trichloroethene (see Note 2) ‐ 27 6 3 2040 DGA‐021‐1 DGA‐021‐5 DGA‐021‐10 DGA‐022‐1 DGA‐022‐5 DGA‐022‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
North North
DGA‐021 DGA‐022
< 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 F2 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00098 F2 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 F2 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
< 0.00098 F2 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 21 of 27 ends

BOLD = concentration detected at or above reported detection limit. < = analyte not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

F1 = MS and/or MSD recovery exceeds control limits.

Goal (HBRG) of 1.5 mg/kg (Haley & Aldrich, 2021b). Results shown in this table do not exceed the HBRG for TCE.

DGA‐021‐1 DGA‐021‐5 DGA‐021‐10 DGA‐022‐1 DGA‐022‐5 DGA‐022‐10 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft)
North North
DGA‐021 DGA‐022
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
< 0.00098 F1 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 22 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 8.8 3 ‐
1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐ 1.7 7200 ‐ ‐1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 2.7 ‐ ‐1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐ 0.04 5 3 ‐1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.56 16 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.071 350 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐‐ 300 ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐‐ 0.021 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐ 0.818 35 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐‐ 0.057 ‐ 10 1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐‐ 0.16 ‐ ‐
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 28 9300 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.0028 2 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 11 3 ‐1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1500 3 ‐1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 2200 ‐ ‐1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 0.23 11 3 ‐2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐2‐Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) ‐‐ 190000 3 ‐2‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2500 ‐ ‐2‐Hexanone (Methyl Butyl Ketone) ‐‐ 1300 3 ‐2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐4‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2300 ‐ ‐4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) ‐‐ 140000 3 ‐Acetone ‐‐ 1100000 3 ‐Benzene ‐ 0.019 1.4 ‐ ‐Bromobenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐Bromodichloromethane ‐‐ 1.3 ‐ ‐ Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC DGA‐024‐1 DGA‐024‐3 DGA‐024‐4.5 DGA‐025‐1.5 DGA‐025‐3 DGA‐025‐5 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 1 (ft) 3 (ft) 4.5 (ft) 1.5 (ft) 3 (ft) 5 (ft)
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 < 0.005 < 0.0049
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.02 *+ < 0.02 *+ < 0.02 *+ < 0.02 *+ < 0.02 *+ < 0.02 *+ < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.022 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 DGA‐024 DGA‐025
North North
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 23 of 27 ends

0.0013 < 0.00099 0.0016 0.0024 < 0.00099 0.0011
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 0.0011 < 0.00099 < 0.00098< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

0.43 0.16 0.041 0.58 0.051 0.033
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 24 of 27 ends

BOLD = concentration detected at or above reported detection limit. < = analyte not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

F1 = MS and/or MSD recovery exceeds control limits.

Goal (HBRG) of 1.5 mg/kg (Haley & Aldrich, 2021b). Results shown in this table do not exceed the HBRG for TCE.

DGA‐024‐1 DGA‐024‐3 DGA‐024‐4.5 DGA‐025‐1.5 DGA‐025‐3 DGA‐025‐5 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 1 (ft) 3 (ft) 4.5 (ft) 1.5 (ft) 3 (ft) 5 (ft)
DGA‐024 DGA‐025
North North
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098
< 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098 < 0.0098 < 0.0099 < 0.0098
< 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 < 0.00098 < 0.00099 < 0.00098 HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 25 of 27 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Name
Sample Date
Sample Depth (bgs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/kg)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 8.8 3 ‐
1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐ 1.7 7200 ‐ ‐1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐‐ 2.7 ‐ ‐1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐ 0.04 5 3 ‐1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.56 16 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐ 0.071 350 ‐ ‐1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐‐ 300 ‐ ‐1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐‐ 0.021 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐ 0.818 35 ‐ ‐1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐‐ 0.057 ‐ 10 1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐‐ 0.16 ‐ ‐
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 28 9300 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐ 0.0028 2 3 ‐1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 11 3 ‐1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ 1500 3 ‐1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐‐ 2200 ‐ ‐1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ 0.23 11 3 ‐2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐2‐Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) ‐‐ 190000 3 ‐2‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2500 ‐ ‐2‐Hexanone (Methyl Butyl Ketone) ‐‐ 1300 3 ‐2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐‐ 12000 ‐ ‐4‐Chlorotoluene ‐‐ 2300 ‐ ‐4‐Methyl‐2‐Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) ‐‐ 140000 3 ‐Acetone ‐‐ 1100000 3 ‐Benzene ‐ 0.019 1.4 ‐ ‐Bromobenzene ‐‐ 1800 3 ‐Bromodichloromethane ‐‐ 1.3 ‐ ‐ Background 1 GPL
Commercial/
Industrial
DTSC SL2
TTLC DGA‐026‐3 DGA‐026‐4.5 DGA‐026‐6
03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022
3 (ft) 4.5 (ft) 6 (ft)
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 F2 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 F2 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 F2 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 F2 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.002 F2 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 F2 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.0049 F2 < 0.005 < 0.0049
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.02 *+F1 < 0.02 *+ < 0.02 *+
< 0.02 F2 < 0.02 < 0.02
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
DGA‐026
North
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 26 of 27 ends

0.0042 F2 0.0045 0.0034
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐1
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ‐ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 27 of 27 ends

BOLD = concentration detected at or above reported detection limit. < = analyte not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

F1 = MS and/or MSD recovery exceeds control limits.

Goal (HBRG) of 1.5 mg/kg (Haley & Aldrich, 2021b). Results shown in this table do not exceed the HBRG for TCE.

DGA‐026‐3 DGA‐026‐4.5 DGA‐026‐6
03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022
3 (ft) 4.5 (ft) 6 (ft)
DGA‐026
North
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098
< 0.0099 F2 < 0.01 < 0.0098
< 0.0099 < 0.01 < 0.0098
< 0.00099 < 0.001 < 0.00098
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI‐Tbl I‐1.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 12 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Date 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/09/2022 03/08/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 Sample Type NNNNNNNNN
Sample Depth (bgs) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) Sample Name DGA‐003‐2‐SG DGA‐003‐5‐SG DGA‐004‐1‐SG DGA‐004‐5‐SG DGA‐004‐10‐SG DGA‐007‐2‐SG DGA‐007‐5‐SG DGA‐008‐2‐SG DGA‐008‐5‐SG Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/m3)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐ < 100 < 100 2000 < 100 < 100 3300 2400 < 100 < 100 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐ < 100 < 100 430 750 250 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 650 220 150 130 < 100 < 100 1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,1‐Difluoroethane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 110 < 100 1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐ < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐ < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 2‐Chlorotoluene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 4‐Chlorotoluene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Benzene ‐ 20 < 20 24 84 30 36 89 < 20 < 20
Bromobenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Bromodichloromethane 70 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Bromoform ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Health‐based
Remediation
Goals
South South South South
DGA‐003 DGA‐004 DGA‐007 DGA‐008
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 2 of 12 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Date 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/09/2022 03/08/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 Sample Type NNNNNNNNN
Sample Depth (bgs) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) Sample Name DGA‐003‐2‐SG DGA‐003‐5‐SG DGA‐004‐1‐SG DGA‐004‐5‐SG DGA‐004‐10‐SG DGA‐007‐2‐SG DGA‐007‐5‐SG DGA‐008‐2‐SG DGA‐008‐5‐SG Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/m3)
Health‐based
Remediation
Goals
South South South South
DGA‐003 DGA‐004 DGA‐007 DGA‐008
Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Carbon tetrachloride ‐ < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 Chlorobenzene ‐ < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 Chlorobromomethane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Chloroethane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 390 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Chloroform (Trichloromethane) 80 < 20 < 20 80 < 20 < 20 120 75 < 20 < 20 Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene 100 < 100 < 100 5800 140000 15000 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Cymene (p‐Isopropyltoluene) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Dibromochloromethane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Dibromomethane ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC‐12) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Ethylbenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Hexachlorobutadiene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 m,p‐Xylenes ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Naphthalene ‐ < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 n‐Butylbenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 n‐Propylbenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 o‐Xylene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Styrene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 tert‐Butylbenzene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 Tetrachloroethene 370 < 20 < 20 100 < 20 < 20 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 Toluene ‐ < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 230 < 200 < 200 trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐ < 100 < 100 340 2500 350 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 3 of 12 ends

2. <: Result is not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

3. Detected results were screened agaist Health‐Based
Remediation Goals (HBRGs; Haley & Aldrich, 2021b).

Results detected above the HBRGs are shaded in gray.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 4 of 12 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Date
Sample Type
Sample Depth (bgs)
Sample Name
Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/m3)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐
1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐
1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐
1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐
1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐
1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐
1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐
1,1‐Difluoroethane ‐
1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐
1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐
1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐
1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐
1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐
1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐
1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐
1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐
1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐
1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐
1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐
1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐
2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐
2‐Chlorotoluene ‐
2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐
4‐Chlorotoluene ‐
Benzene ‐Bromobenzene ‐Bromodichloromethane 70Bromoform ‐ Health‐based
Remediation
Goals
03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/08/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022

N FD N N N N N N
2 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) DGA‐009‐2‐SG DGA‐009‐2‐SG REP DGA‐009‐5‐SG DGA‐011‐2‐SG DGA‐011‐5‐SG DGA‐013‐1‐SG DGA‐013‐5‐SG DGA‐013‐10‐SG < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
120 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 180 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
34 28 41 < 20 68 < 20 21 26
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
South
DGA‐009 DGA‐011 DGA‐013
South Central
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 5 of 12 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Date
Sample Type
Sample Depth (bgs)
Sample Name
Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/m3)
Health‐based
Remediation
Goals
Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) ‐
Carbon tetrachloride ‐
Chlorobenzene ‐Chlorobromomethane ‐Chloroethane ‐Chloroform (Trichloromethane) 80 Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) ‐
cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene 100
cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐
Cymene (p‐Isopropyltoluene) ‐
Dibromochloromethane ‐Dibromomethane ‐Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC‐12) ‐ Ethylbenzene ‐Hexachlorobutadiene ‐Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ‐ m,p‐Xylenes ‐
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) ‐
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ‐
Naphthalene ‐n‐Butylbenzene ‐
n‐Propylbenzene ‐
o‐Xylene ‐
Styrene ‐tert‐Butylbenzene ‐
Tetrachloroethene 370
Toluene ‐trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐
trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐
03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/08/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022

N FD N N N N N N
2 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) DGA‐009‐2‐SG DGA‐009‐2‐SG REP DGA‐009‐5‐SG DGA‐011‐2‐SG DGA‐011‐5‐SG DGA‐013‐1‐SG DGA‐013‐5‐SG DGA‐013‐10‐SG South
DGA‐009 DGA‐011 DGA‐013
South Central
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
17000 14000 1400 < 100 180 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
66 56 < 20 35 < 20 180 < 20 130
< 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200
470 390 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 6 of 12 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Date
Sample Type
Sample Depth (bgs)
Sample Name
Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/m3)
Health‐based
Remediation
Goals
Trichloroethene 350Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC‐11) ‐Trifluorotrichloroethane (Freon 113) ‐ Vinyl chloride ‐
Notes and Abbreviations:1. Results in bold are detected.

2. <: Result is not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

3. Detected results were screened agaist Health‐Based
Remediation Goals (HBRGs; Haley & Aldrich, 2021b).

Results detected above the HBRGs are shaded in gray.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/08/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 7 of 12 ends

N N N N N N N FD N

2.5 (ft) 5 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 1 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) DGA‐014‐2.5‐SG DGA‐014‐5‐SG DGA‐015‐2‐SG DGA‐015‐5‐SG DGA‐016‐2‐SG DGA‐016‐5‐SG DGA‐017‐1‐SG DGA‐017‐1‐SG REP DGA‐017‐5‐SG < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 150 140 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 28 < 20 26 56 75 < 20 < 20 47
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
DGA‐014 DGA‐015 DGA‐016 DGA‐017
Central Central Central Central
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 8 of 12 ends

N N N N N N N FD N

2.5 (ft) 5 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 1 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) DGA‐014‐2.5‐SG DGA‐014‐5‐SG DGA‐015‐2‐SG DGA‐015‐5‐SG DGA‐016‐2‐SG DGA‐016‐5‐SG DGA‐017‐1‐SG DGA‐017‐1‐SG REP DGA‐017‐5‐SG DGA‐014 DGA‐015 DGA‐016 DGA‐017
Central Central Central Central
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 61 < 20 140 120 57
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
260 90 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 200 220 < 200 < 200 < 200
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 9 of 12 ends

2. <: Result is not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

3. Detected results were screened agaist Health‐Based
Remediation Goals (HBRGs; Haley & Aldrich, 2021b).

Results detected above the HBRGs are shaded in gray.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/09/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 03/10/2022

N N N N N N N FD N

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 10 of 12 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Date
Sample Type
Sample Depth (bgs)
Sample Name
Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/m3)
1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐
1,1,1‐Trichloroethane ‐
1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane ‐
1,1,2‐Trichloroethane ‐
1,1‐Dichloroethane ‐
1,1‐Dichloroethene ‐
1,1‐Dichloropropene ‐
1,1‐Difluoroethane ‐
1,2,3‐Trichlorobenzene ‐
1,2,3‐Trichloropropane ‐
1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene ‐
1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐
1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane (DBCP) ‐
1,2‐Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) ‐
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐
1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐
1,2‐Dichloropropane ‐
1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐
1,3‐Dichlorobenzene ‐
1,3‐Dichloropropane ‐
1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐
2,2‐Dichloropropane ‐
2‐Chlorotoluene ‐
2‐Phenylbutane (sec‐Butylbenzene) ‐
4‐Chlorotoluene ‐
Benzene ‐Bromobenzene ‐Bromodichloromethane 70Bromoform ‐ Health‐based
Remediation
Goals
03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/08/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022

FD N N N N N N N N
5 (ft) 10 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) DGA‐017‐5‐SG REP DGA‐017‐10‐SG DGA‐019‐2‐SG DGA‐019‐5‐SG DGA‐021‐1‐SG DGA‐021‐5‐SG DGA‐021‐10‐SG DGA‐022‐2‐SG DGA‐022‐5‐SG < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 780 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 1000 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
46 < 20 26 39 < 20 55 29 30 55
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
‐017 ‐019DGA ‐021DGA DGA‐022DGA
Central North NorthCentral
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 11 of 12 ends

Location
Portion of Building 29
Sample Date
Sample Type
Sample Depth (bgs)
Sample Name
Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/m3)
Health‐based
Remediation
Goals
Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) ‐
Carbon tetrachloride ‐
Chlorobenzene ‐Chlorobromomethane ‐Chloroethane ‐Chloroform (Trichloromethane) 80 Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) ‐
cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene 100
cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐
Cymene (p‐Isopropyltoluene) ‐
Dibromochloromethane ‐Dibromomethane ‐Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC‐12) ‐ Ethylbenzene ‐Hexachlorobutadiene ‐Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ‐ m,p‐Xylenes ‐
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) ‐
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ‐
Naphthalene ‐n‐Butylbenzene ‐
n‐Propylbenzene ‐
o‐Xylene ‐
Styrene ‐tert‐Butylbenzene ‐
Tetrachloroethene 370
Toluene ‐trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene ‐
trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene ‐
03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/08/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022

FD N N N N N N N N
5 (ft) 10 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) 1 (ft) 5 (ft) 10 (ft) 2 (ft) 5 (ft) DGA‐017‐5‐SG REP DGA‐017‐10‐SG DGA‐019‐2‐SG DGA‐019‐5‐SG DGA‐021‐1‐SG DGA‐021‐5‐SG DGA‐021‐10‐SG DGA‐022‐2‐SG DGA‐022‐5‐SG ‐017 ‐019DGA ‐021DGA DGA‐022DGA
Central North NorthCentral
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
68 41 30 23 < 20 < 20 73 190 93
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 560 370 770 98 34
< 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200 < 200
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
< 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2022_06_HAI_Tbl I‐2.xlsx JUNE 2022
TABLE I‐2

SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
ROHR, INC. ‐ NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 12 of 12 ends

2. <: Result is not detected above the indicated reporting limit.

3. Detected results were screened agaist Health‐Based
Remediation Goals (HBRGs; Haley & Aldrich, 2021b).

Results detected above the HBRGs are shaded in gray.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/08/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022 03/10/2022

Please find enclosed for your review, a copy of the subject document dated December 20, 2022 that was prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. for PW Wohl G Street LLC, the owner of Parcel B that is part of the larger Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company (Rohr) site. This document is being submitted to meet the requirements for site demolition by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. “I certify under penalty of law this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.”
If you have any questions, please contact Tyler Adkins at (619) 691-2020.

Best Regards,
Roberto Valenzuela
Executive Director, Chula Vista Operations
,7190436Ā-6:25782Ā/,)Ā-((' ,!-Ȁ(%&#Ȁ# ,'Ȁ(%'+Ȁ%.! (*$+"$"

www.haleyaldrich.com

DEMOLITION AND SOIL ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT PLAN
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY
NORTH CAMPUS – PARCEL A
850 LAGOON DRIVE

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
by
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

San Diego, California
for
PSIP Wohl Bay Boulevard LLC
San Diego, California
File No. 0206064-000
December 2022
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
5333 Mission Center Road
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
619.280.9210
www.haleyaldrich.com
December 20, 2022
File No. 0206064-000
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, California 92108-2700
Attention: Mr. Tom Alo
Subject: Demolition and Soil Environmental Management Plan Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company
North Campus - Parcel A
Chula Vista, California
GeoTracker Global ID T10000011095
Dear Mr. Alo:

Haley & Aldrich, Inc., is pleased to provide this Demolition and Soil Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) for the former Rohr, Inc. a Collins Aerospace Company (Rohr) Parcel A on behalf of the property owner, PSIP Wohl Bay Boulevard LLC, and Rohr. The DEMP will be implemented during the demolition of the northern 24,000 square feet of Building 29 where soil containing trichloroethene will be excavated and disposed at a permitted facility. It is anticipated that the DEMP will be implemented early next year. If you have any questions or comments on the DEMP, please contact us.

Sincerely yours,
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.

Robert K. Scott P.G., C. Hg, QISP
Senior Associate Hydrogeologist
Mehdi Miremadi
Principal
Enclosures
c: Mr. Emil Wohl, PSIP Wohl G Street LLC
Mr. Gino Bianchi Mosquera, GSI Environmental Inc.

Mr. John Baron, Raytheon Technologies Corporation
Mr. Tyler Adkins, Rohr, Inc. a Collins Aerospace Company Mr. Jerome Zimmerle, AECOM
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\Deliverables\2022_1220_HAI_ParcelA_DEMP_F.docx HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD
SUITE 300
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
619.280.9210
www.haleyaldrich.com

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR

REPORT ON

DEMOLITION AND SOIL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY
NORTH CAMPUS – PARCEL A
850 LAGOON DRIVE

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

PSIP WOHL BAY BOULEVARD LLC

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY:

Robert K. Scott, P.G. C.Hg., QISP
Senior Associate Hydrogeologist
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Mehdi Miremadi
Principal
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

Table of Contents
Page
i
List of Figures iii
List of Appendices iii
List of Abbreviations iv

1. Introduction 1

1.1 DEMP APPLICABILITY 2

1.2 DEMP OBJECTIVES 2

1.3 REGULATORY STATUS AND REQUIREMENTS 3

1.3.1 Agency Notification of Demolition and Soil Removal Activities 3

2. Site Background 4

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 4

2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 4

2.3 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 5

2.3.1 Previous Investigations 5

2.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment 5

3. Roles and Responsibilities 7

3.1 PSIP WOHL 7

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATOR 8

3.3 GENERAL CONTRACTOR 8

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT (ON BEHALF OF PSIP WOHL) 9

3.5 ROHR 9

3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS (ON BEHALF OF ROHR) 9

4. Health and Safety During Construction 10

4.1 SITE ACCESS 10

4.2 FUGITIVE DUST OBSERVATIONS DURING DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES 10

5. Pre-Field Preparation 11

5.1 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN 11

5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL PROTECTION 11

5.3 CONDITIONAL WAIVER OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 11

6. Environmental Monitoring and Material Management During Demolition 13 Table of Contents
Page
ii

6.1 MONITORING AND SAMPLING FOR SUBSURFACE CHEMICAL IMPACTS 13

6.1.1 Headspace Screening Procedure 14

6.2 JOINT COMPOUND MANAGEMENT 14

6.3 CONCRETE MANAGEMENT 14

6.4 ASPHALT PAVEMENT 15

7. Soil Excavation and Confirmation Sampling Procedures 16

7.1 SOIL EXCAVATION PROCEDURES 16

7.2 SOIL CONFIRMATION SAMPLING PROCEDURES 16

8. Soil Management Procedures 17

8.1 STOCKPILE SAMPLING 17

8.2 ON SITE REUSE OF SOIL 17

8.3 OFF-SITE SOIL DISPOSAL 18

8.4 IMPORT SOIL 19

8.5 DECONTAMINATION OF OFF-HAUL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING 19

9. Dust Control 20

10. Water Management 21

11. Unanticipated Subsurface Conditions 22

12. Data Management and Reporting 23

12.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 23

12.2 FIELD RECORDS 23

12.3 REPORTING 23

13. Management of DEMP 24

13.1 RESPONSIBILITIES 24

13.2 MODIFICATIONS TO DEMP 24

14. Scope Representations, and Limitations 25
References 26
iii
List of Figures
Figure No. Title
1 Site Locus
2 Historical Environmental Features
3 Sample Location Map
4 Soil Sample Locations with TCE Concentrations Greater than GPLs and HBRGs 5 VOCs in Soil Gas Compared to HBRGs
6 TCE in Zone A Groundwater
List of Appendices
Appendix Title
A Civil Drawings – Demolition Plans
B Process Flow Charts
C Quality Assurance/Quality Control
D Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material
E Acknowledgement Form
iv
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
µg/kg micrograms per kilogram
µg/m3
micrograms per cubic meter
APCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
bgs below ground surface
BMPs best management practices
BMP Design Manual City of Chula Vista Best Management Plan Design Manual CAO Cleanup and Abatement Order
CARB California Air Resources Board
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene
COPCs chemicals of potential concern
CSWPCP Construction Storm Water Pollution Control Plan
DEHQ San Diego Department of Environmental Health and Quality DEMP Demolition and Soil Environmental Management Plan
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GPL groundwater protection levels
GSI GSI Environmental Inc
Haley & Aldrich Haley & Aldrich, Inc
HASP Health and Safety Plan
HHRA human health risk assessment
NECs new environmental condition
OCPs organochlorine pesticides
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE tetrachloroethylene
PID photoionization detector
ppmv parts per million by volume
Project new loading dock construction project
PSIP Wohl PSIP Bay Boulevard LLC
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
v
Abbreviation Definition
RBMG risk-based remediation goal
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMP Risk Management Plan
Rohr Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aersospace Company
SAM Site Assessment and Mitigation
SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Site the former Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aersospace Company, North Campus facility located at 850 Lagoon Drive in Chula Vista, California SSDS sub-slab depressurization system
SVOCs semi-volatile organic compounds
TCE trichloroethene
TLCP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WDR waste discharge requirements
1 1. Introduction
Haley & Aldrich, Inc., prepared this Demolition and Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) on behalf of PSIP Bay Boulevard LLC (PSIP Wohl) for activities to be conducted on the former industrial property known as Parcel A, a portion of the former Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aersospace Company, (Rohr) North Campus facility located at 850 Lagoon Drive in Chula Vista, California ([the Site]; Figure 1). PSIP Wohl purchased Parcel A from Rohr in September 2020.

Parcel A includes the properties occupied by Buildings 29, 99, and 100 and the vacant properties located at 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard (Figure 2). Rohr sold these properties to PSIP Wohl, who is redeveloping the properties for commercial/industrial use. PSIP Wohl will be constructing a new loading dock in the area currently occupied by the northern 24,000 square feet of Building 29.

Construction will involve the removal of soil in this area to approximately 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). This DEMP is specific to this Project. It provides guidelines and procedures that the contractor shall follow for managing concrete, asphalt pavement, and soil generated during the Project. It also describes procedures for addressing new environmental conditions (NECs) that may be identified following demolition and impacted soil management during construction.

PSIP Wohl has also made improvements to the building that have included installing a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system and sealing and polishing the concrete floor. PSIP Wohl is required through the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Rohr to install a sub-slab depressurization system (SSDS) to address volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil gas that are present beneath the slab in Building 29. A separate Work Plan will be submitted that will describe the design, installation, and monitoring of the SSDS to address soil gas beneath the building slab. The SSDS will be installed during building renovation and prior to a tenant occupying the building.

A Risk Management Plan (RMP) will also be prepared and implemented to address potential future vapor intrusion risk to building occupants. The RMP will include:
 An SSDS post-installation monitoring and performance plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the SSDS in mitigating potential vapor intrusion. Indoor air sampling which is a requirement of the CAO will be included. The plan will be implemented before a tenant occupies the building.  Restrictions on changes to the existing building slab;  A Contingency Plan;
 A schedule for performing post-installation sub-slab and indoor air sampling and preparing SSDS performance monitoring reports, and a Post-Mitigation Completion Report; and  The preparation and filing of a deed restriction containing restrictions on use and occupancy of Parcel A (the Grant Deed in favor of PSIP Wohl recorded in September 2020 contains such restrictions and satisfies such deed restriction requirement).

In addition to these documents, there are others that will be prepared for Parcel A specific to Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R9-2021-0042 (CAO). These include:
 Site Soil Cleanup Levels Report (Directive C.4.a), and  Site Soil and Soil Gas Remedial Alternatives Report (Directive C.4.b)/Remedial Action Plan (RAP) (Directive C.5.a)
2 These documents will be submitted in accordance with the schedule specified in the CAO. It should be noted that the documents required by Directives C.4.b and C.5.a will be combined. Raytheon Technologies Corporation (Rohr’s parent company) made this request in accordance with Provision L.1 of the CAO in a letter to the SDRWQCB dated August 25, 2021. The SDRWQCB granted this request.

This DEMP summarizes Site environmental conditions relevant to the contractor’s health and safety planning, and describes guidelines and procedures to manage concrete, asphalt pavement, and soil within the construction Project footprint. Soil that will be excavated will be stockpiled and profiled for disposal. Confirmation sampling to document concentrations of chemicals of concern remaining in place will be conducted once the excavation of the Project footprint is complete. No groundwater is expected during construction since it is present at depths greater than 10 feet bgs. The DEMP also describes screening procedures during demolition to identify potential NECs and unknown subsurface features that have the potential to impact environmental conditions at the Site. It also describes how NECs and unknown subsurface features will be addressed during DEMP implementation. The DEMP does not address the removal of asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and universal waste.

These activities will be completed prior to initiating the demolition in accordance with federal, state, and local regulatory guidelines and permits.

1.1 DEMP APPLICABILITY
The DEMP was prepared to address activities that will occur during the demolition of existing structures, paving, select Site infrastructure, and soil removal activities that will occur within the Project.

Demolition activities within the Project footprint will include removing:
 Existing aboveground Site structures and concrete and asphalt surface pavements;  Certain subsurface utilities, depending on their potential for future use and burial depth; and .  Soil up to an approximate depth of 5 feet bgs.

The soil containing trichloroethene (TCE) and other VOCs within the Project footprint will be segregated and profiled for disposal at a permitted facility.

The DEMP will be made available to all contractors involved in the above-mentioned activities by PSIP Wohl. All provisions of the DEMP, including, but not limited to, soil management, stormwater runoff controls, and management of unanticipated conditions will be followed as applicable.

1.2 DEMP OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the DEMP are to present Project guidelines and procedures for:
 Segregating, sampling, and evaluating on-Site reuse and off-Site disposal options for materials generated during demolition;
 Identifying, assessing, and remediating NECs during demolition activities, if necessary;  Segregating, sampling, and evaluating off-Site disposal options or on-Site reuse for excavated soil;
 Controlling and tracking movement and disposition of demolition materials and excavated soil; and
 Protecting existing monitoring wells (NCW-021A,and NCW-021B) during construction activities. 3 As applicable, the DEMP is consistent with elements of the DEMP recently submitted by GSI Environmental Inc. (GSI) to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for Parcel B (GSI, 2022). The Parcel B DEMP was approved by the SDRWQCB in a letter dated November 3, 2022.

1.3 REGULATORY STATUS AND REQUIREMENTS
The SDRWQCB is the lead regulatory agency for the Site. Ongoing investigation and remediation are being conducted under the CAO issued to Rohr on July 12, 2021. The CAO supersedes CAO No. 98-08.

The DEMP is not a specific requirement of the CAO; however, it was prepared to provide guidance to contractors engaged in subsurface work at the Site and procedures for identifying potential NECs during subsurface intrusive activities.

1.3.1 Agency Notification of Demolition and Soil Removal Activities The following notification requirements related to the activities under this DEMP are specified in the CAO:
 Demolition (Directive E) – the SDRWQCB shall be notified in writing no later than 90 calendar days prior to the start of demolition. Additionally, the SDRWQCB shall be notified in writing of the completion of demolition activities no later than 14 calendar days following completion.

Rohr provided the SDRWQCB a letter on April 22, 2022 notifying it of PSIP Wohl’s demolition schedule to comply with the CAO. The schedule has been delayed, and PSIP Wohl has kept the SDRWQCB informed of these schedule changes during monthly project status calls. PSIP Wohl indicated during our monthly update call with the SDRWQCB on October 13, 2022, that demolition will tentatively begin in January 2023.

4 2. Site Background
This section summarizes background information for the Site, including pertinent Site history, location and layout, and a summary of known environmental conditions.

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
Parcel A consists of two areas that have been part of Rohr’s manufacturing facility. Buildings 99 and 100 and the vacant properties are located north of G Street and Building 29 is located south of G Street.

Industrial activities and historical chemical use on Parcel A were more limited compared to the main manufacturing portions of the facility located on Parcel B and the former South Campus. This section describes the history of the Building 29 Area, since the DEMP applies to this portion of Parcel A. . Site historical environmental features associated with Building 29 are shown on Figure 2.

Building 29 was constructed in phases beginning in about 1957 through 1962. This portion of Parcel A was owned by others and used for other purposes prior to Rohr’s ownership (Adrian Brown, 1998; Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1998; URS Corporation, 2013; Haley & Aldrich, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022b). These other historical uses included agriculture, residential and a possible lumber yard. The agricultural use of the northern portion of Parcel A occupied by Building 29 appears to have taken place through the 1940s.

Building 29 was primarily used for tooling, machining, and office space for most of its history. At one time, the northernmost portion served as the Maintenance Department for the facility. Most recently, the building housed laboratories, kitting, an After-Market Spares Warehouse, Service Center, and FAI repairs, storage, tool calibration, product development, and office space.

2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The information regarding Site geology is excerpted from the Revised Conceptual Site Model for Parcel A prepared by Haley & Aldrich dated April 30, 2021 (Haley & Aldrich, 2021a).

Parcel A is situated at elevations ranging from approximately 13 feet above mean seal level (MSL) on the south and 28 feet above MSL on the north. Parcel A is underlain, in descending order, by limited fill material, the Bay Point Formation, a clay aquitard, and the San Diego Formation. Because Parcel A is more than 1,000 feet upland of the former shoreline, there are no bay deposits or extensive fill present on this portion of the North Campus facility. It is underlain by localized fill material and the Bay Point Formation.

The Bay Point Formation can also be referred to as Quaternary alluvium, as suggested by Wes Danskin, formerly with the United States Geological Survey (W. Danskin, personal communication). The thickness of the Quaternary sediment can be highly variable in the San Diego embayment, ranging from approximately 200 feet to possibly as much as 700 feet. The Bay Point is Pleistocene in age and was deposited in nearshore marine and onshore fluvial depositional environments.

The Bay Point Formation consists of an interbedded sequence of clay, silt, and silty sand to the total depth explored (approximately 30 feet). The strata are predominantly composed of reddish brown to yellowish brown clay and silt with some thin, discontinuous lenses of silty sand. The water table is present in the sandy lenses at depths greater than 10 feet bgs. A new well cluster (NCW-021A and - 5 021B) was installed on Parcel A immediately west of the portion of Building 29 as part of Haley & Aldrich’s data gap investigation conducted in March 2022 (Figure 2, Haley & Aldrich, 2022b). NCW-021A is screened in Zone A from 10 to 20 feet bgs. NCW-021B is screened in Upper Zone B between 41 and 51 feet bgs).

2.3 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

2.3.1 Previous Investigations
Environmental investigations to evaluate chemical impacts to soil, soil gas, and groundwater as well as indoor air screening (Building 29) have been conducted at the Site and were described in the Revised Conceptual Site Model ([CSM]; Haley & Aldrich, 2021a) and the Updated Sitewide CSM (Haley & Aldrich, 2022a). Figure 3 is a sample location map for Building 29, and chemical impacts are described below.

Details regarding investigation results are presented in the referenced reports.

Site assessment activities on Parcel A have been conducted since the 1990s (Adrian Brown, 1998, Haley & Aldrich, 2016). Haley & Aldrich conducted site investigations for soil, soil gas and groundwater in advance of the property sale (Haley & Aldrich, 2018, 2020). GSI conducted a Phase II screening investigation on Parcel A (excluding 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard) in August 2020 on behalf of PSIP Wohl (GSI, 2020). A data gap investigation work plan was submitted to the SDRWQCB on November 5, 2021, to comply with Directive C.2.a of the CAO (Haley & Aldrich, 2021c). The SDRWQCB requested revisions, and a Revised Work Plan was approved by the SDRWQCB and resubmitted on January 22, 2022. The data gap investigation was conducted in March 2022. A report was submitted to the SDRWQCB on June 10, 2022 (Haley & Aldrich, 2022b). The SDRWQCB indicated in its letter dated November 3, 2022, that it had no further comments on the data gap investigation.

The results of the site investigations identified the following chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) in soil within the Project footprint: VOCs, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PCBs and the organochlorine pesticide, DDT. Metals concentrations within the Project footprint fall within background ranges. Of the VOCs, trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) were the primary VOCs detected in soil in Project footprint and vicinity. The maximum concentrations of TCE and PCE were reported in boring B29-23 (37,800 µg/kg) and B29-28 (1,260 µg/kg), respectively. The maximum PCB (Aroclor 1260) concentration reported for soil in the Project footprint was 1,300 µg/kg in boring B29-05 (sample ID B29-05-2). This sample was also reported to contain low concentrations of TPH (in the oil carbon range [C32-C44]; 185 mg/kg), certain SVOCs (maximum concentration was for fluoranthene, 0.21 mg/kg) and DDT ( 0.021 mg/kg).

The maximum VOC soil gas concentrations reported within the vicinity of the Project footprint were:
 Chloroform: 39,000 µg/m3;
 PCE: 11,000 µg/m3; and
 TCE: 3,000,000 µg/m3.

2.3.2 Human Health Risk Assessment
Haley & Aldrich submitted a baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA) to the SDRWQCB in 2021 in advance of the property sale (Haley & Aldrich, 2021b). The HHRA was updated following the data gap investigation earlier this year and submitted to the SDRWQCB on July 8, 2022 (Haley & Aldrich, 2022c). 6 The Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment reviewed the Update to the HHRA and concurred with Haley & Aldrich’s risk estimates and conclusions in a letter dated September 1, 2022.

A health-based remediation goal (HBRG) was derived for TCE in soil to reduce estimated human health risks for the on-Site construction worker during DEMP activities. The HBRG for TCE is 1,500 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg). Figure 4 shows the locations where soil exceeds the TCE groundwater protection level (GPL) and HBRG. Soil was reported to contain TCE concentrations above its HBRG within the Project footprint in boring B29-23 at 1 foot bgs (37,800 micrograms per kilogram [µg/kg]) and boring B29-24 at 1 foot bgs (7,830 µg/kg). The TCE soil concentration in boring B29-23 is also greater than the GPL of 27,000 µg/kg.

Soil gas HBRGs were also derived for bromodichloromethane, chloroform, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis1,2-DCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and TCE to reduce estimated health risks for the on-Site commercial/industrial worker for inhalation exposure to indoor air. The soil gas HBRGs for bromodichloromethane, chloroform, cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE are 70, 80, 100, 370, and 350 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
), respectively.

The soil gas locations that exceed one or more of the HBRGs are shown on Figure 5. There were 12 soil gas probe locations in the vicinity of the Project footprint where soil gas exceeds one or more of the HBRGs as indicated below:
 PW-02  PW-05
 B29-V03  B29-V07
 PW-03  PW-07
 B29-V04  B29-V08
 PW-06  DGA-021
 PW-04  DGA-022
Groundwater is present beneath the Site at depths greater than 10 feet bgs and will not be encountered during construction activities. A composite TCE groundwater contour map is provided on Figure 6. The TCE groundwater plume is located beneath that portion of Building 29 that includes the Project footprint. The soil gas results for 10-foot probes sampled in the northern and southern portions of Building 29 suggest that groundwater VOCs are contributing to potential vapor intrusion risks for future building occupants. The SSDS installed by PSIP Wohl will address the potential future vapor intrusion risk to building occupants that may result from VOC off-gassing from groundwater. 7 3. Roles and Responsibilities
The table below presents the entities responsible for implementation of this DEMP, followed by a description of their general roles and responsibilities of each party.

Role Entity Contact Information
PSIP Wohl PSIP Wohl
Emil Wohl
[email protected]
(619) 296-4113
Environmental Regulator SDRWQCB
Tom Alo
[email protected]
(619) 521-3375
General Contractor Dempsey Construction
Chad Layne
[email protected]
(760) 918-6900 ext. 126
Environmental Consultant
on behalf of PSIP Wohl GSI
Gino Bianchi Mosquera
[email protected]
(949) 242-8288
Rohr Rohr
John Baron
[email protected]
(207) 865-1022
Tyler Adkins
[email protected]
(619) 691-2020
Environmental Consultant
on behalf of Rohr and PSIP
Wohl
Haley & Aldrich
(program manager)
Bob Scott
[email protected]
(619) 888-0668
Environmental Consultant
on behalf of Rohr
AECOM
(groundwater)
Jerry Zimmerle
[email protected]
(714) 567-2758

3.1 PSIP WOHL
PSIP Wohl is responsible for the overall implementation of the DEMP, with responsibilities that include:
 Classifying materials for off-Site disposal or on-Site reuse that are generated during the demolition activities (e.g., subsurface pipelines);
 Approving the facility at which demolition waste will be disposed or recycled and signing associated manifests;
 Coordinating the signing of manifests with Rohr for any soil that is characterized as hazardous, including soil produced from both the demolition and DEMP activities;  Preparing and implementing a Construction Storm Water Pollution Control Plan in accordance with City of Chula Vista Best Management Plan Design Manual (BMP Design Manual) to comply 8 with its Ordinance and the SDRWQCB’s regional MS4 Permit since the Project area to be disturbed is less than 1 acre; and,
 Coordinating the protection and temporary cessation of groundwater monitoring related to cluster well NCW-021 and notification of the SDRWQCB of such activities.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATOR
As described in Section 1.3, the SDRWQCB has oversight responsibility under the CAO for the environmental activities at the Site presented in this DEMP.1 In its role, the SDRWQCB will approve onSite reuse of materials, if any is proposed, based on chemical data that indicates its reuse is consistent with approved Site-specific HBRGs and GPLs, and potential temporary cessation of groundwater monitoring as necessary to accommodate the demolition activities. If additional subsurface impacts are revealed during demolition activities, these additional impacts will be addressed by implementing the procedures described in this DEMP.

3.3 GENERAL CONTRACTOR
The General Contractor retained by PSIP Wohl has the overall responsibility for implementing this DEMP during demolition. In general, the General Contractor will be responsible for:
 Providing a copy of this DEMP to each contractor engaged in demolition of on-Site structures, surface pavements, select subsurface activities, and soil excavation activities, and confirming that each contractor has prepared a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) that is appropriate for the work it performs;
 Removing aboveground structures, surface pavements, and other subsurface features within the footprint and depth required to construct the new loading dock (approximately 5 feet bgs);  Observing and mitigating fugitive dust during demolition activities, as needed, to comply with regulatory requirements;
 Handling and tracking the movement of building demolition materials, removed surface pavements, subsurface utilities, and soil as described in this DEMP;  Handling and disposing of excess concrete, other demolition materials, and soil generated during demolition and soil excavation for the construction project;  Implementing stormwater best management practices (BMPs), as required by the City Ordinance and the Regional MS4 Permit (Section 5.1);
 Protecting monitoring well cluster NCW-021 (Section 5.2); and  Identifying import soil sources, if needed.

1 Note that demolition and Site grading activities also require permitting and oversight from municipal and county agencies (City of Chula Vista and San Diego County, respectively). These requirements are beyond the scope of this DEMP.
9 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT (ON BEHALF OF PSIP WOHL) The PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant (Haley & Aldrich) will be responsible for:
 Observing soil beneath removed pavement surfaces and at subsurface utilities as described in this DEMP to identify potential NECs, and sampling soil for chemical testing, as needed, to evaluate additional areas of impacted soil for removal during DEMP implementation;  Characterizing soil excavated for off-Site disposal and excess soil that may be generated during demolition activities for on-Site reuse or off-Site disposal;  Overseeing DEMP implementation and conducting soil confirmation sampling to verify the completeness of soil removal activities;
 Observing the presence of fugitive dust during DEMP implementation and recommending additional dust control measures, as needed;
 Evaluating proposed import soil relative to approved screening criteria for Site placement; and,  Documenting and reporting DEMP activities, including daily recording of field observations, soil screening results, sample collection (media type and location), and concrete and stockpile segregation and management.

3.5 ROHR
As the former operator of the Site and responsible party under the CAO, Rohr will coordinate with PSIP Wohl and its General Contractor to facilitate off-Site disposal of soil characterized as hazardous by providing its U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ID number and signing manifests for hazardous soils removed from the Site and non-hazardous soil that contains chemical constituents above the Site HBRGs and GPLs for which it is deemed responsible. Additionally, as owner of the on-Site monitoring wells, Rohr will collaborate with PSIP Wohl should groundwater monitoring of well cluster NCW-021 need to cease temporarily during the construction project.

3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS (ON BEHALF OF ROHR)
Haley & Aldrich and AECOM will assist Rohr with its responsibilities listed above.

10 4. Health and Safety During Construction
As described in Section 2.3, soil, soil gas, and groundwater at the Site are chemically impacted. Each contractor and consultant engaged with field work is required to prepare and implement its own HASP relative to the work that is being conducted prior to DEMP field work.

The contractors will follow all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes relating to health and safety. The contractors will follow all sections of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (8 CCR) as they apply to the Site activities. Those contractors who will come in contact with soil or materials exposed to chemicals are required to be 40-hour hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER) trained, with a current 8-hour refresher course completed within the last 12 months prior to commencing work.

Site visitors who may not have the training described above will be escorted on the Site during active field work and will not be allowed access within identified exclusion zones.

4.1 SITE ACCESS
As with any site where construction activities occur, access to the Site should be limited only to those involved in conducting project activities. Access to areas where work is occurring, including where soil is stockpiled, should be limited via a fence, k-rail, or other appropriate means. Identified exclusion zones will be clearly marked with signage.

4.2 FUGITIVE DUST OBSERVATIONS DURING DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES As per the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule 55 titled, “Fugitive Dust Control,” no construction or demolition activity shall discharge visible dust emissions beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Perimeter air monitoring will not be necessary during Project activities because there are no nearby sensitive receptors and the adjacent properties to the north and west are unoccupied. The nearest occupied residential property is east of the I-5 Freeway approximately 500 feet (1/4 mile) from the Project footprint.

Standard dust control procedures (e.g., wetting) will be adequate to mitigate dust that may be emitted to ambient air during DEMP activities. The PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant will observe for the presence of visible dust during DEMP activities by periodic observations around the Site perimeter and specifically near and downwind of the work area(s). If visible dust is observed by the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant, additional dust suppression efforts will be requested and employed by the General Contractor.

11 5. Pre-Field Preparation
Prior to the start of activities under this DEMP, the following items will be addressed.

5.1 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN
The disturbed area of the Project will be less than one acre and as such the Project will not be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (2009-0009-DWQ, Construction General Permit). PSIP Wohl or its designee will prepare a Construction Storm Water Pollution Control Plan (CSWPCP) that addresses requirements appearing in the City’s Ordinance and BMP Design Manual, and regional MS4 permit. The General Contractor will implement BMPs as specified in the CSWPCP during DEMP implementation.

5.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL PROTECTION
As described above and shown on Figure 2, one groundwater monitoring well cluster (NCW-021), located immediately west of the Project, is used for ongoing monitoring and evaluating chemical impacts to groundwater. Prior to demolition, PSIP Wohl’s and Rohr’s environmental consultant, Haley & Aldrich, will conduct a Site walk with the General Contractor to identify the location of the well cluster. If necessary to facilitate the DEMP activities, PSIP Wohl and Rohr will coordinate with Haley & Aldrich to reset the well head at a depth 2 to 3 feet bgs until the cessation of activities and rebuild the well to grade following completion. Well head restoration will be conducted in accordance with the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and Quality (DEHQ) requirements, as set forth in the DEHQ’s Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) Manual.2 The well cluster will be marked in such a way that it is clearly visible to all workers to prevent accidental damage. K-rails or other methodologies will be employed to provide clear demarcation of the well cluster location to protect it during DEMP activities.

The PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant will immediately notify Rohr and the SDRWQCB if the monitoring well cluster is damaged during DEMP activities. PSIP Wohl will be responsible for repairing or replacing the damaged well. Should it be necessary to replace the well, it shall first be destroyed and then replaced in kind in accordance with State well regulations and DEHQ requirements, including obtaining appropriate destruction and installation permits, as set forth in DEHQ’s SAM Manual.

5.3 CONDITIONAL WAIVER OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
The California Water Code, Section 13260, requires that a Report of Waste Discharge be filed prior to discharging waste3 that could affect the quality of the waters of the state for issuance of waste discharge requirements (WDRs) by the appropriate Regional Water Board. Under the California Water Code, the SDRWQCB has the authority to issue WDR waivers for discharges considered to be low threat. 2https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/deh/lwqd/sam_manual.html 3 “Waste,” as defined in Section 13050(d) of the California Water Code includes “sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal.” 12 As described in Section 8.2, soil generated during demolition may be reused on Site pending chemical testing.

It is intended that soil generated when implementing the DEMP will be appropriately disposed at an offSite facility. Because some soil at the Site is known to be contaminated, activities including temporary stockpiling during the DEMP and potential soil reuse require that a Notice of Intent be filed with the SDRWQCB under Conditional Waiver No. 9 - Discharges/Disposal to Land of Solid Wastes within 30 days of initial waste discharge to temporary stockpiles or intended soil reuse, and enrollment in the WDR waiver program be acknowledged by the SDRWQCB. Following completion of soil removal activities, the applicable project termination certifications will be filed with the SDRWQCB.

13 6. Environmental Monitoring and Material Management During Demolition This section describes monitoring, material segregation, and sampling procedures that will be implemented during demolition activities associated with the Project.

6.1 MONITORING AND SAMPLING FOR SUBSURFACE CHEMICAL IMPACTS Investigations at the Site have identified chemical impacts to soil, and an additional data gap investigation was completed earlier this year.4 However, it is possible that additional subsurface impacts (NECs) may be observed following the removal of Site pavements, slabs and select utilities. The areas over which pavement, slabs, and utilities will be removed are shown in the civil demolition drawings included in Appendix A.

The PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant will be on Site daily throughout the removal of subsurface structures, surface pavement, and subsurface utilities to monitor exposed soils for potential chemical impacts via observation (e.g., odor and discoloration) and field screening (e.g., photoionization detector [PID]) methodologies.5

Potential chemical impacts could be indicated by the following:
 PID measurements greater than 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv);  Discolored soils;
 Olfactory observation;
 Wet or saturated soils; and
 The presence of other previously unknown subsurface features such as “wet” utilities, sumps, underground storage tanks, or other features indicative of past chemical use.

Field monitoring will be conducted continually during the surface and subsurface demolition activities.

The General Contractor will provide access to the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant in the areas where the demolition is occurring, and will, as needed, temporarily halt demolition to facilitate observation.

Should a potential NEC be identified, its location will be referenced by way of a hand-held global positioning system equipment. As necessary, the PSIP Environmental Consultant will require the potential NEC to be cordoned off with cones, barricades, caution tape or other measures to minimize disturbance from demolition activities and access to demolition personnel. A soil sample will be collected approximately 3 to 6 inches below the observed impact for headspace analysis, as described in Section 6.1.1, and an additional sample will be collected for chemical testing. Since VOCs, namely TCE, are the chemicals that are present in soil at concentrations above its HBRG or GPL, testing will be conducted for VOCs using EPA Methods 5035/8260B. PCBs have been reported within the Project 4 A Data Gap Investigation Work Plan was submitted by Haley & Aldrich to the SDRWQCB on January 21, 2022, in response to its letter dated January 7, 2022, which stated that it had no comments on our responses to its November 21, 2022, comments on the work plan. A Data Gap Investigation Report was submitted to the SDRWQCB on June 13, 2022. The SDRWQCB, responded in a letter dated November 3, 2022, that it had no further comments on the report. 5 Observations during vertical demolition, including monitoring and segregating items such as asbestos-containing materials and universal waste, are outside the scope of this DEMP. 14 footprint at one location (boring B29-05) at a concentration above 1 milligram per kilogram and samples will therefore be analyzed for PCBs using EPA Method 8082.

If the location is a NEC, the process will follow the flow chart that is presented as Figure B-1 in Appendix B. Daily field reports will include the location of potential impacts, field screening results, and documentation of soil sampling, if any and requested analytes.

6.1.1 Headspace Screening Procedure
The following procedure appears in the Parcel B DEMP (GSI, 2022), and is applicable to the Project. Soil grab samples for headspace screening will be collected from at a depth of approximately 6 inches bgs to be representative of in-situ VOC conditions. Approximately 6 ounces of soil will be sealed inside a 1-pint sealable plastic bag or 1-pint glass jar and disaggregated to promote VOC volatilization, if any, into the head space. After allowing 2 minutes for VOCs to volatilize and equilibrate, the PID probe will be inserted into the headspace and the peak and steady PID reading recorded. To minimize variability, the PIDs will be calibrated daily per the manufacturer’s specifications.

A headspace PID reading exceeding 10 ppmv above background will be considered indicative of a potential VOC impact to soil, and a soil sample will be collected for laboratory chemical testing to further evaluate the potential impact.

6.2 JOINT COMPOUND MANAGEMENT
Chemical testing of flexible compounds (joint compound) that existed between former building slabs and pavement at some locations on Rohr’s South Campus property indicated the presence of various metals and PCBs within the material (Haley & Aldrich, 2013). The concrete slab in most of the Project footprint in Building 29 is not original. The slab was removed in approximately 2000 to install the below grade infrastructure for the test labs that occupied this area.

On October 21, 2022, Haley & Aldrich observed the concrete slab in the Project footprint where the new loading dock will be constructed. Based on Haley & Aldrich’s observations, no joint compound was identified between the joints in the floor slab within the Project footprint. It is anticipated that there will be no joint compound that will require managing during construction of the new loading dock.

6.3 CONCRETE MANAGEMENT
It is planned that demolished concrete will be transported off Site for recycling or disposal and chemical testing will be conducted by PSIP Wohl’s Environmental Consultant according to the requirements of the receiving facility. The General Contractor will coordinate the chemical testing frequency, sample type (discrete or composite), and analytical parameters with the receiving facility.

Concrete stockpiles will be managed using BMPs as described in the CSWPCP. Copies of laboratory data reports, waste manifests, or other transportation documentation will be retained by the General Contractor and/or PSIP Wohl’s Environmental Consultant for inclusion in a Demolition Completion Report that documents the disposition of concrete.
15 6.4 ASPHALT PAVEMENT
Asphalt pavement is primarily located within designated parking areas of the Site and within internal Site roadways. Asphalt removed during demolition will be transported to an asphalt recycling facility.

The receiving facility and its requirements will be documented and analytical testing results, if any testing is required, will be documented in a DEMP Completion Report.

16 7. Soil Excavation and Confirmation Sampling Procedures

7.1 SOIL EXCAVATION PROCEDURES
The General Contractor will excavate soil in the Project footprint using a backhoe or similar excavation equipment. Following the surface sampling associated with the possible NECs, the General Contractor will excavate VOC-containing soil around known impacts first. This will include the two locations where soil TCE concentrations exceed the HBRG and/or GPL (borings B29-23 and B29-24). The soil will be excavated based on field observations and ppbRAE measurements as described in Section 6.1.1. The soil at each location will be excavated 10 feet radially in each direction, as feasible. The extent will be restricted by the wall of the vault that is present in this area. Soil will be monitored as described in Section 6.1.1 above and stockpiled separately at the designated location as described in Section 8.1. Soil will be excavated initially to a depth of approximately 3 feet. Further excavation will be conducted as required, based on PID readings. NECs will also be addressed in this manner. Once excavation is completed at the TCE HBRG exceedance locations and NECs, soil confirmation samples will be collected from the sidewalls and bottom of the excavation to confirm that soil exceeding the TCE HBRG, and GPL has been removed. Soil excavation will then proceed to complete the entire Project footprint.

7.2 SOIL CONFIRMATION SAMPLING PROCEDURES
One sample will be collected for at least every 200 square feet of sidewall surface area for each excavation sidewall, and one sample for every 400 square feet of excavation bottom surface area. A minimum of one sample will be collected at mid depth from each sidewall in the initial and successive excavations (should the depth of the excavation need to be extended below 3 feet). This sampling procedure will also be used for NECs that may be identified and excavated once the concrete slab is removed.

Final confirmation sampling will be conducted from the sidewalls and floor once the excavation for the Project footprint is completed to document soil VOC and PCB concentrations remaining in place. We estimate that up to 8 samples will be collected from the floor, 4 samples each from the north and south sidewalls and two samples each from the east and west sidewalls. Approximately 20 samples will be collected and analyzed from the floor and sidewalls of the Project footprint. The samples will be analyzed for VOCs by EPA Methods 5035/8260 and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8082.

Soil samples will be collected using TerracoresTM and extracted in the field in accordance with EPA Method 5035. Samples for other analyses will be collected using a trowel or similar tool and placed in laboratory provided glass jars, placed in a cooler with ice, and transported under standard chain of custody to a laboratory. Sampling personnel will use disposable gloves during sampling and will change gloves between sampling locations. Sampling tools will be decontaminated before each sample is collected. Analytical results will be compared to the soil TCE HBRG and GPL to confirm that soil containing concentrations exceeding these criteria have been excavated.

Quality assurance/quality control procedures will be performed during each sampling event, including a review of the laboratory method blanks, sample holding times, and sample collection and preservation as described in Appendix C.

17 8. Soil Management Procedures
Soil management procedures to be followed during DEMP implementation are described in this section.

A flow chart that generally illustrates the process described above is presented as Figure B-2 in Appendix B. Stockpiling and evaluating excavated soil for reuse or off-Site disposal and importing soil will be conducted as specified below to the extent practical.

8.1 STOCKPILE SAMPLING
Excavated soil may be either stockpiled and covered or placed in roll-off bins. Stockpile areas will be prepared with BMPs to minimize surface water run on and runoff, and to prevent transport of soil by surface water runoff. Stockpiles will be covered as necessary to prevent rainwater infiltration and control fugitive dust. The method of covering will be determined based on the anticipated time that the stockpiles will be in place, weather conditions, regulatory requirements, and other practical factors such as the size of the stockpiles. Soil excavated as part of the DEMP activities will also be placed on plastic sheeting with a minimum thickness of 10 mils to segregate it from the underlying ground surface.

In consultation with the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant, the General Contractor will segregate excavated soil into separate stockpiles based on field observations, PID readings, and soil analytical results. Each stockpile will be chemically tested to evaluate its disposition. Note that the disposition of stockpiled soil generated during DEMP activities will be evaluated based on chemical characterization, as described below.

Stockpiles generated during DEMP will be limited to less than 500 cubic yards. The purpose of limiting a stockpile size is to minimize the possibility of disposing of large volumes of materials as hazardous waste when only a smaller volume of soil contains chemicals above hazardous waste criteria.

8.2 ON SITE REUSE OF SOIL
PSIP Wohl does not plan soil reuse for this Project; however, in the instance that soil is reused on Site, the following procedures will be implemented. Soil removed during demolition activities may be reused on Site only if chemical testing does not indicate the presence of chemicals above Site cleanup goals.

Only discrete soil samples will be used to assess the appropriateness of on-Site reuse. Analytical testing results for soil will be compared to Site-specific HBRGs approved by the SDRWQCB and GPLs.

Discrete soil samples will be collected by the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant at the frequency set forth in the DEHQ SAM Manual as follows:
 Stockpiles less than 10 cubic yards: a minimum of two discrete samples will be collected, one from a randomly selected location from each half of the stockpile;  Stockpiles from 10 to 20 cubic yards: a minimum of three discrete samples will be collected, one from a randomly selected location from each third of the stockpile;  Stockpiles from 20 to 100 cubic yards: a minimum of four discrete samples will be collected, one from a randomly selected location from each quarter of the stockpile;  Stockpiles from 100 to 500 cubic yards: a minimum of one sample for each 25 cubic yards or portion will be collected (e.g., a 130-cubic-yard stockpile would require 6 samples). The 18 stockpile will be sectioned into 25-cubic-yard portions to obtain a minimum of one sample from a randomly selected location from each portion; and,
 For stockpiles over 500 cubic yards, the number of samples collected will be in accordance with SW-846 guidance, as ascertained by the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant (note that this DEMP recommends soil stockpiles be less than 500 cubic yards).

The analysis of discrete soil samples for reuse will include the following:
 VOCs using USEPA Methods 5035/8260B;
 PCBs using USEPA Method 8082; and
 Title 22 metals by USEPA Methods 6010/7471.

Data will be evaluated and reported to the SDRWQCB for its approval to reuse the soil on Site.

Soil designated for reuse will also meet the project specifications that may be related, but not limited, to physical properties and landscaping considerations.

8.3 OFF-SITE SOIL DISPOSAL
Soil excavated during DEMP implementation will be disposed of off Site at a permitted facility. The soil will be profiled through analytical testing. It is anticipated that analytical tests for soil samples will include
 VOCs by USEPA 8260;
 PCBs by USEPA Method 8082; and
 Title 22 metals by USEPA Methods 6010/7471
Based on existing analytical data, it is unlikely that the soil will be profiled as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
i or non-RCRA California hazardous waste. However, if it is found otherwise, additional methods and analyses will be performed as specified by the receiving landfill facility.

Specifically, leachability testing may be required as follows:
 RCRA hazardous waste criteria: the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) is conducted for soil samples with a total constituent concentration that is 20 times its respective TCLP regulatory limit appearing in Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Title 40, Part 261, Subpart C, Section 261.24.
 Non-RCRA California hazardous waste criteria: the Waste Extraction Test methodology is conducted for soil samples with a TTLC that is 10 times its respective Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration appearing in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Sections 66261.24.

Other tests to ascertain other potential hazardous characteristics may also be required. A flow chart that generally illustrates the process described above is presented as Figure B-3 in Appendix B. The frequency of sampling and the sample types (i.e., discrete or composite) will be designated by the receiving facility. Typically, the sample frequency is at least one (composite or discrete) sample per every 250 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards. Note that the facility to which soil will be disposed must be pre-approved in advance of its shipping.
19 The disposal facility for soil that is classified as non-RCRA California hazardous waste or RCRA hazardous waste will be selected by Rohr. Manifest for soil classified as hazardous waste will be signed by Rohr using Rohr’s EPA ID number. Waste manifests for non-hazardous soil that contains chemical constituents above their respective HBRGs will also be signed by Rohr or its designee.

8.4 IMPORT SOIL
Imported soil brought on to the Site, if any will meet the minimum requirements for soil sampling and analysis designated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the guidance document “Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material” ([Advisory]; DTSC, 2001) to avoid the placement of chemically impacted soil on-Site. The DTSC Advisory is included as Appendix D. The specific chemicals to be tested and the frequency of testing will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as determined by the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant. For example, soil whose origin is a quarry or a commercial horticulture entity may not require testing. The General Contractor will provide source soil documentation for the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant’s review prior to its acceptance and placement.

Environmental Consultant shall oversee all sampling and analytical testing and evaluate whether the soil meets reuse criteria. No import soil may be used on Site without the written consent of the Owner.

Supporting documentation regarding the import soil will be provided to the SDRWQCB in progress and completion reports, as described in Section 11.3. A flow chart that generally illustrates the approval process for import soil is presented as Figure B-4 in Appendix B.

8.5 DECONTAMINATION OF OFF-HAUL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING Track out of soil or other materials from the Site is prohibited, and the General Contractor will designate controlled ingress and egress locations. Soil or other materials adhered to vehicles will be removed via track-out plates or washing before exiting the Site.

Water from the cleaning processes will be collected and contained on Site. Sampling may be needed prior to disposal to comply with a sewer discharge permit. The PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant will assist the General Contractor with sampling; compliance with a sewer discharge permit will be the responsibility of the General Contractor.

20 9. Dust Control
During DEMP activities, dust control measures will be implemented to comply with the Rule 55 Fugitive Dust Rule established by the APCD and the dust action level (Section 4.3.1), respectively. The General Contractor will be responsible for dust mitigation during DEMP activities. If visible dust is observed at the perimeter of the Site boundaries, the Contractor will enhance mitigation measures to eliminate visible dust at the Site boundary. In general, dust control measures and recommended practices include:
 Applying water as needed to maintain soil moisture and minimize dust generation daily;  Covering the soil or maintaining at least 2 feet of freeboard for trucks hauling affected soil within the Site;
 Sweeping all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas, as needed;  Sweeping streets if soil is carried onto adjacent public streets;  Restricting non-essential traffic to compacted and paved roadways;  Limiting vehicle speeds to 5 miles per hour on the Site;  Minimizing drop heights while loading transportation vehicles; and  Covering exposed soil or stockpiles and securing the Site at the end of each day by locking the gates.

21 10. Water Management
Groundwater is present beneath the Project footprint at a depth greater than 10 feet. Since the excavation depth for the Project is expected to be no more than 5 feet, the water table will not be encountered during construction and no dewatering will be necessary. However, it is possible that rain water may accumulate in the excavation depending on the timing and weather conditions during construction. If accumulated water requires management during DEMP activities, a permit from the City of Chula Vista will be obtained to discharge the water to the sanitary sewer. Volume and chemical discharge limits are specified for the Industrial User Permit in City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (MC)

13.10. Alternatively, if only limited water management is needed, it may be placed in containers and profiled for off-Site treatment/disposal. The General Contractor will be responsible for complying with all applicable ordinances and permitting requirements regarding water collection, storage, management, and sampling prior to discharge. Water will not be used for dust control across the Site or over stockpiles.

22 11. Unanticipated Subsurface Conditions
It is unlikely but it is possible that unknown historical subsurface features and structures (such as underground storage tanks and concrete vaults) may be encountered in the construction footprint during DEMP activities. Whenever unanticipated conditions are encountered, the General Contractor will stop work, secure the work area, and notify PSIP Wohl and the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant of the unanticipated condition before any further action is taken. Further action may include removal or in-place abandonment of subsurface structures or characterization and appropriate handling of soil potentially affected by chemicals. The General Contractor will take no action regarding the unanticipated condition unless expressly authorized by PSIP Wohl. Work can proceed in the area upon authorization from PSIP Wohl.

PSIP Wohl or its designee will notify Rohr and the SDRWQCB of an any unanticipated condition, and activities related to the unanticipated condition will be conducted with their concurrence. In the case of an underground storage tank, PSIP Wohl will notify Rohr and DEHQ, and its removal will proceed in accordance with the permitting and procedures outlined in the SAM Manual.

23 12. Data Management and Reporting

12.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) measures will be employed throughout the sampling and analytical testing associated with the activities described in this DEMP so that representative and reliable data are generated to facilitate decision-making. Specific QA/QC measures are presented in Appendix C.

12.2 FIELD RECORDS
Daily field records will be maintained by the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant describing the activities conducted, visual and olfactory observations and field measurements, location and type of samples collected, if any, and daily calibration of field equipment. Where field observations indicate soil staining or an unanticipated condition, it will be documented on a Site map.

Sample labeling will include an identifier that designates its origin. For instance, NECs, confirmation samples and stockpile samples may be labeled according to the following conventions:

NEC-001: NECs will be numbered sequentially.

CS-001-005: Confirmation samples will be numbered sequentially, followed by the sample depth. In the example, “005” is a sample collected at a depth of 0.5 feet.

C-SP1-XX: Concrete will be designated by a “C”, followed by the stockpile number (if appropriate), followed by the sample number. The samples will be numbered sequentially.

Sample identifiers will be coordinated among the PSIP Wohl Environmental Consultant project manager and field staff prior to demolition and field activities.

12.3 REPORTING
A report will be prepared upon completion of DEMP activities. The DEMP Completion Report will include: a description of demolition activities, including a map showing the location of NECs, documentation of the disposition of concrete and soil, copies of analytical reports, chain-of-custody forms, and bills of lading/waste manifests. The DEMP Completion Report will be submitted within 90 days of the last scheduled DEMP activity.

24 13. Management of DEMP
This section discusses responsibilities for managing this DEMP and the circumstances under which this DEMP may be modified.

13.1 RESPONSIBILITIES
PSIP Wohl will make a copy of the DEMP available to its General Contractor, who will be responsible for providing this DEMP to its subcontractors engaged in subsurface work activities for the Project. The General Contractor and its subcontractors will be responsible for following the requirements appearing in this DEMP, project specifications, and job and Site safety. Each contractor engaging in the Project on Site will be required to sign a letter of acknowledgment documenting receipt and agreement to the responsibilities and requirements set forth in this DEMP (Appendix E). Copies will be maintained in the General Contractor’s files for its respective subcontractors and available to PSIP Wohl upon request.

13.2 MODIFICATIONS TO DEMP
This DEMP was developed based on Haley & Aldrich’s understanding of current conditions at the Site and applicable regulations. The DEMP may be updated if conditions are different than we currently understand.
25 14. Scope Representations, and Limitations
This DEMP was developed exclusively to address activities for the construction of a new loading dock within the northern portion of Building 29, relative to Haley & Aldrich’s understanding of Site environmental conditions, as reported in the documents included in the references section of this DEMP. This DEMP does not address issues related to other chemicals or media that may be encountered during this construction Project other than that described herein. Contractors and workers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws pertaining to the handling and disposal of these materials.

In preparing this DEMP, Haley & Aldrich has relied upon certain information and documents prepared by others. To the extent that recommendations are based in whole or in part on such information, those conclusions are contingent on its accuracy and validity. Haley & Aldrich assumes no responsibility for any consequences arising from any information or condition that was concealed, withheld, misrepresented, or otherwise not fully disclosed or available to Haley & Aldrich.

This DEMP is based on current known Site conditions and current laws, policies, and regulations. No representation is made to any present or future developer or property owner of the Site or portions of the Site with respect to future Site conditions, other than those specifically identified within this DEMP.

Haley & Aldrich disclaims any responsibility for any unintended or unauthorized use of this DEMP. Haley & Aldrich has not made any commitment to, or assumed any obligation or liability to, any present or future developer, property owner, tenant, engineer, agent, contractor, user, or other party owning or visiting the Site or portion of the Site based upon or arising out of implementation of this DEMP. It is expressly understood that while this DEMP is intended to provide guidance and establish a framework for the management of residual chemicals in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater to protect human health and the environment, this DEMP shall not create any warranties or obligations to Haley & Aldrich as to implementation, adequacy, or success of protective measures under this DEMP. 26 References

1. Adrian Brown, 1998, ASTM Phase I Site Assessment, B.F. Goodrich Aerospace, Foot of “H” Street, 4 June.

2. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2001. Information Advisory – Clean Imported Fill Material (Advisory). October.

3. GSI Environmental Inc., 2020. Limited Phase II Screening Site Investigation, Rohr, Inc. a Collins Aerospace Company, Parcel A, North Campus, 850 Lagoon Drive and 390 Bay Blvd., Chula Vista, California. September 11.

4. GSI Environmental Inc., 2022. Demolition and Soil Environmental Management Plan (Final), Parcel B – North Campus, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker global ID T10000001489.

September 29.

5. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2013, Revised Concrete Joint Compound Removal Work Plan, South Campus Property, Chula Vista, California, SDRWQCB Reference: 209294204:talo, 3 December.

6. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2016. ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Rohr Property IDs 7 and 15 (Eastern Portion), Chula Vista. July 21.

7. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2018. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Buildings 99 and 29, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker Global ID# T10000011095. January 11.

8. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2020. Data Gap Assessment Report, Rohr, Inc. – Rohr, Inc. - Parcel A, Building 29, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, SDRWQCB Code No. SMC:20- 0283.051:alot, GeoTracker ID: T0000011095. February 18.

9. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2021a. Revised Conceptual Site Model, Rohr, Inc., North Campus, Parcel A, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker ID: T10000011095. April 30.

10. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2021b. Revised Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, Rohr, Inc., North Campus, Parcel A, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker Global ID T10000011095. May 4.

11. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2021c. Revised Data Gap Investigation Work Plan, Rohr, Inc. - North Campus, Parcel A, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California. December 22.

12. Haley & Aldrich, 2022a. Updated Sitewide Conceptual Site Model, Rohr, Inc., North Campus, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker ID: T10000001489. February 25.

13. Haley & Aldrich, 2022b. Data Gap Investigation Report, Rohr, Inc. North Campus, Parcel A, Chula Vista, California, Geotracker ID No. T10000011095. June 10.

14. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2022c. Update to the Revised Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, Rohr, Inc. - North Campus, Parcel A, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California. July 8. 27 References

15. URS Corporation, 2013. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, UTAS – Chula Vista, 850 Lagoon Drive Chula Vista, California 91910. April 2.

16. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1998. Data Compilation and Evaluation Report, Rohr, Inc., Chula Vista, California. May 27.
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\Deliverables\2022_1220_HAI_ParcelA_DEMP_F.docx

FIGURES
117°6'0"W
32°39'0"N
32°37'30"N
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

SITE LOCUS
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 IN = 2,000 FT
DECEMBER 2022 FIGURE 1
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\GIS\Maps\2022_12\0206064_000_0001_SITE_LOCUS.mxd - USER: dfm - LAST SAVED: 12/19/2022 3:21:15 PM SITE
MAP SOURCE: ESRI
USGS QUAD: NATIONAL CITY, IMPERIAL BEACH
SITE COORDINATES: 32°38'03.8"N, 117°05'56.9"W

SAN DIEGO PUMPS
& COMPRESSOR
SUPPLY
368 BAY
FORMER SHALLOW SWALE (1948)
161 161
3-09596 3-09596
148 148147 147
146 146145 145
161 161
301 301
300 300

JACKSON'S

IMPORT AUTO
350-360 BAY

SAN DIEGO PUMP
& COMPRESSOR SUPPLY
364-368 BAY

MAINTENANCE

DEPARTMENT
FORMER

FORMER TRUCK

ENGINE REPAIR
100
99 29

G STREET
INTERSTATE 5

BAY BOULEVARD
FORMER

LUMBER YARD
(1948)
FORMER

AGRICULTURE - CITRUS
(1948)
VAULT (4 FEET BGS)

WESTERN DRAINAGE SWALE

SAN DIEGO & ARIZONA EASTERN RAIL ROAD
304A
304C 304C
304B 304B
304D
204 204
200 200
226 226
202 202 201 201
203 203
56702233
56701007
56702217
56702228
57133030
57133024
56702230
56702231
57133016
57133003
57133029
56702216
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 SCALE: AS SHOWN
DECEMBER 2022
0 125 250

SCALE IN FEET
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\GIS\Maps\2022_12\0206064_000_0002_HISTORICAL_ENV_SITE_FEATURES.mxd - USER: dfm - LAST SAVED: 12/19/2022 3:20:35 PM LEGEND

FORMER MILLS/LATHES

FORMER VESSELS AND VAULTS

UST (UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK)

BASED ON DEH EVALUATION OF CCR
TITLE 23. CLOSED THROUGH REMOVAL OR
FILLING.

UV (UNDERGROUND VESSEL)

AST (ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK)

PAINT BOOTH

DEGREASER

STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
VAULT (4 FEET BGS, INSTALLED IN 2000)

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL BOUNDARY AND
NUMBER

FORMER EXCAVATION AREA
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
SHALLOW SWALE (1948)

SUBJECT SITE
NOTES

1. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

2. SOURCES: ABC 1998, URS 2013, ROHR MILLS AND LATHES - EQUIPMENT MANUAL

3. THE LOCATIONS OF FORMER VESSELS AND VAULTS FROM ABC 1998 AND URS 2013.

SOME LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BASED ON SITE RECONNAISSANCE.

4. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAP, MARCH 2022

HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL

SITE FEATURES

BUILDING NUMBER
56701029
29 A@DA@ A@DA@D
A@
AD
@DA@
A@D
A@D A@D
A@D
") ")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
") ") ")
")
") ")
")
")
A@DA@ A@DA@D
A@
AD
@DA@
?!A@
?!"
?!A@
UT-24
DB-4
OW-4
OW-3
OW-1
OW-2
DB-5
DB-2
100
99 29
DGA-003
DGA-004
DGA-007
DGA-008
DGA-009
DGA-012 DGA-011
DGA-013
DGA-014 DGA-015
DGA-016
DGA-017
DGA-018
DGA-019
DGA-020 DGA-021
DGA-024 DGA-022
DGA-025
DGA-026
DGA-005
56702233
56701007
56702217
56702228
57133030
57133024
56702230
56702231
57133016
57133003
57133029
56702216
MW-A

MW-B MW-C MW-D
DB-4
OW-4
DB-2 OW-3
OW-2
NCW-021A NCW-021B
NCW-022A
NCW-022B
NCW-022C
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3 SCALE: AS SHOWN
DECEMBER 2022
0 125 250

SCALE IN FEET
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\GIS\Maps\2022_12\0206064_000_0003_SAMPLE_LOCATION_MAP.mxd - USER: dfm - LAST SAVED: 12/19/2022 3:20:43 PM LEGEND
A@ EXISTING MONITORING WELL
A@D DESTROYED MONITORING

WELL/TRANSDUCER
2022 SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SOIL

SOIL GAS
") GROUNDWATER

HISTORICAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SOIL

SOIL GAS
") GROUNDWATER
VAULT (4 FEET BGS, INSTALLED IN 2000)
TO BE RAZED AND EXCAVATED 5 FEET

BELOW GROUND SURFACE TO

CONSTRUCT LOADING DOCK

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL BOUNDARY AND
NUMBER

SUBJECT SITE
NOTES

1. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAP, MARCH 2022

SAMPLE LOCATION MAP

BUILDING NUMBER
56701029
29 !(
!(!(
B29-18
B29-17
B29-13
B29-15
B29-14
B29-11
B29-10
B29-08
B29-06
B29-04
B99-04
B99-02
B99-03
B29-03 B29-07
B29-05
B29-12
B29-19
B29-20
B29-09
B99-01
B29-02
B29-01
B29-16
B29-21
FORMER MAINT.

DEPT.

UT-22
UT-25 UT-23 UT-24
B29-02B
B29-02A B29-02C
B29-25 B29-34C
B29-34A
B29-34B
B29-30
B29-03B
B29-03A
B29-07B
B29-07A
B29-24
B29-22
B29-27
B29-31
B29-29
B29-26
B29-28
B29-23
B29-35B
B29-35C
B29-35A
B29-05B
B29-05C
B29-05A
B29-32B
B29-32A B29-32C
B29-33A
B29-33B
B29-33C
BB-24
BB-19 BB-22
BB-23 BB-20
BB-17
BB-18 BB-21

G STREET
INTERSTATE 5

BAY BOULEVARD
DGA-003
DGA-004
DGA-007
DGA-008
DGA-009
DGA-011
DGA-013
DGA-015 DGA-014
DGA-016
DGA-017
DGA-019
DGA-021
DGA-024 DGA-022
DGA-025
PW-12 PW-15
PW-11
PW-07
100
99 29
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 4 SCALE: AS SHOWN
DECEMBER 2022
0 125 250

SCALE IN FEET
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\GIS\Maps\2022_12\0206064_000_0004_SOIL_SAMPLE_EXCEED_GPL_HBRG.mxd ― USER: dfm
― LAST SAVED: 12/19/2022 3:38:51 PM
LEGEND

BORING LOCATION
!(

SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION WITH

CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN

HEALTH-BASED REMEDIATION GOALS
(CONSTRUCTION WORKER)
!(

SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION WITH

CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION LEVELS

FORMER MILLS/LATHES

FORMER VESSELS AND VAULTS

UST (UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK)

BASED ON DEH EVALUATION OF CCR
TITLE 23. CLOSED THROUGH REMOVAL OR
FILLING.

UV (UNDERGROUND VESSEL)

AST (ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK)

PAINT BOOTH

DEGREASER
TO BE RAZED AND EXCAVATED 5 FEET

BGS TO CONSTRUCT LOADING DOCK

SUBJECT SITE
NOTES

1. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

2. SOURCES: ABC 1998, URS 2013, ROHR MILLS AND LATHES - EQUIPMENT MANUAL

3. THE LOCATIONS OF FORMER VESSELS AND VAULTS FROM ABC 1998 AND URS 2013.

SOME LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BASED ON SITE RECONNAISSANCE.

4. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAP, APRIL 2022

SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH

CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN
GPLs AND HBRGs
29 BUILDING NUMBER
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
B29-V05
B29-V07
B29-V01 B29-V02
B29-V09
B29-V10
B29-V13
B29-V11 B29-V15
B29-V16
B29-V17
B29-V19
B29-V18
B29-V08
B29-V04
B29-V03*
B29-V06
B99-V01
B99-V02
B99-V05
B99-V06
B100-V02
B100-V03
B99-V03
B99-V04
B100-V01 B29-V14
B29-V12
PW-16
PW-15
PW-12 PW-11
PW-05* PW-07
PW-02*
PW-03*
PW-06
PW-01B
PW-14
PW-13
PW-10
PW-08
PW-04*
PW-09

G STREET
INTERSTATE 5

BAY BOULEVARD
DGA-003
DGA-004
DGA-007
DGA-008
DGA-009
DGA-011
DGA-013
DGA-014
DGA-015
DGA-016
DGA-017 DGA-019
DGA-021
DGA-022
100
99 29
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 5 SCALE: AS SHOWN
DECEMBER 2022
0 125 250

SCALE IN FEET
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\GIS\Maps\2022_12\0206064_000_0005_SOIL_VAPOR_SAMPLE_EXCEED_HBRG.mxd ― USER: dfm
― LAST SAVED: 12/19/2022 3:49:58 PM
LEGEND

SOIL GAS PROBE
!( SOIL GAS SAMPLE LOCATION WITH

CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN

HEALTH-BASED REMEDIATION GOALS

FORMER MILLS/LATHES

FORMER VESSELS AND VAULTS

UST (UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK)

BASED ON DEH EVALUATION OF CCR
TITLE 23. CLOSED THROUGH REMOVAL OR
FILLING.

UV (UNDERGROUND VESSEL)

AST (ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK)

PAINT BOOTH

DEGREASER
TO BE RAZED AND EXCAVATED 5 FEET

BGS TO CONSTRUCT LOADING DOCK

SUBJECT SITE
NOTES

1. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

2. SOURCES: ABC 1998, URS 2013, ROHR MILLS AND LATHES - EQUIPMENT MANUAL

3. THE LOCATIONS OF FORMER VESSELS AND VAULTS FROM ABC 1998 AND URS 2013.

SOME LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BASED ON SITE RECONNAISSANCE.

4. * = THESE SAMPLE LOCATIONS WERE NOT EVALUATED SINCE THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT IS TO BE DEMOLISHED.

5. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAP, APRIL 2022
VOCs IN SOIL GAS
COMPARED TO HBRGs
29 BUILDING NUMBER
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
") ")
") ") ") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
1000
100
10 10
10 100
B15:3.3
B12:< 1
B11:< 1
UT-25:< 1
UT-22:42
UT-23:520
UT-24:4.7
UT-18:< 1
UT-19:< 1
UT-20:< 1
UT-21:< 1
UT-66:< 1
B29-32C:< 1.00 B29-28:63.8
B29-23:1280
B29-30:5.36
B29-33C:1.52*
B29-35C:17*
B29-34C:< 1*
B29-20:< 0.5*
B29-15:2.7*
B29-16:< 1*
B29-12:0.67*
B29-04: 0.79*
B29-05: 7.9*
B29-03:750* B29-07:21
DGA-005:340
DGA-012:4.7
DGA-018:7.5
DGA-020:7.2
NCW-021A:520
29 G STREET

H STREET
INTERSTATE 5

BAY BOULEVARD
NOTES

1. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

2. ALL CONCENTRATIONS ARE IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (μg/L)

3. * = UPPER ZONE B DATA

4. < = LESS THAN LABORATORY DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN

5. TCE = TRICHLOROETHENE

6. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAP, MARCH 2022
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

TCE IN ZONE A GROUNDWATER
FIGURE 6 SCALE: AS SHOWN
DECEMBER 2022
LEGEND
") GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATION

FORMER MILLS/LATHES

FORMER VESSELS AND VAULTS

UST (UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK) BASED ON DEH
EVALUATION OF CCR TITLE 23. CLOSED THROUGH REMOVAL
OR FILLING.

UV (UNDERGROUND VESSEL)

AST (ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK)

PAINT BOOTH

DEGREASER

TRICHLOROETHENE (TCE) CONTOUR IN ZONE A
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
TO BE RAZED AND EXCAVATED 3 FEET BBELOW GROUND

SURFACE TO CONSTRUCT LOADING DOCK
VAULT (4 FEET BGS, INSTALLED IN 2000)

SUBJECT SITE
GIS FILE PATH: \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\GIS\Maps\2022_12\0206064_000_0006_EXTENT_OF_TCE_IN_GROUNDWATER.mxd ― USER: dfm ― LAST SAVED: 12/19/2022 4:00:04 PM
0 100 200

SCALE IN FEET
29 BUILDING NUMBER

APPENDIX A
Civil Drawings – Demolition Plans

CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 234-9411

1. ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE APPROVED PLANS AND APPROVED REVISIONS. ANY

CHANGES OR REVISIONS THEREFROM SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND MITIGATION MONITOR PRIOR TO ANY REQUEST FOR INSPECTION.

2. ALL GRADING SHALL BE INSPECTED AND TESTED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A QUALIFIED SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT THE EXCAVATION, AND SHALL OBSERVE AND TEST THE PLACEMENT, AND COMPACTION OF FILL AND BACKFILL AND COMPACTION OF TRENCHES; SUBMIT

GEOTECHNICAL OR SOILS REPORTS AS REQUIRED AND DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF ANY FILL MATERIAL UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL STATE THAT OBSERVATIONS

AND TESTS WERE MADE BY, OR UNDER DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER, AND THAT EMBANKMENTS AND

EXCAVATIONS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE APPROVED

GRADING PLANS, ANY APPROVED REVISIONS THERETO, SUBJECT LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ORDINANCE NO. 1797 AS AMENDED, AND THAT ALL EMBANKMENTS AND EXCAVATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR THEIR INTENDED USE.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPERLY GRADE ALL EXCAVATED SURFACES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND PREVENT PONDING OF WATER. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTROL SURFACE WATER TO AVOID DAMAGE TO

ADJOINING PROPERTIES OR TO FINISHED WORK ON THE SITE, AND SHALL TAKE REMEDIAL MEASURES TO

PREVENT EROSION OF FRESHLY GRADED AREAS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PERMANENT DRAINAGE AND EROSION

CONTROL MEASURES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE MITIGATION MONITOR.

4. ALL AREAS TO BE FILLED SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO FILLING, AND FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOILS REPORT. ALL VEGETABLE MATTER AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED, BY THE CONTRACTOR, FROM THE SURFACE UPON WHICH THE FILL IS TO BE PLACED. LOOSE FILL AND UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE REMOVED TO SUITABLE FIRM NATURAL GROUND. THE EXPOSED SOILS

SHALL BE SCARIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND THEN COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90% OF ASTM-D1557. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PLACE, SPREAD, WATER AND COMPACT THE FILL IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS.

5. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE CUT AND TRIMMED TO THE FINISHED GRADE TO PRODUCE SMOOTH SURFACES AND UNIFORM CROSS SECTIONS. THE SLOPES OF EXCAVATIONS AND EMBANKMENTS SHALL BE

SHAPED, TRIMMED, AND PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING NOTES AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER OF WORK, AND LEFT IN A NEAT AND ORDERLY CONDITION. ALL STONES, ROOTS AND OTHER

WASTE MATERIALS EXPOSED ON THE EXCAVATION OR EMBANKMENT SLOPES WHICH ARE LIABLE TO BECOME LOOSENED, SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF. THE TOE AND TOP OF ALL SLOPES SHALL BE ROUNDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 1797, THESE GRADING PLANS, AND THE STANDARD DRAWINGS GRD-01 AND GRD-02. SLOPE SETBACKS AND GRADES SHALL CONFORM TO GRD-06.

6. IF THERE ARE EROSION SCARS ON EXISTING SLOPES WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE ELIMINATED BY THE PROPOSED GRADING, THESE SCARS ARE TO BE ELIMINATED BY TRIMMING, FINE GRADING AND PLANTING. IF

THE SCARS ARE IN AREAS OF NATIVE VEGETATION, THE REPAIRS SHOULD BE PERFORMED WITH AN EFFORT TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO NATIVE VEGETATION. ALL SUCH REPAIRS IN AREAS OF NATIVE

VEGETATION SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING COORDINATOR PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE REPAIR WORK.

7. ALL TREES, BRUSH, GRASS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COLLECTED, PILED OR

OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF OFF THE SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR SO AS TO LEAVE THE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED WITH A NEAT AND FINISHED APPEARANCE FREE FROM UNSIGHTLY DEBRIS. APPROVAL OF

LOCATIONS FOR DEBRIS FILL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE DISPOSAL OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL.

8. SUBDRAIN LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE RECOMMENDED FOR ALL SIGNIFICANT FILL CANYONS. THE ACTUAL LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.

9. BY REFERENCE, HERE, THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY GEOCON INCORPORATED, ON OCTOBER 12, 2020 IS INCLUDED AS A PART OF THESE PLANS.

10. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY.

11. WHERE GRADING DOES NOT OCCUR, ALL EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. NO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL BE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL THROUGH AND DAMAGE ANY OF THESE AREAS.

ALL AREAS TO BE RETAINED IN A NATURAL CONDITION SHALL BE FENCED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE/IMPACTS TO THESE AREAS.

12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH TO THE ENGINEER OF WORK AS-BUILT PLANS FOR ALL NEW

IMPROVEMENTS AND GRADING SHOWN ON THESE PLANS FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15.04.140 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE.

13. IN THE CASE OF CONFLICTS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EARTHWORK, SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED FOR THE

PROJECT BY THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL GOVERN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PLAN AND THESE NOTES AND THESE PLANS SHALL BE REVISED ACCORDINGLY.

A. GRADING NOTES:

9. THE SOILS REPORT TITLED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY GEOCON INCORPORATED, ON OCTOBER 12, 2020 SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THIS GRADING PLAN. ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED IN SAID REPORT.

10. STORM DRAINS ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN DOES NOT

CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF SIZES, LOCATIONS, AND TYPE OF SEWER AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, OR ANY SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN FUTURE STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. SEPARATE APPROVALS AND PERMITS FOR THESE SHALL BE REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

11. WRITTEN PERMISSION SHALL BE OBTAINED FOR ANY OFF-SITE GRADING.

12. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS REQUIRED TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING GRADING OPERATIONS. ANYTHING DAMAGED OR DESTROYED SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED TO CONDITION EXISTING PRIOR TO GRADING.

13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE THAT ANY MONUMENT OR BENCH MARK WHICH IS DISTURBED

OR DESTROYED SHALL BE RE-ESTABLISHED AND REPLACED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER WHO IS

ALLOWED TO PRACTICE SURVEYING OR A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR AND A CORNER RECORD, RECORD OF SURVEY, OR CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION FILED AS REQUIRED BY THE LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT.

14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES, INCLUDING SHORING,

AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS.

15. ALL FLOWS SHOWN ARE FOR 50 -YEAR STORM, EXCEPT AS NOTED.

16. ALL SEDIMENTATION BASINS, OUTLET PIPES AND DITCHES ARE PRIVATE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AND HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR ADEQUACY BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

17. THE OWNER MUST OBTAIN AN EXCAVATION PERMIT FROM THE DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (D.O.S.H.) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRENCHES OR EXCAVATIONS WHICH ARE FIVE FEET OR DEEPER INTO WHICH A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO DESCEND. SAID PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA.

18. GRADING EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT USE OR BLOCK TRAFFIC LANES DURING GRADING ACTIVITY, TRUCK

OPERATIONS IN AND OUT OF CONSTRUCTION AND STAGING AREAS SHALL BE CONTROLLED AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT ROUTES IN AND OUT OF THE SITE, SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO START OF WORK. AT THE END OF THE WORKING DAY, STREETS SHALL BE CLEANED OF DIRT AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AND THE MITIGATION MONITOR.

19. DUST GENERATED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL COMPLY WITH LOCAL DUST CONTROL, ANY

REQUIREMENTS OF ANY MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAMS, AND UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC) REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES. DUST REDUCING

MEASURES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, REGULAR WATERING OF GRADED SURFACES AND

RESTRICTION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT TO TRAVEL ALONG ESTABLISHED AND REGULARLY WATERED ROADWAYS AT SPECIFIED SPEEDS.

C. GENERAL NOTES:

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BEGIN ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT UNTIL A PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE IS

HELD WITH THE ENGINEER OF WORK, THE SOILS ENGINEER, DEVELOPER, CONTRACTOR, OTAY WATER DISTRICT INSPECTOR, AND CITY ENGINEER.

D. PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE:

ALL FIRE HYDRANTS AND HARD SURFACE ACCESS MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS ARE DELIVERED TO THE SITE.

NAME:

ADDRESS:

PHONE NUMBER:

H. APPLICANT'S NAME:

G. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE:

IT IS AGREED THAT FIELD CONDITIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES TO THESE PLANS. IT IS FURTHER

AGREED THAT THE OWNER (DEVELOPER) SHALL HAVE THE ENGINEER OF WORK MAKE SUCH CHANGES,

ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THESE PLANS WHICH THE ENGINEER OF WORK DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE FOR THE PROPER COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS. ALL PLAN CHANGES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

L. DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE:

M. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.

P. WORK TO BE DONE:

Q. LEGEND: DWG. NO. SYMBOL

IMPORTANT NOTICE
SECTION 4215/4217 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT A DIG ALERT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BE ISSUED BEFORE A "PERMIT TO EXCAVATE" WILL BE VALID. PER YOUR DIG ALERT I.D.

NUMBER CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TOLL FREE 1-800-422-4133 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG.

B. DIG ALERT NOTICE
C1.0 - COVER SHEET
C2.0 - GENERAL NOTES
C3.0 - DETAILS
C4.0 - DEMOLITION PLAN
C5.0-C5.4 - GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS
C5.5 - SITE SECTIONS
C6.0 - STORM DRAIN PROFILES
C7.0 - EROSION CONTROL PLAN
C7.1 - EROSION CONTROL PLAN DETAILS
E. SHEET INDEX:

F. VICINITY MAP:

I FURTHER AGREE TO COMMENCE WORK ON ANY IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WITHIN EXISTING CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND

TO PURSUE SUCH WORK ACTIVELY ON EVERY NORMAL WORKING DAY UNTIL COMPLETED,

IRRESPECTIVE AND INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT OR UNDER MY CONTROL.

NAME: PSIP WOHL BAY BOULEVARD LLC
ADDRESS: 2251 SAN DIEGO AVE, SUITE A247, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 PHONE: 619-296-4113
SIGNED: DATE:

NAME: EMIL WOHL

I, MATT LOVE, A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PRINCIPALLY DOING BUSINESS IN

THE FIELD OF APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS, HEREBY VERIFY THAT A SAMPLING AND STUDY OF THE SOIL CONDITIONS PREVALENT WITHIN THIS SITE WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION ON OCTOBER 12, 2020. ONE COMPLETE

COPY OF THE SOILS REPORT COMPILED FROM THIS STUDY, WITH MY RECOMMENDATIONS, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.

THESE GRADING PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND CONFORM TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE SOILS REPORT MENTIONED ABOVE.

SIGNED: DATE:

DISCIPLINE: EXPIRATION DATE:

I. SOILS ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE:

N. CALIFORNIA COORDINATES
O. AS BUILTS
THE WORK TO BE DONE CONSISTS OF THE ITEMS INDICATED UNDER THE “LEGEND” SHOWN BELOW, AND IS TO BE DONE IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS AND THE FOLLOWING LIST OR PRINTED MATERIALS AS CURRENTLY ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

1. 2012 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ("GREENBOOK") AND 2012 REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT AMENDMENTS (TO THE GREENBOOK).

2. 2012 SAN DIEGO AREA REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS..

3. 2015 CITY OF CHULA VISTA STANDARD SPECIAL PROVISIONS (TO THE GREENBOOK).

4. 2017 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA.

5. PORTION OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DATED JULA 2010 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS.

6. PORTION OF THE STATE STANDARD PLANS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DATED JULY 2010 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS.

7. 2014 CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (“CA-MUTCD”) AND ALL SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS.

8. WATER AGENCIES STANDARDS SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER, RECYCLED WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, LATEST EDITION.

9. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY'S DESIGN STANDARDS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER FACILITIES.

ALL REFERENCES ARE TO BE MADE PART OF THESE PLANS. ANY CHANGES OR REVISIONS THEREFROM, SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, PRIOR TO ANY REQUEST FOR INSPECTION.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH TO THE ENGINEER OF WORK, AS-BUILT PLANS FOR ALL NEW IMPROVEMENTS AND

GRADING SHOWN ON THESE PLANS FOR SUBMITRAL TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15.04.140 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
J. ENGINEER OF WORK:

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SET OF PLANS (SHEET C1.0 THROUGH SHEET C6.0) HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND

CONSTRUCTED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH SAID PLANS, APPROPRIATE STANDARDS AND ANY DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL(S) FOR THE PROJECT.

SIGNED: DATE:

PRINTED NAME: P.E. NO.:

DISCIPLINE: EXPIRATION DATE:

IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING PORTIONS OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF QUARTER SECTION 163 OF RANCHO DE LA NACION, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREON NO. 166.

TOGETHER WITH PORTIONS OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 11, IN BLOCK "A" OF RE-SUBDIVISION OF BAY VILLA TRACT, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 1198, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 6, 1909.
571-330-35-00

MICHAEL KNAPTON, KIMLEY HORN
401 B STREET, SUITE 600, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
619-234-9411

SITE PLAN
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS........................................................................................................................

PROPERTY LINE.....................................................................................................................................

SAWCUT LINE.........................................................................................................................................

LIMITS OF GRADING...............................................................................................................................

PROPOSED FLOW..................................................................................................................................

GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS
SPOT GRADE..........................................................................................................................................

TRASH ENCLOSURE..........................................................PER B21-0314............................................

EROSION CONTROL PLAN
SILT FENCE.........................................................................CALTRANS SC-1.......................................

INLET PROTECTION...........................................................CALTRANS SC-10.....................................

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE......................CALTRANS TC-1.......................................

CONSTRUCTION FENCE.......................................................................................................................

UTILITY PLAN
STORM DRAIN....................................................................SDR-35 PVC............................................... 24"X24" JENSEN INLET......................................................DETAIL SHEET C6.0.................................

SEWER CLEANOUT...........................................................S.D.R.S.D. SC-1..........................................

K. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF THE

PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND WATER DISTRICT IS CONFINED TO

REVIEW ONLY AND DOES NOT RELIEVE ME AS ENGINEER OF WORK, OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE PROJECT DESIGN.

KIMLEY HORN
NAME: MICHAEL KNAPTON, R.C.E. C65627
SIGNED: DATE:

32.630907, -117.097794
NORTH

NOT TO SCALE

J STREET

I STREET

H STREET

G STREET

F STREET

BROADWAY

BAY BLVD

SAN DIEGO BAY MARINA PKWY

SAN DIEGO BAY

NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE
MICHAEL J. KNAPTON C65627
CIVIL 9/30/2023
6/17/2022
FS XX.X

CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
401 B STREET, SUITE 600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 234-9411
MAXIMUM CUT: 5.11 FEET
MAXIMUM FILL: 5.84 FEET
TOTAL CUT/FILL: 2,579 CY CUT 1,114 CY FILL
TOTAL EXPORT: 1,464 CY
AREA TO BE GRADED: 3.82 ACRES
IMPORT:

GRADING QUANTITIES ARE ESTIMATED FOR BONDING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT BE USED FOR

FINAL PAYMENT QUANTITIES
THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ABOVE ARE FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT

AUTHORIZED TO USE THE ESTIMATES HEREIN FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES WITHOUT THE EXPLICIT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. NO REPRESENTATIONS OF SUCH QUANTITIES OR A BALANCED SITE CONDITION ARE MADE BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.

UNLESS EXPLICITLY STATED OTHERWISE HEREIN, THE ABOVE QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE, IN PLACE VOLUMES CALCULATED FROM THE EXISTING GROUND TO THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE. EXISTING GROUND IS DEFINED BY THE CONTOURS AND SPOT GRADES ON THE BASE SURVEY. PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE IS

DEFINED AS THE FINAL GRADE AS INDICATED ON THE GRADING PLAN(S) AS FINISHED GROUND, FINISHED SURFACE, AND FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS.

UNLESS EXPLICITLY STATED OTHERWISE HEREIN, THE ABOVE GRADING QUANTITIES HAVE NOT BEEN FACTORED

TO ACCOUNT FOR CHANGES IN VOLUME DUE TO BULKING, CLEARING AND GRUBBING, SHRINKAGE, SUBSIDENCE, OVER-EXCAVATION AND RE-COMPACTION, AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS. NOR DO THEY

ACCOUNT FOR THE THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT SECTIONS, STORMWATER QUALITY MEDIA SECTIONS, UTILITY

PIPES, TRENCHING AND BEDDING MATERIALS, BUILDING OR WALL FOOTINGS, BUILDING SLAB THICKNESSES

AND UNDERLYING BASE OR SAND LAYERS, REUSE OF PULVERIZED MATERIALS THAT WILL UNDERLIE NEW PAVEMENTS, ETC.

ANY OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION DEPTHS AND VOLUMES, SHRINKAGE FACTORS, PAVEMENT

SECTIONS, BUILDING PAD SECTIONS, AND BULKING FACTORS ARE BASED ON A SEPARATE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ANY BUILDING SLAB THICKNESSES ARE BASED ON THE SEPARATE BUILDING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PLANS. ANY UTILITY, STORMWATER MITIGATION, AND FOOTING SPOILS ARE BASED ON ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR.

S. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES:

T. NOTIFICATIONS:

1. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES AND STRUCTURES SHOWN ON

THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE RECORD, TO THE BEST OF OUR

KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING UTILITIES EXCEPT AS SHOWN HEREON, HOWEVER, THE

CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT ANY EXISTING UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES LOCATED AT THE WORK SITE. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (PHONE 1-800-422-4133) TWO (2) WORKING DAYS IN

ADVANCE OF ANY EXCAVATION FOR THE MARK OUT OF THE LOCATION OF UTILITIES AND NOTIFICATION OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.

FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MARK OUT OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD CONTACT THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANY:

STREET LIGHT OR SIGNAL LIGHT CONDUIT CITY OF CHULA VISTA (619) 397-6163

SEWER OR STORM DRAIN CITY OF CHULA VISTA
VERIFICATION (619) 691-5024
NOTIFICATION (619) 397-6000
GAS & ELECTRIC SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1-800-227-2600 (619) 230-7800
CITY OF SAN DIEGO PUD WATER (619) 446-5200
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY (619) 420-1413
TELEPHONE PACIFIC BELL (619) 266-4683
TELEVISION COX CABLE OF SAN DIEGO/CHULA VISTA CABLE (619) 263-9251 (619) 476-0177
ULTRONICS & WORLDWIDE SATELLITE (619) 422-0776

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE (PHONE 619- 585-5737) AND THE MITIGATION MONITOR AT THE PLANNING DIVISION (PHONE 619- 691-5101) 48 HOURS (2 WORKING DAYS) PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE 24 HOURS (ONE WORKING DAY) NOTICE ON CALLS FOR INSPECTION.

PHONE: (619) 397-6128.

4. ALL WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF INSPECTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION AND REMOVAL AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.

R. TOPOGRAPHICAL SOURCE:

U. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
W. RCP STORM DRAIN BEVELING NOTES:

X. SPECIAL NOTES:

V. LANDSCAPE NOTES: Y. EROSION CONTROL NOTES:

SYSTEM (NPDES) STATEMENT:

DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) WQ ORDER NO. 2012-006-DWQ, WASTE DISCHARGE

REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGES OF STORM WATER RUNOFF ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PERMIT, A STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) AND A MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN SHALL BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED CONCURRENT WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING ACTIVITIES. THE SWPPP SHALL SPECIFY BOTH

CONSTRUCTION AND POST-CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES. THE SWPPP SHALL ALSO ADDRESS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POST-CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTIONS MEASURES. INCLUDING SHORT-TERM AND

LONG-TERM FUNDING SOURCES AND THE PARTY OR PARTIES THAT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID MEASURES.

A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE NOTICE-OF-INTENT (NOI) WILL BE FILLED WITH THE SWRCB, A COPY OF

THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM THE SWRCB THAT A NOI HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEN RECEIVED; FURTHER, A COPY OF THE

COMPLETED NOI FROM THE SWRCB SHOWING THE PERMIT NUMBER FOR THIS PROJECT BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEN RECEIVED.

IN ADDITION, THE UNDERSIGNED AND SUBSEQUENT OWNER(S) OF ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THIS GRADING PERMIT NO. XXXXX AND XXXXX SHALL COMPLY WITH SPECIAL

PROVISIONS REGARDING THE REVOCATION OR CANCELLATION OF NPDES GENERAL PERMIT COVERAGE, AS SET FORTH IN SWRCB ORDER NO. CAS000002, AND ANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THERETO AND REISSUANCES THEREOF.

RESPONSIBLE PARTY:

SIGNATURE OF LAND OWNER, CORPORATE OFFICE,
GENERAL PARTNER OR PROPRIETOR:

DATE:

TITLE:

PERMIT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: WDID# X XXXXXXXX

1. ALL SLOPES 3 FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT AND GREATER SHALL BE PLANTED AND IRRIGATED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PLANS CONFORMING TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA LANDSCAPE MANUAL (MOST RECENT EDITION), GRADING ORDINANCE NO. 1797, THE WATER

CONSERVATION ORDINANCE, AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY HANDBOOK FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION. WHENEVER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS CONFLICT ON ANY MATTER, THE DIRECTOR OF

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR DESIGNEE SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SPECIAL CONDITION OR CODE SHALL GOVERN. PLANS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR DESIGNEE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING PERMITS.

2. FINISH GRADING AND PLANTING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED ON ALL SLOPES PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1 OR IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF ANY SLOPES GRADED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND APRIL 1, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY'S DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

3. PRIOR TO GRADING, CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO DETERMINE WHICH ARE OPERABLE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THESE PLANS, ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ARE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE AND REMAIN OPERABLE. CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TWO (2) WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF ANY WORK.

CITY LANDSCAPING COORDINATION CONTACTS:

PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND OPEN SPACE – DAVE DEFACCI, SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR (619-409-5432) PARKS – HUGO MARTINEZ, PARKS MANAGER, (619-397-6145).

1. WHERE RADIUS=90 FEET TO 45 FEET, USE 8-FOOT LENGTH OF PIPE BEVELED ONE END.

2. WHERE RADIUS CURVE= 45 FEET TO 22 ½ FEET, USE 8- FOOT LENGTH OF PIPE BEVELED BOTH ENDS.

3. WHERE RADIUS CURVE=22 ½ FEET, USE 4-FOOT LENGTH OF PIPE BEVELED BOTH ENDS.

4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE LAYOUT SHEET OF BEVELED PIPE PRIOR TO BEGINNING INSTALLATION.

1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON AND BALANCING THE EARTHWORK ONSITE. IF DISCREPANCIES ARISE, THE ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL PROVIDE AREAS OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR. WHERE TRENCHES ARE WITHIN EASEMENTS, STREETS, OR 10' OF ANY BUILDING, SOILS REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE

ENGINEER OF WORK BY A QUALIFIED SOILS ENGINEER WHICH INDICATE THAT THE TRENCH

BACKFILL WAS COMPACTED UNDER THE OBSERVATION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE OT INSURE THAT ALL SLOPES ARE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS. IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION REGARDING THESE PLANS OR

FIELD STAKES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST AN INTERPRETATION BEFORE DOING ANY WORK BY CALLING THE ENGINEER AT (619) 234-9411. 3. THE PALEONTOLOGICAL MONITOR SHALL BE PRESENT DURING THE GRADING OF THE PLIOCENE SAN DIEGO FORMATION (TSD) ON THE SITE. THE MONITOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TEMPORARY DIRECT, DIVERT, OR HALT GRADING TO ALLOW RECOVERY OF FOSSIL REMAINS.

4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNCOVER ALL UTILITIES THAT MAYBE JOINED, CROSSED, OR PARALLELED TO VERIFY BOTH HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. ANY

CONFLICT OR DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ENGINEER'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO

CONSTRUCTION, OTHERWISE THE CONTRACTOR ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OR RELOCATION COSTS.

5. ALL FILL AREAS, WHICH ARE FENCED, SHALL REMAIN FENCED. TEMPORARY AND/OR FINAL FENCING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.

6. ALL APPROVED GEOTEXTILE ENGINEERING FABRIC SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS.

7. A 6” MINIMUM THICKNESS BEDDING BLANKET UNDERDRAIN BY A LAYER OF GEOTEXTILE (MIRAFI 700X OR EQUIVALENT) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BENEATH ALL RIP RAP. THE BEDDING BLANKET SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS:
a)FRACTION PASSING THE NO. 3/8 IN. STANDARD SIEVE SHALL BE 100% BY WEIGHT. b) ANY SOURCE OF ON-SITE MATERIAL DEEMED SUITABLE BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.

8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING, MAINTAINING, RELOCATING, AND OR REMOVAL OF EXISTING UTILITIES.

9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ALL DESTROYED OR DAMAGED SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS WITH IMPROVEMENTS EQUAL OR SUPERIOR.

10. ALL CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS SHOW HEREON REPRESENT FINISH GRADE. CONTRACTOR

SHALL MAKE THE APPROPRIATE ALLOWANCES FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE, PAD UNDERCUT, AND UTILITY TRENCHING.

11. THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE

WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA.

1. THE EROSION CONTROL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION AND MODIFICATION OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. THE

CONTRACTOR, PERMITTEE OR OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTINUAL MAINTENANCE OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. IN THE EVENT O

FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN SAID DEVICES, THE CITY ENGINEER OR MITIGATION

MONITOR MAY CAUSE EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE WORK TO BE DONE TO PROTECT ADJACENT

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY, THE COST (INCLUDING AN INITIAL MOBILIZATION AMOUNT) OF WHICH SHALL BE CHARGED TO THE OWNER.

2. SEDIMENTATION BASINS MAY NOT BE REMOVED OR MADE INOPERATIVE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND MITIGATION MONITOR.

3. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES, WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE WORK, SHALL BE

RELOCATED OR MODIFIED AS THE WORK PROGRESSES, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ENGINEER OF WORK AND AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND MITIGATION MONITOR.

4. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTION DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE 5-DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS 40 PERCENT. AFTER EACH RAINSTORM EXCEEDING 1/4 INCH IN A 12-HOUR PERIOD, SILT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED

FROM CHECK DAMS AND DESILTING BASINS AND BASINS SHALL BE PUMPED DRY AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND MITIGATION MONITOR.

5. EFFECTIVE PLANTING SHALL BE INSTALLED, FULLY GERMINATED, AND SHALL EFFECTIVELY COVER THE REQUIRED SLOPES PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. THE PLANTING MIX SHALL BE APPROVED, BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR DESIGNEE, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL SLOPES THREE FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT OR GREATER.

6. A 12 INCH HIGH BY 3 FEET WIDE BERM SHALL BE MAINTAINED ALONG THE TOP OF THE SLOPE OF THOSE FILLS ON WHICH GRADING IS NOT IN PROGRESS. CONCENTRATED WATER SHALL NOT BE CARRIED CLOSER THAN 10 FEET FROM THE TOP OF SLOPES.

7. SILT BASINS, TRAPS,, OR SANDBAGS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EVERY STORM DRAIN INLET TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.

8. FOR INLETS LOCATED AT SUMPS ADJACENT TO TOP OF SLOPE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT WATER DRAINING TO THE SUMPS IS DIRECTED INTO THE INLET, AND THAT A MINIMUM OF 1.00' FREEBOARD EXISTS AND IS MAINTAINED ABOVE THE TOP OF THE INLET. IF FREEBOARD IS NOT .

PROVIDED BY GRADING SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE IT VIA TEMPORARY MEASURES, I.E. SANDBAGS OR DIKES.

9. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANUP OF SILT AND MUD ON ADJACENT STREETS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND MAINTAIN LINED AND UNLINED DITCHES AFTER EACH RAINFALL.

11. HYDROSEED NOTES (APPLICABLE ONLY IF THERE WILL BE SLOPES THREE FEET IN VERTICAL

HEIGHT OR GREATER)
A. ALL SLOPES 3 FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT OR GREATER AND PADS STEEPER THAN 2% SHALL

BE HYDROSEEDED WITH THE FOLLOWING IRRIGATED SEED MIX, MULCH AND BINDING AGENT:

HYDROSEED NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT.

B. IRRIGATION METHODS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL AREAS HYDROSEEDED BETWEEN MARCH 1ST AND NOVEMBER 1ST AS NEEDED. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HYDROSEED APPLICATION, AND FOR A PERIOD OF TIME OF NO LESS THAN 90 DAYS, ADEQUATE SOIL MOISTURE SHALL

BE MAINTAINED IN THE UPPER ONE-HALF INCH OF SOIL TO ASSURE MAXIMUM RATES OF SEED GERMINATION AND PLANT ESTABLISHMENT. IRRIGATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED BEYOND THE 90 DAYS WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS, OPEN SPACE SECTION.

C. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR AREAS HYDROSEEDED ON (OR WITHIN ONE WEEK OF) NOVEMBER 1ST; HOWEVER, TEMPORARY WATERING (BY HAND OR TRUCK) IS REQUIRED UNTIL PLANTING IS ESTABLISHED IF RAINFALL IS NOT PRESENT.

KIMLEY HORN ON 06/09/2020.

EMIL WOHL - PSIP WOHL BAY BOULEVARD, LLC
OWNER
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 ALL STORM DRAIN, SEWER, AND WATER WITHIN PROPERTY (619) 234-9411 BOUNDARIES ARE PRIVATE. PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIED ON PLAN AS NOTED. NOTE: TYPICAL MODULAR WETLANDS BIOFILTRATION SYSTEMS

G G G G G G G G G S S OH OH UGE OHOH OH OH UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE

UGE UGE O O O OUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE
UGE G S S S > > > > > > > > > > OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH F F W F W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 15 15 15 15 15
15 15 15 15 20 15 20 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 18 18 19 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 15 16 16 17 16 18 18
18 17
16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 15 15 15 15 15
15 15 15 15 20 15 20 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 18 18 19 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 15 16 16 17 16 18 18
18 17
16 G G G G G G G G G S S OH OH UGE OHOH OH OH UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE

UGE UGE O O O OUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE
UGE G S S S > > > > > > > > > > OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH F F W F W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

G STREET

BAY BLVD
H STREET INTERSTATE 5

10.0'

48.0'

39.0'

19.5' 19.5'
Z
Z
Z

Z Z Z Z Z
Z
ZZ
Z
Z
ZZ
ZZ Z Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z Z
ZZ
ZZ
Z
Z
Z
Z Z Z
Z Z
Z
Z
Z
ZZ
Z
Z
Z Z
Z Z ZZ
Z Z Z
Z
Z Z
Z
Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z
Z
Z
Z Z Z
Z
Z

Z Z Z Z Z
Z Z
Z ROW DEDICATION EX. 12" ACP WATER PER DWG 90-218 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 3 2 11 9 12 14 4 4 77 7 4 6 10 8 11 14 15 14 14 8 11 8 8 8 10 7 7 7 7 7 8 10 4 4 4 5 10 10 1013 13 14 7 10 8 7 16 7 16 4 11 1115 17 15 15 14 16 LIMITS OF BUILDING DEMO 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 14 13 5 5 5 5 EX. INTERIOR LOT LINES TO BE MERGED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT (TYP.) EX. INTERIOR LOT LINES TO BE MERGED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT (TYP.) EX. BUILDING 17 17 17 17 17 APN: 571-330-24 P/L APN: 571-330-16 APN: 571-330-24 APN: 571-330-16 P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L TYP. TYP. TYP. 15 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 PROTECTION NOTES DEMOLITION NOTES LEGEND NORTH 12345678910111213 1234567891011121314151617

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X G G G G G G G G G S S UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE S S S S

OH OH OH OH
OH
OH
W
W

W W W W W W W W W W W
15 16
17 20
G STREET INTERSTATE 5 ROW ROW
ROW BAY BLVD FS 18.95 TC 18.76 TC 18.84 TC 19.41 TC 19.51 TC 20.19 TC 20.63
TC 19.49
TC 19.23
TC 18.20 EX. SWEETWATER AUTHORITY 12" ACP WATER PER DWG 90-218 EX. 27" PVC SEWER PER DWG 02148-02 TC 20.50
TC 20.12
TC 20.09 TC 19.45 TC 19.41 TC 19.38 TC 19.35 TC 18.68 TC 18.62 TC 18.58 TC 18.57 TC 19.53
TC 19.35
TC 19.31
TC 19.33
TC 18.42
TC 18.50
TC 18.47
TC 18.66
TC 17.73
TC 17.10
TC 17.27
TC 17.25
TC 17.36 FS 15.17 TC 16.06 FS 14.97
TC 16.46

ROW ROW
ROW FS 14.91 4 5 1 2 6 C
C5.5 11 4 4 1 13 5 2 3 6 FS (18.77) FS (18.23) FS (18.28) FS (18.21) FS (18.32) FS (18.40) FS (18.67) FS (18.30) FS (18.51) FS (18.52) TG 14.95FS 14.79 FS (19.01) C/L C/L FS 14.65 FS 14.67 FS 17.49 FS 17.36 6FS 18.97 6 0.31% 0.31% FS 20.75 FS 18.33 FS 16.50 FG 20.37 TW 20.87 FG 20.76 TW 21.26 FG 19.63 TW 20.13 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 LEGEND NORTH MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.3 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.1 HATCH LEGEND CONSTRUCTION NOTES EXISTING EASEMENTS PROTECTION NOTES FS 16.30 1. FOR 6" CURB, TOP OF PAVEMENT (TP) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. FOR 6" CURB AND GUTTER, FLOW LINE (FL) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5', UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ALL STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE HDPE N-12 SOIL TIGHT PIPE BY A.D.S. OR APPROVED EQUAL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 4. ALL STORM DRAIN FITTINGS SHALL BE DUAL WALL AND SOIL TIGHT. 5. TOP OF WALL (TW) = TOP OF RETAINED HEIGHT. DOES NOT INCLUDE PARAPET HEIGHT. 6. REFERENCE SHEET C6.0 FOR STORM DRAIN PROFILES. 7. RETAINING WALLS TO BE DESIGNED AND PERMITTED PER SEPARATE BUILDING PLAN AND PERMIT. 8. WATER, FIRE, AND SEWER ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 9. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN. NOTES 1234561361112456 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE W W W W W W W W W BAY BLVD ROW FF (17.09) EX. 12" ACP WATER PER DWG 90-218 17 18 19 17 18 19 18 19 19 1718 EX. BUILDING LINE GRANDFATHERED FROM CURRENT SETBACKSROW 4 ROW 4 DC5.5 1 2 1 4 3 6 9 5 C/L CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 NORTH MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.4 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.2
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.0 LEGEND HATCH LEGEND FS 16.30 NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES PROTECTION NOTES EXISTING EASEMENTS 1. FOR 6" CURB, TOP OF PAVEMENT (TP) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. FOR 6" CURB AND GUTTER, FLOW LINE (FL) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5', UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ALL STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE HDPE N-12 SOIL TIGHT PIPE BY A.D.S. OR APPROVED EQUAL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 4. ALL STORM DRAIN FITTINGS SHALL BE DUAL WALL AND SOIL TIGHT. 5. TOP OF WALL (TW) = TOP OF RETAINED HEIGHT. DOES NOT INCLUDE PARAPET HEIGHT. 6. REFERENCE SHEET C6.0 FOR STORM DRAIN PROFILES. 7. RETAINING WALLS TO BE DESIGNED AND PERMITTED PER SEPARATE BUILDING PLAN AND PERMIT. 8. WATER, FIRE, AND SEWER ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 9. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN. 51234694

X X X X X X X X X X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Z Z
ZZZ
Z
Z

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Z
Z
ZZ
Z
Z Z
Z
ZZZZ
Z Z
Z Z
ZZZZ Z

ZZZ Z Z Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z Z Z
ZZ
ZZZ
ZZ
ZZ
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z Z
Z

Z Z Z Z Z
Z
Z
Z
Z Z Z
Z
Z Z
ZZZ
Z Z
Z
Z Z Z
Z
Z
Z

Z Z Z Z Z
Z
ZZZ

Z Z Z Z Z Z
Z Z

Z Z Z Z
Z Z
Z

Z Z Z Z
Z Z Z
Z
Z Z Z
Z Z
Z

Z Z Z Z Z
ZZ
Z
Z Z
Z

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Z

Z Z ZZ Z

Z X X G G G G S S S S OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH UGE UGE UGE UGE

UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE

UGE UGE

UGE G G G OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH W W W
W S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W WS S S S S S S 1314 15 16 H STREET F F F 2018 19
21 14 B
C5.5 5 52 BAY BLVD 6 8 12 13 3 EX. 16" WSP WATER PER DWG 1588 EX. BUILDING LINE

GRANDFATHERED FROM
CURRENT SETBACKS4 10 13 14 15 16 16 17 P/L ROW
ROW
ROW APN: 571-330-24 APN: 571-330-16 S D & A E RR 9 ROW 19 16 16
16 TC 13.24 TC 14.47 TC 15.99 TC 16.94 FF 17.09 TC 14.70 TC 14.33 TC 14.29 TC 14.31 TC 14.88
TC 15.05
TC 15.03 TC 15.01 TC 14.87 TC 14.88 TC 14.87 TC 14.87
TC 14.97 TC 14.90 TC 14.94
TC 14.86 TC 14.10 TC 14.04
TC 14.29
TC 14.05
TC 14.04
TC 14.25
TC 14.27
TC 14.23 TC 13.74 TC 13.76 TC 13.68 TC 13.79
TC 13.89 TC 13.88 TC 13.89 TC 14.01 TC 13.66 TC 13.60 TC 13.30 TC 13.25 TC 14.34 TC 14.24 TC 14.29 TC 14.64 TC 14.99 TC 15.13 TC 15.36 TC 15.45 TC 15.50 TC 15.52 TC 15.28 TC 16.14 TC 15.85 TC 16.17 TC 16.23 TC 16.28 TC 16.34 TC 16.43 TC 16.71 TC 16.79 TC 16.79 TC 16.82 TC 16.46 TC 15.50 TC 15.47 TC 15.48 TC 15.53 TC 15.58 TC 15.48 TC 15.50 TC 15.55 TC 15.63
TC 15.60 TC 15.61
TC 15.65 TC 16.00 TC 16.02 TC 16.01 TC 16.03 TC 16.05 TC 16.06 TC 16.05 TC 16.04 TC 16.03 TC 16.01 TC 15.93 TC 16.20
TC 16.19TC 16.18 TC 16.17 TC 16.30
TC 16.43
TC 16.35
TC 16.40
TC 16.55
TC 16.47
TC 16.40 TC 16.31 TC 16.27 TC 16.27
TC 16.29 TC 16.33 TC 16.35 TC 16.39 TC 16.39
TC 15.88 TC 14.51
TC 14.54
TC 14.56
TC 14.60 TC 14.61
TC 15.83
TC 15.79
TC 15.85
TC 15.87
TC 15.86
TC 15.84
TC 15.80
TC 15.93
TC 15.93
TC 15.91
TC 15.90 TC 15.87
TC 16.27
TC 16.35
TC 16.48
TC 16.47
TC 16.33 TC 16.40
TC 16.39
TC 16.41
TC 16.37
TC 16.39 TC 14.92 TC 14.61
TC 14.61
TC 14.60
TC 14.63
TC 14.65
TC 14.68
TC 14.77
TC 14.71
TC 14.80
TC 14.83
TC 15.90
TC 15.93
TC 15.87
TC 15.84
TC 15.92
TC 15.81
TC 15.81
TC 15.80
TC 15.73
TC 15.82
TC 15.82
TC 15.94
TC 15.96
TC 16.00
TC 15.98
TC 15.90
TC 15.92
TC 15.85
TC 15.87
TC 15.92
TC 15.89
TC 15.87 TC 14.60
TC 14.53
TC 14.56
TC 14.57
TC 14.58
TC 14.52 TC 14.24
TC 14.30
TC 14.31
TC 14.32
TC 14.34
TC 14.35
TC 14.36 TC 14.38
TC 14.41
TC 14.45
TC 14.50
TC 14.48
TC 14.50
TC 16.43 TC 13.84 TC 16.61 TC 16.62 FL 13.83 FS 16.59 FS 16.55 FS (16.99) FS (16.83) TC 17.09 TC 16.79 FS (16.04)
FS (15.91)
FS (15.96)
FS (15.85)
FS (15.88)
FS (15.91) FS (15.92)
FS (15.74)
FS (15.65) FS (15.41)
FS (15.76)
FS (15.83)
FS (15.14) FS (14.87)
FS (14.88) FS (14.63)
FS (14.34)
FS (14.55)
FS (13.73)
FS (13.52) FS (13.54)
FS (13.70)
FS (13.61)
FS (14.08)
FS (14.58)
FS (14.60) FS (14.60)
FS (14.58)
FS (15.07)
FS (15.06)
FS (15.32)
FS (15.20)
FS (15.28)
FS (15.23)
FS (14.98)
FS (14.91)
FS (15.52) FS (15.55)
FS (15.55)
FS (15.60)
FS (13.40) FS (13.41)
FS (13.44) FS (13.51)
FS (13.64)
FS (14.22)
FS (14.30)
FS (14.26)
FS (14.17)
FS (13.78)
FS (13.77)
FS (13.61) FS (15.87)
FS (15.76) FS (15.76)
FS (15.69) FS (15.57)
FS (15.46)
FS (15.50)
FS (15.46)
FS (15.46) FS (15.49)
FS (15.65)
FS (15.18) 12 21 11 SEE DETAIL A FS (13.62) FL 13.89 FL 9.81 FL 13.14 FL 9.21 FL 8.08 FL 9.75 6 7 P/L 22 FL 14.42 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z G G S S 3 TC 15.79 TC 14.94TC 16.65 TC 14.66 TC 14.28 TC 14.50 TC 14.98 TC 14.58 TC 16.41 TC 16.35 TC 16.41 TC 16.19 TC 15.72 TC 16.04 TC 16.04 TC 16.19 TC 16.52 TC 16.52 TC 15.15 TC 16.68 TW 16.42 BW 16.35 TW 16.65 BW 16.35 BW 15.48 TW 16.31 BW 15.48 TW 16.31 TW 16.31 BW 16.31 BW 16.31 TW 16.48 BW 15.03 TW 16.36 TC 17.06 TC 16.22 BW 14.49 TW 16.18 BW 15.00 TW 16.57 FS 16.36 FS 16.50 FS 16.17 FS 16.43 FS 16.00 FS 16.04 FS 16.12 FS 16.15 FS 16.26 FS 16.27 FS (15.14) FS 15.89 FS 15.84 FS 15.64 FS 15.57 FS 15.33 STORM PIPE TABLE XX67 BEARING S17° 55' 00"E S17° 55' 00"E LENGTH 113.12 5.11 SIZE 10" HDPE 12" HDPE Slope 1.00% 1.00% CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 NORTH MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.1 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.4 CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION NOTES PROTECTION NOTES DETAIL A NOTES 1. FOR 6" CURB, TOP OF PAVEMENT (TP) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. FOR 6" CURB AND GUTTER, FLOW LINE (FL) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5', UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ALL STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE HDPE N-12 SOIL TIGHT PIPE BY A.D.S. OR APPROVED EQUAL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 4. ALL STORM DRAIN FITTINGS SHALL BE DUAL WALL AND SOIL TIGHT. 5. TOP OF WALL (TW) = TOP OF RETAINED HEIGHT. DOES NOT INCLUDE PARAPET HEIGHT. 6. REFERENCE SHEET C6.0 FOR STORM DRAIN PROFILES. 7. RETAINING WALLS TO BE DESIGNED AND PERMITTED PER SEPARATE BUILDING PLAN AND PERMIT. 8. WATER, FIRE, AND SEWER ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 9. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN. LEGEND HATCH LEGEND FS 16.30 235681213491011121314151617192122491011121314151617192122

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X G G G G G G G G G G G G S S S S S S UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE S S S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OHOH OH
OH

OH OH OH OH W F F F W W W W W
UGE
UGE
UGE F F S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 15 16
17 16 16
17 APN: 571-330-16 APN: 571-330-24 P/L P/L
ROW
ROW F F F 7
20 18
19 15
15 15
15 16 161617 15
16 15
15 15
14 17 18 17 20 17 1819 TYP. S D & A E RR 1 2 5 4 3 EC5.5 11 12 2 13 13 13 6 7 13 FL 6.06 FL 6.06 FL 6.06 FL 6.55 FL 7.11 FL 7.32 FL 9.32 FL 9.57 CONNECT TO EX. PUBLIC 12" AC WATER 4 4 4 8 4 5 3 9 CONNECT TO EX. PUBLIC 12" AC WATER 9 10 8 7 19 18 20 12 12 6 17 21 12 UTILITY XING FIRE FL 11.63 STRM TP 10.24 TC 18.22 FS 18.21 FF 18.25 TC 16.86 TC 17.43 TC 14.61 TC 14.64 TC 15.55 TC 16.05 TC 15.94 TC 15.98 TC 15.99 TC 15.04 TC 15.09 TC 16.33 TC 16.20 TC 16.36 TC 17.32TC 16.91 TC 16.95 TC 17.85 TC 17.76 TC 17.73 TC (18.07) TC 17.79 TC 16.45TC 16.06 TC 15.67 TC 15.78 TC 14.62
TC 14.62
TC 14.63
TC 14.63 TC 15.02 TC 15.03 TC 15.04 TC 15.05 TC 15.98 TC 15.99 TC 15.98 TC 15.99 TC 15.94
TC 15.94 TC 15.94 TC 15.94 TG 14.29 TC (17.71) TC (16.83) TC 16.48 TC (16.49)TG ??? FS 14.37 FS 15.18 FS 15.02 FS 14.35 FL 14.53 FL 15.95 STORM PIPE TABLE XX12345 BEARING N17° 54' 59"W S72° 04' 47"W S17° 55' 01"E S17° 55' 01"E S17° 55' 01"E LENGTH 50.51 154.09 5.64 98.09 4.51 SIZE 42" HDPE 42" HDPE 8" HDPE 42" HDPE 12" HDPE Slope 0.50% 0.50% 10.00% 0.50% 0.00% CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 NORTH MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.0 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.4 LEGEND HATCH LEGEND FS 16.30 CONSTRUCTION NOTES PROTECTION NOTES EXISTING EASEMENTS 78910 267111213 3456789121718192021 1. FOR 6" CURB, TOP OF PAVEMENT (TP) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. FOR 6" CURB AND GUTTER, FLOW LINE (FL) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5', UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ALL STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE HDPE N-12 SOIL TIGHT PIPE BY A.D.S. OR APPROVED EQUAL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 4. ALL STORM DRAIN FITTINGS SHALL BE DUAL WALL AND SOIL TIGHT. 5. TOP OF WALL (TW) = TOP OF RETAINED HEIGHT. DOES NOT INCLUDE PARAPET HEIGHT. 6. REFERENCE SHEET C6.0 FOR STORM DRAIN PROFILES. 7. RETAINING WALLS TO BE DESIGNED AND PERMITTED PER SEPARATE BUILDING PLAN AND PERMIT. 8. WATER, FIRE, AND SEWER ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 9. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN. NOTES

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S S UGE UGE UGE OHOH UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH F F F F F F UGE UGE G G S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 16 16 APN: 571-330-16 APN: 571-330-24 AC5.5 4 4 4 4 13 12 11 2 10 2 3 6 8 13 10 TYP. 7 TYP. 13 12 TC 15.72 TC 15.64 TC 15.32 TC 15.28 TC 15.60 TC 15.74 TC 15.61 TC 15.60 TC 14.57 TC 15.37 TC 15.14 TC 15.67 TC 15.68 TC 15.68 TC 15.69 TC 15.29 TC 15.30 TC 15.30 TC 15.30 TC 15.63 TC 15.62 TC 15.63 TC 15.62 TC 15.60 TC 15.60 TC 15.60 TC 15.60 TC 15.21 TC 15.23 TC 15.29 TC 15.31 TC 14.54 TC 14.52 TC 14.56
TC 14.79 TC 14.45 FL 15.50 FL 14.87 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 NORTH MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.3 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.1 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C5.2 CONSTRUCTION NOTES PROTECTION NOTES EXISTING EASEMENTS LEGEND HATCH LEGEND FS 16.30 1. FOR 6" CURB, TOP OF PAVEMENT (TP) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. FOR 6" CURB AND GUTTER, FLOW LINE (FL) = TOP OF CURB (TC) -0.5', UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ALL STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE HDPE N-12 SOIL TIGHT PIPE BY A.D.S. OR APPROVED EQUAL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 4. ALL STORM DRAIN FITTINGS SHALL BE DUAL WALL AND SOIL TIGHT. 5. TOP OF WALL (TW) = TOP OF RETAINED HEIGHT. DOES NOT INCLUDE PARAPET HEIGHT. 6. REFERENCE SHEET C6.0 FOR STORM DRAIN PROFILES. 7. RETAINING WALLS TO BE DESIGNED AND PERMITTED PER SEPARATE BUILDING PLAN AND PERMIT. 8. WATER, FIRE, AND SEWER ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 9. REFER TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN. NOTES 121323678101112134 PROFILE: SECTION A SCALE: HORZ.1"=20, VERT. 1"=10 9101520 9101520 P/L DRIVE AISLE-3.60% LS SD & AE PARKING STALL 10.0' SSWR ESMT FINISHED GRADE EXISTING GRADE EX BUILDING PR. CURB EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE SWALE PR. FENCE. 6" FROM PL EXISTING 18" CCP SEWER PIPE PROFILE: SECTION B SCALE: HORZ.1"=20, VERT. 1"=10 1015 1015 ROWH STREET PARKING STALL SAWCUT LINE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE PROFILE: SECTION D SCALE: HORZ.1"=20, VERT. 1"=10 141520 141520 ROW BAY BLVD EX. SIDEWALK EXISTING GRADEEX BUILDING PROFILE: SECTION C SCALE: HORZ.1"=20, VERT. 1"=10 1415202530 14152025 ROW 30 G STREET PARKING STALL TRUCK LOADING DOCK -0.69% -3.75% LS PR. RETAINING WALL PR. CURB EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE PROFILE: SECTION E SCALE: HORZ.1"=20, VERT. 1"=10 9101520 9101520 -4.36% 38.71% P/L PR. CURB EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE SWALE EX BUILDING PR. FENCE. 6" FROM PL 10.0' SSWR ESMT 49.7' EXISTING 18" CCP SEWER PIPE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 PIPE 1: STA 9+75.0 TO 10+75 HORZ: 1" = 30' VERT: 1" = 3' 1020 1020 9+75 10+00 10+75FINISHED GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L MH
RIM 14.57
FL 42" HDPE OUT 9.57
MWS L-8-12
RIM 14.85
FL 42" HDPE IN 9.32 7 1 PIPE 2: STA 9+75.0 TO 11+75 HORZ: 1" = 30' VERT: 1" = 3' 1020 1020 9+75 10+00 11+00 11+75 MWS L-8-12
RIM 15.06
FL 42" HDPE OUT 7.32
42X42X8 TEE
FL 42" HDPE IN 6.55
FL 8" HDPE IN 6.55
FL 42" HDPE OUT 6.55
154 LF OF 42"
HDPE @ 0.50%
FINISHED GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L EXIST. GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L 1 6 TOP 10.24 10" FW XING STA 11+45.77 BOP 11.21 PIPE 3: STA 9+75.0 TO 10+50 HORZ: 1" = 30' VERT: 1" = 3' 1020 1020 9+75 10+00 10+50 MWS L-6-8
RIM 14.63
FL 8" HDPE OUT 7.11
42X42X8 TEE
FL 42" HDPE IN 6.55
FL 8" HDPE IN 6.55
FL 42" HDPE OUT 6.55 6 LF OF 8" HDPE @ 10.00% FINISHED GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L EXIST. GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L 2 6 PIPE 4: STA 9+75.0 TO 11+25 HORZ: 1" = 30' VERT: 1" = 3' 1020 1020 9+75 10+00 11+00 11+25 42X42X8 TEE
FL 42" HDPE IN 6.55
FL 8" HDPE IN 6.55
FL 42" HDPE OUT 6.55

ROMTEC PUMP
RIM 15.69
FL 42" HDPE IN 6.06
98 LF OF 42"
HDPE @ 0.50%
FINISHED GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L EXIST. GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L 6 4 PIPE 5: STA 9+75.0 TO 10+50 HORZ: 1" = 30' VERT: 1" = 3' 1020 1020 9+75 10+00 10+50

ROMTEC PUMP
RIM 15.98
FL 12" HDPE IN 6.06

CATCH BASIN
RIM ???
FL 12" HDPE OUT 6.06 5 LF OF 12" HDPE @ 0.00%
FINISHED GRADE @

STORM PIPE C/L
EXIST. GRADE @
STORM PIPE C/L 4 5 PIPE 6: STA 9+75.0 TO 11+50 HORZ: 1" = 30' VERT: 1" = 3' 1020 9+75 10+00 11+00 11+50 MWS L-8-8
RIM 13.34
FL 10" HDPE OUT 9.21

ROMTEC PUMP
RIM 13.91
FL 10" HDPE IN 8.08
113 LF OF 10" HDPE @ 1.00%
FINISHED GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L EXIST. GRADE @ STORM PIPE C/L 3 4 PIPE 7: STA 9+75.0 TO 10+50 HORZ: 1" = 30' VERT: 1" = 3' 1020 1020 9+75 10+00 10+50 MWS L-8-12
RIM 13.92
FL 12" HDPE OUT 9.81

ROMTEC PUMP
RIM 13.92
FL 12" HDPE IN 9.75 5 LF OF 12" HDPE @ 1.00%
FINISHED GRADE @

STORM PIPE C/L
EXIST. GRADE @
STORM PIPE C/L 1 4 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 STORM NOTES PROPOSED MWS L-8-12 GRATE INLET PER BIOCLEAN STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL. REFER TO MANUFACTURER DETAILS FOR SPECIFICATIONS PROPOSED MWS L-6-8 GRATE INLET PER BIOCLEAN STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL. REFER TO MANUFACTURER DETAILS FOR SPECIFICATION PROPOSED MWS L-8-8 GRATE INLET PER BIOCLEAN STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL. REFER TO MANUFACTURER DETAILS FOR SPECIFICATIONS PROPOSED ROMTEC PUMP. REFER TO MANUFACTURER DETAILS FOR SPECIFICATIONS PROPOSED GRATE INLET PER SDRSD G-13 AND G-15 PROPOSED HDPE TEE, SIZE PER PLAN CONNECT TO PROPOSED TRENCH DRAIN 1234567 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 15 15 15 15 15
15 15 15 15 20 15 20 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 18 18 19 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 15 16 16 17 16 18 18
18 17
16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z > > > > > > > > > >

G STREET

BAY BLVD
H STREET INTERSTATE 5 APN: 571-330-16 APN: 571-330-24 APN: 571-330-16 APN: 571-330-24 P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L P/L * * 15 1617
18 19 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 1717 17 15 13 13 14 5 2 1 9 4 3 7 7 8 6 610 6 6 10 11 MS, S CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 NORTH EROSION CONTROL NOTES THE FOLLOWING BMPS AS OUTLINED IN, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CALIFORNIA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK DATED JANUARY 2015, OR THE LATEST REVISED EDITION, MAY APPLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AS NEEDED: EC-1, SCHEDULING EC-2, PRESERVATION OF EXISTING VEGETATION EC-3, HYDRAULIC MULCH EC-10, VELOCITY DISSIPATION DEVICES WE-1, WIND EROSION CONTROL NS-1, WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES NS-3, PAVING AND GRINDING OPERATIONS NS-7, POTABLE WATER/IRRIGATION NS-10, VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE NS-12, CONCRETE CURING NS-13, CONCRETE FINISHING WM-1, MATERIAL DELIVERY AND STORAGE WM-4, SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL WM-3, STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT WM-5, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WM-6, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT WM-7, CONTAMINATED SOIL MANAGEMENT WM-8, CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT WM-9, SANITARY/SEPTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT WM-10, LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT SE-1, SILT FENCE SE-4, CHECK DAMS SE-7, STREET SWEEPING AND VACUUMING SE-10, STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION TC-1, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT APPLICABLE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CONTRACTOR TO USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES AND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND DEWATERING OPERATIONS. SITE PREPARATION SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL WHILE PERFORMING WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. LEGEND TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT FACILITY (CA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK WM-8) STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (CA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK TC-1) STORM DRAIN/CURB INLET PROTECTION (CA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK SE-10) SILT FENCE (CA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK SE-1) GRAVEL BAG CHECK DAM (CA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK SE-4) MATERIAL DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND STAGING AREA (CA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK WM-1, WM-2, WM-3, WM-4, WM-5, WM-6, WM-8, WM-9, WM-10, NS-8, NS-9, NS-10) NOTE: APPROX. SIZE AND LOCATION SHOWN. IF CHANGE IS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE SIZE AND LOCATION AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO DISCHARGE LOCATION SAMPLING LOCATION MS, S * 1234567891011 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 401 B STREET, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 SITE PREPARATION SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL WHILE PERFORMING WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. TIRE WASH RACK PER DETAIL 2 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - CASQA TC-1 2 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE - CASQA SE-1 3 ” ” ” ” STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - CASQA SE-10 1

APPENDIX B
Process Flow Charts

YES NO Does field screening indicate potential NEC? Contractor continues activities, as per demolition plan Cordon off area for further assessment & prevent disturbance of potential NEC Cordon off area for further assessment & to prevent disturbance of potential NEC EC to document location by GPS; collect soil sample(s) for chemical testing EC to document field screening results, soil sample IDs and complete COC Does testing indicate NEC? Contractor removes surface pavements & select subsurface utilities, as per demolition plan EC to field screen exposed soil G:\127827_NORTH CAMPUS\GLOBAL\CAD\2022_11\127827_044_000E_APPENDIX_E_FLOW_CHARTS.DWG Saved by: DFM 11/1/2022 4:30 PM Sheet:Printed: E-1 FIGURE B-1 ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA PROCESS FLOW CHART – SOIL SCREENING DURING DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES SCALE: AS SHOWN DECEMBER 2022 NOTES EC = PSIP WOHL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT NEC = NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION COC = CHAIN OF CUSTODY NO Stockpile / Contain YES Stockpile / Contain NONO YES Dispose soil off site at appropriate facility YES Prepare soil stockpile areas as per DEMP and CSWPCP (BMP) requirements Is soil from location or NEC where TCE> HBRG? Excavate soil Dispose soil at appropriate RCRA or non-RCRA hazardous waste landfill Does characterization indicate soil is non-hazardous? Does characterization indicate soil may be reused? EC to characterize for soil reuse or disposal EC to characterize for disposal (See Figure E-3 - Waste Profiling & Disposal) EC to document receiving facility & volume for regulatory reporting EC to report to SDRWQCB for approval G:\127827_NORTH CAMPUS\GLOBAL\CAD\2022_11\127827_044_000E_APPENDIX_E_FLOW_CHARTS.DWG Saved by: DFM 11/1/2022 4:30 PM Sheet:Printed: E-2 FIGURE B-2 ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA PROCESS FLOW CHART – SOIL MANAGEMENT SCALE: AS SHOWN DECEMBER 2022 NOTES BMP = BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CSWPCP = CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN TCE = TRICHLOROETHENE NEC = NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION HBRG = HEALTH–BASED REMEDIATION GOAL DEMP = DEMOLITION AND SOIL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN EC = PSIP WOHL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT RCRA = RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT SDRWQCB = SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD EC to collect soil samples Frequency of sampling & analysis as per DEMP Compare total concentration to TTLC (wet-weight mg/kg) Is concentration ≥ TTLC? Compare results to 10x STLC (mg/L) Exceed? Evaluate solubility with WET and compare results to STLC (mg/L) Compare results to 20x TCLP (mg/L) Non-RCRA CA Hazardous Waste Evaluate solubility with TCLP and compare results to TCLP (mg/L) Evaluate solubility with TCLP and compare results to TCLP (mg/L) Compare results to 20x TCLP (mg/L) Non-RCRA CA Hazardous Waste Non-Hazardous Waste Non-RCRA CA Hazardous Waste RCRA CA Hazardous Waste RCRA CA Hazardous Waste Not a RCRA Waste Is leachate concentration ≥ TTLC? Exceed? Exceed? Exceed? Exceed? YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO G:\127827_NORTH CAMPUS\GLOBAL\CAD\2022_11\127827_044_000E_APPENDIX_E_FLOW_CHARTS.DWG Saved by: DFM 11/1/2022 4:30 PM Sheet:Printed: E-3 FIGURE B-3 ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA PROCESS FLOW CHART - WASTE PROFILING & DISPOSAL SCALE: AS SHOWN DECEMBER 2022 NOTES EC = PSID WOHL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT mg/kg = MILLIGRAM PER KILOGRAM mg/L = MILLIGRAM PER LITER STLC = SOLUBLE THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATION TC = TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC (FEDERAL) TCLP = TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE TTLC = TOTAL THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATION WET = WASTE EXTRACTION TEST NO YES NO YES NO YES Are physical characteristics appropriate for site use? Contractor to identify alternate import soil source Contractor to identify import soil source Is soil virgin material from a quarry? EC to seek Owner approval and document source and volume for regulatory reporting EC to characterize soil for on-site use Are chemical characteristics appropriate for site use? G:\127827_NORTH CAMPUS\GLOBAL\CAD\2022_11\127827_044_000E_APPENDIX_E_FLOW_CHARTS.DWG Saved by: DFM 11/1/2022 4:30 PM Sheet:Printed: E-4 FIGURE B-4 ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY NORTH CAMPUS - PARCEL A CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA PROCESS FLOW CHART – IMPORT SOIL MANAGEMENT SCALE: AS SHOWN DECEMBER 2022 NOTES EC = PSIP WOHL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT OWNER = PSIP WOHL

APPENDIX C
Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Appendix C
C-1
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
Parcel A, North Campus
850 Lagoon Drive
Chula Vista, California
During DEMP activities at Parcel A, soil and concrete samples will be collected for chemical testing. This appendix outlines quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures applicable to sample collection.

FIELD QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES
The following field quality control measures apply to concrete, soil, and groundwater sample collection.

DUPLICATE SAMPLES - CONCRETE AND SOIL
Duplicate samples are not typically collected for soil due to heterogeneity within the soil matrix that can yield differences in analytical results even within a sample core. For this program, duplicate samples for both concrete and soil will be generated by collecting two primary samples which will be homogenized into a single sample, and then split into two unique samples for analysis. Duplicate samples will be collected at a frequency of 1 sample for every 20 primary samples for both concrete and soil.

FIELD EQUIPMENT BLANKS
Field equipment blanks will be prepared by pouring deionized or distilled water onto clean sampling equipment; the rinsate will be collected and analyzed for the same analytes associated with the samples that are being collected. Field equipment blanks will be collected at a frequency of one sample per day on which sampling is occurring for soil and concrete.

TRIP BLANKS
Trip blanks will be supplied by the analytical laboratory and will accompany the samples in the cooler during transport to the analytical laboratory. The trip blank will be analyzed only in cases where there may be concern about the analytical results.

Appendix C
C-2

FIELD QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES
The following field quality assurance measures apply to soil and concrete collected during DEMP activities, as applicable.

SAMPLE CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION, AND PACKAGING
Sample containers will be supplied by the state-certified analytical laboratory that is conducting the chemical analysis of the specific sample media. Sample containers will be clearly labeled with sample designation, date, and time of collection, and requested analysis(es), packaged in plastic bags, and placed in a cooled ice chest for sample transport to the analytical laboratory.

Table C-1 indicates U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methods for analysis of classes of chemicals and includes information regarding preservation requirements and holding timesforsoil.

Note that sample collection and containersforsoil samples that will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds depends on the use of the data that will be generated. For soil samples that are collected to represent in-situ Site conditions, samples will be preserved following the requirements of USEPA Method 5035 to minimize disturbance and volatilization, as noted on Table C-1.

SAMPLE CUSTODY
Samples will be accompanied for transport with a chain-of-custody form that lists each sample by its designation, date and time of collection, media (soil or concrete), required analysis(es), and requested turnaround time. Sample information on the chain-of-custody form will match that on the sample label.

The chain-of-custody form will accompany the samples through their delivery to the analytical laboratory and will be signed by the sampling personnel relinquishing the samples to the laboratory or courier service and signed by each party accepting the samples. The chain-of- custody shall be part of, and integral to, the project QC documentation.

EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CALIBRATION
All non-dedicated equipment will be decontaminated with deionized or distilled water with a nonphosphate detergent (AlconoxTM or equivalent), followed by a distilled water rinse, immediately prior and subsequent to its use. Field equipment, including photoionization detectors(PIDs), global positioning system (GPS) equipment, and dust monitors will be calibrated daily according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Calibration of such equipment will be recorded on daily field records.

LABORATORY MANAGEMENT AND QA/QC REPORTING
Prior to the initiation of field activities, the Environmental Consultant will communicate with the selected state-certified laboratory to assure that laboratory reporting limits (RLs) or method detection limits (MDLs) are adequate to compare data to human health risk-based remediation goals and groundwater protection limits (GPLs) established for the project. Should RLs or MDLs be insufficient to meet project goals, project personnel will seek another state-certified laboratory to conduct the analysis(es) or, in the case that detection limits cannot be achieved, discussthe data limitations with the SDRWQCB.

Appendix C
C-3
Analytical laboratory reports will document:
 Sample preservation and verification that analytical testing was conducted within the holding timesrequired by the USEPA testmethod employed;
 Chemical testing results, including RLs and MDLs for each reported analyte;  Surrogate recoveries;
 Laboratory controlsamples and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries; and,  Laboratory data qualifiers.
 Laboratory data reports will be provided as electronic copies (pdf files) and in electronic data deliverable (EDD) format.

Attachment:

Table C-1 - Soil Sample Preservation and Analytical Holding Times – Soil \\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\0206064\Deliverables\Appendix C\2022_12_HAI_AppdxC_Text_F.docx TABLE C‐1
SOIL SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND ANALYTICAL HOLDING TIMES ‐ SOIL PARCEL A ‐ NORTH CAMPUSCHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 1 ends

Chemical Class
or Chemical
Analytical
Method1
Maximum Holding
Time2
Minimum
Mass
Sample
Containers3 Preservation
Volatile Organic Compounds
(in‐situ)5 8260B
Terra Core™ sampler
– 14 days
En Core® sampler ‐ 48
hours for extraction; 14
days for analysis
5 grams
Hermetically‐sealed
vials –
see USEPA Method 5035.
(e.g., En Core®/Terra
Core™ Soil Samplers)
Bisulfate or methanol;
iced, 0 to 6° Celsius.

Unpreserved or deionized
water; iced, 0 to 6° Celsius
Polychlorinated Biphenyls 8082
14 days for extraction; 40
days after extraction for
analysis
20 grams
4‐oz glass jar with
Teflon lid Iced, 0 to 6° Celsius
Metals 6010B 180 days 200 grams 4‐oz glass jar with Teflon lid None Mercury 7471A 28 days 200 grams 4‐oz glass jar with Teflon lid Iced, 0 to 6° Celsius Notes:

1. All analytical methods are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methods unless shown otherwise.

2. The technical holding times are based on time elapsed from sample collection.3. Multiple analyses for a soil sample may not require additional containers for each parameter; confirm volume requirements with the laboratory.

4. Confirm the sample collection methodology and container with the disposal facility.

5. Samples for soil that will be left on Site are to utilize methods that minimize sample disturbance and volatilization.

Iced, 0 to 6° Celsius
Volatile Organic Compounds
(disposal)4 8260B 14 days 10 grams 4‐ounce jar with Teflon lid HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.Table C‐1.xlsx DECEMBER 2022

APPENDIX D
Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material

!

"
"

!

#

"

$
$

"

"%"

&

' ()

*

+

,

#

&

-
"

"

"
.

"#

/

.
$ 0

.&
- * + / ,%"

&

1

- 1

!

"

#

$

$

&

'

(

)

%*

)
*
%+
+
) *
+,
%-

.

+,
%-

*

+ ,,,
+
)/,
+ ,,,
/ ,,,
*

+,,,
0+

/,,
.

/ ,,,
+)

/ ,,,
0+

+ ,,,

!"

#

" #$%&

'

&'(
)

)*+,$
--"

!

#$%
"!

%
.

%. "

!/

%.

#$%

#$%&'(
)

0
1 2

34
0123

$
&
5

$&5

$ 0123

67

%67%

2,2 2

" "

"

"
&
&'

"
"

"#$%

"

&
&'

*

!

%
&

3
9

" #$%

" 5"

" "

!
:

$
#$%

,
"

&54

!

"

"

"

#$%

&
&'

"

" #$% 9

%5
&'+*;;<;=>?<

APPENDIX E
Acknowledgement Form

CONTRACTOR LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Demolition and Soil Environmental Management Plan
Parcel A – North Campus
850 Lagoon Drive
Chula Vista, California
The Demolition and Environmental Management Plan (DEMP), dated December 20, 2022, has been reviewed by Contractor(s) and sub-contractor(s) as acknowledged by the signature(s) below. By their signature, they agree that they understand Site conditions and will comply with all the requirements set forth therein.

Signature
Name (printed)
Company
Date
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
5333 Mission Center Road
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
619.280.9210
www.haleyaldrich.com
November 11, 2022
File No. 127827-024
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, California 92108-2700
Attention:

Subject:

Mr. Tom Alo
Document Submittals Under Cleanup and Abatement Order No.

R9-2021-0042 Rohr, Inc. - North Campus, Parcel A
Chula Vista, California
Global ID No. T0000011095
Dear Mr. Alo:

Haley & Aldrich, Inc., is providing this letter on behalf of Rohr, Inc. a Collins Aerospace Company, (Rohr) for Parcel A at its former North Campus facility located in Chula Vista, California (Site). The letter is in response to our discussion during an on-Site meeting on July 7, 2022, and a subsequent conference call on July 14, 2022, regarding the Site remediation approach and document submittals required under Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R9-2021-0042 (CAO).

Rohr sold Parcels A and B, which will be redeveloped by new owners. Parcel A was sold to PSIP Wohl Bay Boulevard LLC (PSIP Wohl) in September 2020. PSIP Wohl intends to demolish the northern 24,000 square feet of Building 29 to construct a new loading dock once it obtains permit approval from the City of Chula Vista (City) sometime later this year.

The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) issued a new CAO to Rohr on July 12, 2021. Provision L.1 of the CAO required Rohr to notify the SDRQCB within 45 days of its intent to submit optional documents to meet the Directives of the CAO. On August 25, 2021, Raytheon Technologies Corporation (Raytheon), the parent company of Rohr, submitted a request to provide separate submittals for each parcel (Parcels A, B, and C) since they are on different redevelopment schedules and Rohr will continue to own and continue its operations on Parcel C. Raytheon also requested that the Site’s Soil and Soil Gas Remedial Alternatives Report (Directive C.4.b) be combined with the Site’s Soil and Soil Gas Remedial Action Plan (C.5.a) for each parcel.

Rohr recently completed a Data Gap Investigation and Report for Parcel A to meet the requirements of CAO Directive C.2. The Data Gap investigation Report was submitted to the SDRWQCB on June 13, 2022.

The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), submitted to the SDRWQCB on May 4, 2021, was updated to include the results of the data gap investigation. An Updated HHRA was submitted to the SDRWQCB on July 8, 2022, to meet CAO Directive C.3. It is our understanding that it is currently being San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
November 11, 2022

Page 2 ends

reviewed by the SDRWQCB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and that the reviews will be completed in a few weeks.

During our Site walk and conference call, we discussed the path forward for addressing Parcel A soil and soil gas (Directives C.4 and C.5) with the pending City approval of the permit to demolish the northern portion of Building 29. A summary of our discussion for each media is provided below:

Soil: The areas where trichloroethene is present in soil above its health-based remediation goal (HBRG) and groundwater protection level are located beneath that portion of Building 29 that will be demolished. As such, we intend to remediate soil through removal and disposal under a Demolition and Environmental Monitoring Plan (DEMP). Once completed, a DEMP Completion Report will be submitted to the SDRWQCB. It is our understanding that based on the results and review of the DEMP Completion Report, the SDRWQCB will provide a letter to Rohr that no further action is needed for Parcel A soil.

Soil Gas: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil gas in the northern portion of Building 29 that are above HBRGs appearing in the Update to the Revised HHRA will be addressed by implementing the DEMP and removing the VOC-impacted soil beneath that portion of the building that will be demolished.

However, there are other localized areas of soil gas HBRG exceedances beneath the central and southern portions of Building 29 attributed to VOCs in groundwater. These areas will be addressed by installing and operating a sub-slab depressurization system (SSDS) to protect future building occupants from vapor intrusion risks, if any. Rohr’s Purchase and Sale Agreement requires PSIP Wohl to install an SSDS for Building 29 prior to any occupancy. As discussed, a work plan will be prepared that summarizes testing data that supports and includes the proposed design for the SSDS that will be installed beneath the building.

A Risk Management Plan (RMP) will also be prepared and implemented to address potential future vapor intrusion risks to building occupants. The RMP will include:
 An SSDS post-installation monitoring and performance plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the SSDS in mitigating potential vapor intrusion. Indoor air sampling, as required by the CAO, will be included. The plan will be implemented before a tenant occupies the building.  Restrictions on changes to the existing building slab;  A Contingency Plan;
 A schedule for performing post-installation sub-slab and indoor air sampling and preparing SSDS performance monitoring reports, and a Post-Mitigation Completion Report; and  The preparation and filing of a deed restriction containing restrictions on use and occupancy of Parcel A (the Grant Deed in favor of PSIP Wohl recorded in September 2020 contains such restrictions and satisfies such deed restriction requirement).

While not directly included in our discussions, groundwater impacts will be addressed sitewide including Parcels A, B and C as described in Raytheon’s letter to the SDRWQCB on Optional Document Submittals dated August 25, 2021.

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
November 11, 2022

Page 3 ends

The CAO is written sequentially such that following approval of the HHRA (Directive C.3), it requires that the following documents be prepared, implemented, and submitted in this order:
 Site Soil Cleanup Levels Report (Directive C.4.a),
 Site Soil and Soil Gas Remedial Alternatives Report (Directive C.4.b),  Site Soil and Soil Gas Remedial Action Plan ([RAP]; Directive C.5.a),  Soil and Soil Gas RAP Implementation (Directive C.5.b);  Site Soil and Soil Gas RAP Progress Reports (Directive C.5.c); and  Soil and Soil Gas RAP Completion Report (Directive C.5.d).

As discussed, the approach described above for Parcel A includes submitting the DEMP, a DEMP Completion Report, an SSDS Work Plan and RMP documents would replace the documents in the list above required by Directive C.4 – Site Soil and Soil Gas Feasibility Study and Directive C.5 – Site Soil and Soil Gas Remedial Actions. Please provide a letter that indicates the SDRWQCB concurs with this proposed approach for Parcel A and the list of documents listed above for Directives C.4 and C.5 will not be needed to comply with the CAO. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.

Robert K. Scott, PG, CHg, QISP
Sr. Associate Hydrogeologist
c: Raytheon Technologies Corporation; Attn: Mr. John Baron Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company; Attn: Mr. Tyler Adkins Wohl Property Group; Attn: Mr. Emil Wohl
GSI Environmental Inc.; Attn: Mr. Gino Bianchi-Mosquera AECOM; Attn: Mr. Jerome Zimmerle
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\sdg_common\127827_North Campus\024_Bldg 29 SVE Design\Correspondence\2022_1111_HAI_Parcel A Doc Submittals_F.docx

www.haleyaldrich.com

REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
ROHR, INC. – NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A
850 LAGOON DRIVE

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
GEOTRACKER ID T10000011095
by
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

San Diego, California
for
Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company
Chula Vista, California
File No. 127827-023
April 2021
www.haleyaldrich.com
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
5333 Mission Center Road
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
619.280.9210
April 30, 2021
File No. 127827-023
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, California 92108-2700
Attention: Mr. Tom Alo
Subject: Revised Conceptual Site Model
Rohr, Inc. – North Campus, Parcel A
850 Lagoon Drive
Chula Vista, California
GeoTracker ID No. T10000011095
Dear Mr. Alo:

Haley & Aldrich, Inc., is submitting this Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) on behalf of Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company, for Parcel A of its North Campus facility at 850 Lagoon Drive, in Chula Vista, California. The Parcel A CSM was revised in response to the SDRWQCB’s letter dated April 13, 2021. A response to comments matrix (Table 1) is attached to this letter with our responses. Please contact the undersigned if you have any additional comments or questions regarding this Revised Parcel A CSM.

Sincerely yours,
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.

Robert K. Scott, PG, CHg, QISP
Senior Associate Hydrogeologist
c: Raytheon Technologies Corporation; Attn: Mr. John Baron Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company; Attn: Mr. Tyler Adkins Wohl Property Group; Attn: Mr. Emil Wohl
GSI Environmental Inc.; Attn: Mr. Gino Bianchi-Mosquera AECOM; Attn. Mr. Jerome Zimmerle
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\sdg_common\127827_North Campus\023_Parcel A Conceptual Site Model\Deliverables\043021 RWQCB Submittal\2021_0430_HAI_NCSCM_F.docx TABLE 1

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MATRIX
SDRWQCB LETTERS DATED DECEMBER 8, 2020, FEBRUARY 25, 2021, AND APRIL 13, 2021 ROHR ‐ NORTH CAMPUS CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (PARCEL A ONLY)

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 4 ends

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD COMMENT
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE

COMPANY RESPONSE

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD RESPONSE
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

RESPONSE

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD RESPONSE
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

RESPONSE
A This section should include details on the recognized environmental condition (REC) and a discussion
whether a data gap exists. The REC should be included
in Table 1 and discussed in Section 6 accordingly.

Based on clarification provided during a telephone call on April 19, 2021, the SDRWQCB was referencing the
following statement appearing in the Partner Phase I:
"Additional sampling is proposed for the adjacent
parcels to the north." While the statement is unclear,
Partner is referencing the three additional vacant
parcels north of those that are subject to the Phase I
and property sale: 340 Bay Boulevard and the two
additional parcels to the north at 798 F Street. These
parcels are part of Parcel C and will be described in the sitewide CSM.
2 Section 3
Environmental
Features
The environmental features listed in Table 1 are
difficult to identify on Figure 2. Revise Figure 2 to
make each environmental feature easily identifiable.

Figure 2 has been revised to make the
environmental features easily identifiable. Table 1
has been revised to include the corresponding Map
ID in the first, rather than third column, followed by
the name of the feature. Non‐numbered features
are shown on the figures with text and/or shading
and this is noted in Table 1. As we discussed on
December 9, 2020 the sample locations appear on a
separate figure (now Figure 3) to simplify Figure 2and show environmental features only.

No additional comments.

COMMENT
NO.
1 8, 2020 LETTER FEBRUARY 25, 2021 LETTER APRIL 13, 2021 LETTERDECEMBER

CSM SECTION
Comment noted. While the geologic units may be
different on Parcel A compared to the former South
Campus and Parcel B on the North Campus, the soil
types are the same based on review of boring logs
for these areas. The soil for each of the areas is
generally fine‐grained.

The GPLs are soil matrix dependent and protect
groundwater to concentrations equal to theMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL). Each GPL for the South Campus Property wasselected using one
of two methodologies: 1) based on leachate results
obtained from soil samples collected across the
South Campus property, or 2) calculated from a soil
partition equation. As noted above, the soil matrix
of the vadose zone soil on both the South Campus
Property and the North Campus Property is similar.

Therefore, the leachability of chemicals from soil on
either property would be similar as would the GPL
derived based on soil leachability. As for the GPLs
selected using a partition equation calculation, the
soil type in the equation was conservatively
assumed to be sand, a more coarse‐grained matrix
that would result in less chemical adsorption and a
lower GPL than if a more fine‐grained matrix wereassumed. Therefore the GPLs derived using either methodology would be applicable at both the South
Campus Property and the North Campus Property.

An evaluation will be included in the Feasibility
Study for Parcel A, that will be presented in the Soil
Remedial Action Plan.

This section indicates that the geology beneath Parcel
A is different than the geology beneath the former
South Campus Site and other portions of the North
Campus Site (i.e., Parcels B and C) in terms of the
composition of the fill material. Parcel A is more than 1,000 feet upland of the former shoreline and, as such, there is no bay mud or extensive fill present. Based on these differences, evaluate whether the soil
background cleanup levels and the groundwater
protection levels (GPLs) developed for the former
South Campus Site are applicable to Parcel A. Include
this evaluation in the feasibility study for Parcel A.

Section 2.1
Site
Geology
Clarify whether the following text in your response
should be “of” and not “or” (highlighted and
underlined): “Each GPL for the South Campus Property
was selected using one or two methodologies: 1) based
on leachate results obtained from soil samples collected across the South Campus property, or 2) calculated from a soil partition equation. As noted above, the soil matrix of the vadose zone soil on both the South Campus
Property and the North Campus Property is similar.”
The "or" should be "of," and has been revised (bold
text in the original response in the Rohr response
column to the left).

HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2020_0430_HAI_RTC TABLE 1 SDRWQCB_Parcel A_CSM_F.xlsx APRIL 2021 TABLE 1

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MATRIX
SDRWQCB LETTERS DATED DECEMBER 8, 2020, FEBRUARY 25, 2021, AND APRIL 13, 2021 ROHR ‐ NORTH CAMPUS CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (PARCEL A ONLY)

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 2 of 4 ends

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD COMMENT
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE

COMPANY RESPONSE

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD RESPONSE
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

RESPONSE

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD RESPONSE
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

RESPONSE

COMMENT
NO.
8, 2020 LETTER FEBRUARY 25, 2021 LETTER APRIL 13, 2021 LETTERDECEMBER

CSM SECTION
3 Section 4.1
Extent of
Chemicals in
Vadose Zone
Soil
The soil background cleanup levels and GPLs
developed for the former South Campus Site may or
may not be applicable for Parcel A as described in
comment 1. If these screening levels cannot be used,
soil background cleanup levels and GPLs must be
developed for Parcel A and, at a minimum, this section
of the CSM report must be revised.

Similar to the GPLs, soil background thresholds are
dependent on soil type, in addition to geology, and
location. Soil background thresholds are typically
derived from on‐site soil or soil in proximity to a site that has similar soil properties and generally of
similar geologic origin. Due to the similar soil types
on both the South Campus Property and the North
Campus Property and their proximity to one
another, the soil background thresholds derived for
the South Campus Property are considered to be
relevant at the North Campus Property.

Include an evaluation in the Feasibility Study for the soil background levels similar to the proposed evaluation for GPLs described in your response to Comment 1 above.

Comment noted. An evaluation will be included in the
soil Feasibility Study.

No additional comments.

Confirm that all soil borings listed in the column titled “Previous Soil Assessment Summary” of Table 1 are
shown on Figures 3, 4A‐4D, and 7A‐7F. Some of the
borings are missing from these figures, such as the 2013 UT borings. Also, confirm that all soil vapor probes are shown on Figures 3 and 9.

Figures 3, 4A‐4D and 7A‐7F have been reviewed and
revised to include borings indicated in the notedcolumn in Table 1.

No additional comments.

Include the boring ID numbers on Figure 7A. Figure 7A has been revised to include the boring IDs. No additional comments.

In Table 1, the soil borings and vapor probes listed for aboveground storage tank (AST) Nos. 201 and 202 are
reversed and should be switched.

Table 1 has been corrected. No additional comments.

Underground storage tank (UST) No. 3‐09598 is
identified as a historical environmental feature with
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and metals as
chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). Borings B29‐33
(A, B, and C) and UT‐22 are used to assess the soil
conditions in the vicinity of this UST. Explain how the COPCs in soil near this UST are adequately characterized given that the soil samples collected at borings B‐29‐33 (A, B, and C) were not analyzed for TPH and metals as
shown on Figures 7B and 7F, respectively. Additionally, boring UT‐22 is missing from Figures 3, 4A‐4D, and 7A‐
7F. Include boring UT‐22 on these figures.

This UST was granted closure by the San Diego
Department of Environmental Health since petroleum
hydrocarbons were not present in soil and required no
further investigation. Borings B29‐33 (A,B.C) wereadvanced to investigate a former lathe. The additional borings were advanced to investigate whether PCBs orVOCs might be associated with the former lathe. The figures have been updated to include the location of
boring UT‐22. Soil from this boring was analyzed for
VOCs, since VOCs may be COPCs associated with this
feature.

Metals were originally listed as one of the potential
chemicals associated with this UST. Explain why
metals were removed and replaced with VOCs.

The URS Phase I (URS, 2013) identifies VOCs as the
only COPCs other than TRPH for this feature. Metals
are not COPCs for this feature. Table 1 will remain as is for this feature. Subsequent sub‐slab vapor sampling
indicated that certain VOCs were reported at levels
above screening criteria and step‐out soil samples
were collected and analyzed during the Haley &
Aldrich Data Gap Assessment (borings B29‐35A, ‐35B
and ‐35C; Haley & Aldrich, 2020).

AST No. 203 is identified as a historical environmental feature with TPH and metals as COPCs. Boring UT‐19 is
the only boring used to assess the soil conditions in the vicinity of this AST. Explain how the COPCs in soil near this AST are adequately characterized given that boring UT‐19 is approximately 90 feet to the west. Additionally, boring UT‐19 is missing in the TPH and metals figures
(Figures 7B and 7F, respectively). Include boring UT‐19 on these figures.

UT‐19 has been added to Figures 7B and 7F. No vapor
sample could be obtained from vapor probe PW‐10
due to tight soil conditions. While no impacts to
groundwater were observed downgradient of this
feature in UT‐19, we believe that the absence of soil
data is not a data gap based on the explanation
provided in Table 1.
4 Section 4.1
Extent of
Chemicals in
Vadose Zone
Soil
The following figures should be included in the CSM
report. These figures will provide a more focused view
of the vadose‐zone soil samples collected and
analyzed per chemical class and per environmental
feature, which will help to identify data gaps. These
figures should also be referenced and discussed in
Section 6 of the CSM report.
a. Chemical Class Figures. Separate figures, similar to Figures 4 through 8 in the North Campus report titled
“Phase II Environmental Site Assessment – Project
Springsteen, Parcel B” (January 2018), showing (1) the
vadose‐zone samples collected at Parcel A for eachchemical class: Title 22 metals, hexavalent chromium, pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi‐
VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and
polychlorinated biphenyls; and (2) the vadose‐zone
samples that exceed soil screening criteria.
b. Environmental Feature Figures. Separate figures
with callout boxes, similar to Figures 6 through 61 in
the South Campus report titled “Soil Cleanup andAbatement Completion Report – North of Exchange Parcel” (July 2020), showing the vadose‐zone soil
samples collected at Parcel A that are used to assess
the subsurface conditions in the vicinity of each
environmental feature. These figures should be
consistent with Figure 2 and the information provided
in Table 1.

Chemical Class Figures for vadose zone soil are
included (Figures 7A through 7F) for the COPCs on
Parcel A. The figures are referenced in the text as
requested. Environmental Feature Figures are
provided as Figures 4A through 4D. As we discussed
on December 9, 2020, we agreed that a figure for
each environmental feature was not necessary. The
site has been split into four areas from north to
south with a smaller map scale so that the sample
locations associated with an environmental feature
can be identified more easily. These figures areconsistent with Figure 2, Figure 3 and Table 1.

HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2020_0430_HAI_RTC TABLE 1 SDRWQCB_Parcel A_CSM_F.xlsx APRIL 2021 TABLE 1

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MATRIX
SDRWQCB LETTERS DATED DECEMBER 8, 2020, FEBRUARY 25, 2021, AND APRIL 13, 2021 ROHR ‐ NORTH CAMPUS CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (PARCEL A ONLY)

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 3 of 4 ends

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD COMMENT
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE

COMPANY RESPONSE

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD RESPONSE
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

RESPONSE

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD RESPONSE
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

RESPONSE

COMMENT
NO.
8, 2020 LETTER FEBRUARY 25, 2021 LETTER APRIL 13, 2021 LETTERDECEMBER

CSM SECTION
AST No. 161 is identified as a historical environmental feature with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
metals as COPCs. Borings (UT‐25, B29‐10, and B29‐15)
and vapor probes (B29‐V13, B29‐V16, and PW‐11) are
used to assess the soil and soil vapor conditions near
this AST. Boring B29‐15 and vapor probe B29‐V16 should
not be used because they are greater than 300 feet
south of this AST as shown on Figure 3.

Feature No. 161 was a former paint booth that was
present at two different locations as noted in the
comments in Table 1 and as shown on Figure 3, B29‐
15, and B29‐V16 investigated the second (southern)
location of that the paint booth in Building 29.

Degreaser No. 300 is identified as a historical
environmental feature with VOCs as COPCs. Table 1
indicates that trichloroethene (TCE) is the only chemical exceeding the GPLs and/or the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) screening levels based on the soil borings advanced near this degreaser. Confirm that no other chemicals exceed these criteria.

There are no other chemicals that exceed GPLs and/or
DTSC‐SLs in soil associated with this degreaser. There
are however several COPCs that exceed their
respective screening criteria for soil vapor, which has been noted in the comments associated with this
feature in Table 1.

Soil associated with this degreaser is not
characterized. Therefore, Table 1 and Section 6 should
indicate that a data gap exists.

Table 1 and Section 6 have been revised to indicate
that there is a data gap at Degreaser No. 300.

The mills and lathes (No. 304) are identified as ahistorical environmental feature with VOCs and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as COPCs. Borings (B29‐ 21 and B29‐32 through B29‐35) and vapor probes (B29‐
V17 and PW‐14) are used to assess the soil and soil
vapor conditions near this environmental feature.

Boring B29‐32 should not be used because it is located
on the opposite end of Building 29 as shown on Figure 3.

Vapor probes B29‐V19 and PW‐15 should be included
for assessing the soil vapor conditions because they are located in the vicinity of this environmental feature.

Note that these vapor probes exceed the soil vapor
screening criteria for TCE.

Comment noted. The mills and lathes were at four
different locations and are not described individually
in Table 1. The vapor probes noted have been added
to the description associated with these
environmental features. It has been noted in the
comments that there were Vapor ESL exceedances at
these locations.

The soil samples associated with each mill/lathe
should be listed separately in Table 1, similar to the
Former Paint Booth (two locations).

Table 1 has been revised to describe each mill/lathe
independently. These features are depicted as feature
nos. 304A, 304B, 304C and 304D on the site maps.

The former maintenance department is identified as a
historical environmental feature with TPH and VOCs as
COPCs. Table 1 indicates that TCE is the only chemical
exceeding the GPLs and/or DTSC screening levels based
on the soil borings advanced in the former maintenance
department. Confirm that no other chemicals exceed
these criteria.

There are no other chemicals that exceed GPLs and/or
DTSC‐SLs in soil in the former Maintenance
Department. There are however several COPCs that
exceed their respective screening criteria for soil
vapor. Vapor ESL exceedances are noted in the
comments associated with the former Maintenance
Department.

Soil associated with the former maintenance
department is not characterized. Therefore, Table 1
and Section 6 should indicate that a data gap exists.

Table 1 and Section 6 have been revised to indicate
that there is a data gap at the former maintenance
department.

The former lumber yard is identified as a historical
environmental feature with phenols as a COPC. Borings
(UT‐25 and B29‐8 through B29‐11) and vapor probes
(B29‐V11 and B29‐V13) are used to assess the soil and
soil vapor conditions near the former lumber yard.

Boring UT‐25 should be not used because the soil
samples were not analyzed for semi‐volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) as shown on Figure 7C. Vapor
probes PW‐11 and PW‐12 should be included for
assessing the soil vapor conditions because they are
located within the footprint of the former lumber yard.

Note that these vapor probes exceed soil vapor
screening criteria for specific VOCs as shown on Figure 9.

The vapor probes were used to investigate the former
Maintenance Department not the lumber yard and
have been removed from the description of this
historical environmental feature in Table 1. The vapor
exceedances associated with these vapor probes are
noted under the comments for the former
Maintenance Department.

Per our original recommendation, vapor probes PW‐
11 and PW‐12 should be included in Table 1 for
assessing the soil vapor conditions within the former
lumber yard. Table 1 and Section 6 should also
indicate that a data gap exists because vapor probes
PW‐11 and PW‐12 exceed the soil vapor screening
criteria for specific VOCs shown on Figure 9.

Table 1 has been updated as requested; however, the
source of the soil vapor is related to an unspecified
source that is coincident with the footprint of the
former lumberyard. Based on the PW‐11 and PW‐12
soil vapor screening criteria exceedances, the area has been identified as a data gap since the soil vapor
concentrations exceed screening criteria.
4 Section 4.1
Extent of
Chemicals in
Vadose Zone
Soil
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2020_0430_HAI_RTC TABLE 1 SDRWQCB_Parcel A_CSM_F.xlsx APRIL 2021 TABLE 1

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MATRIX
SDRWQCB LETTERS DATED DECEMBER 8, 2020, FEBRUARY 25, 2021, AND APRIL 13, 2021 ROHR ‐ NORTH CAMPUS CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (PARCEL A ONLY)

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 4 of 4 ends

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD COMMENT
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE

COMPANY RESPONSE

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD RESPONSE
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

RESPONSE

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL

BOARD RESPONSE
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

RESPONSE

COMMENT
NO.
8, 2020 LETTER FEBRUARY 25, 2021 LETTER APRIL 13, 2021 LETTERDECEMBER

CSM SECTION
The former agricultural property is identified as a
historical environmental feature with metals (specifically arsenic) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) as COPCs.

Borings B99‐01 through B99‐04 and borings B29‐01
through B29‐20 are used to assess the soil conditions
near this environmental feature. Borings B29‐08 through B29‐20 should not be used because they are not within
the footprint of this environmental feature as shown on Figure 3.

Table 1 has been revised to not include borings B29‐08
through B29‐20 since these borings lie outside the
area historically used for agricultural purposes.

No additional comments.

The San Diego Water Board will consult with the
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment to discuss the exposure pathways shown
on Figure 13. Written comments will be provided to
Rohr during the development of the Human Health
Risk Assessment for Parcel A.

Comment noted.
6 Data gaps exist for soil at the former Maintenance
Department located in Building 29. The San Diego
Water Board agrees with Rohr’s proposal to further
delineate soil exceeding screening levels during the
construction of the new loading dock and the
implementation of the soil Remedial Action Plan for
Parcel A.

Comment noted.
7 Data gaps exist for indoor air at Building 29. The San Diego Water Board agrees with Rohr’s proposal to
conduct indoor air sampling after Building 29
improvements are completed. The improvements
include the construction of the new loading dock
(which will include further delineation and excavation
of trichloroethene‐impacted soil) and installation of a sub‐slab depressurization system (SSD). Rohr is
installing an SSD to address the potential for vapor
intrusion due to the elevated soil vapor concentrations present beneath Building 29. Indoor air sampling will
be conducted after the completion of these
improvements to verify vapor intrusion is a not
concern.

Comment noted.
8 Revise this section, as necessary, based on the
chemical class figures and environmental feature
figures recommended in Comment 4.

No revisions were necessary to Section 6 based on
the chemical class and environmental features
figures recommended in Comment No. 4.
4 Section 4.1
Extent of
Chemicals in
Vadose Zone
Soil
Section 6
Data Gap
Assessment
HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
2020_0430_HAI_RTC TABLE 1 SDRWQCB_Parcel A_CSM_F.xlsx APRIL 2021 HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
5333 MISSION CENTER ROAD
SUITE 300
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
619.280.9210
www.haleyaldrich.com

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR

REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
ROHR, INC. – NORTH CAMPUS, PARCEL A
850 LAGOON DRIVE

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR
ROHR, INC., A COLLINS AEROSPACE COMPANY

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY:

Robert K. Scott, PG, CHg, QISP
Senior Associate Hydrogeologist
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Mehdi Miremadi
Principal
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
i
Executive Summary
Haley & Aldrich, Inc., prepared this Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM) on behalf of Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company, (Rohr) for Parcel A of its North Campus facility located at 850 Lagoon Drive, in Chula Vista, California (Site). Rohr has decommissioned and is in the process of selling portions of its facility that occupies approximately 82 acres. The Site has been divided into three parts: Parcels A, B, and C. In September 2020, Rohr sold the property that includes Buildings 29, 99, and 100 on Parcel A to PSIP Wohl Bay Boulevard LLC (Owner). The Owner is also purchasing the vacant parcels at 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard, formerly included on Parcel C, and is negotiating the purchase of 350 Bay Boulevard.

These parcels are also included in this Revised CSM. With these added parcels, Parcel A occupies approximately 15.3 acres. Parcel B is in the process of being sold, and Parcel C will be retained and continue to be owned and operated by Rohr. The Owner intends to raze the northern portion of Building 29 to build a loading dock and may raze Buildings 99 and 100 to redevelop this parcel and the adjoining vacant properties to the north.

Rohr’s industrial activities on the North Campus included the manufacture and assembly of aerospace parts, primarily engine parts and covers (nacelles). Parcel A consists of two areas: Buildings 99 and 100 and the adjacent vacant properties north of G Street, and Building 29 south of G Street. Industrial activities and historical chemical use on Parcel A were more limited compared to the main manufacturing portions of the facility located on Parcel B and the former South Campus. Building 29 was primarily used for tooling, machining, and office space. At one time, the northernmost portion of Building 29 served as the Maintenance Department. Rohr purchased Buildings 99 and 100 in 1986 and primarily used them for administrative purposes. Rohr acquired the vacant Bay Boulevard properties to the north of Buildings 99 and 100, including 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard in 1999 from the City of Chula Vista (City) as part of the 1999 Relocation Agreement. Rohr has not conducted any activities on the vacant Bay Boulevard properties since they acquired them from the City. Prior to Rohr’s ownership, Parcel A had other uses.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have identified historical environmental features that could be potential sources of chemicals beneath Parcel A. These features included aboveground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, paint booths, and vapor degreasers. Previous investigations on Parcel A have included extensive soil, soil vapor, and groundwater sampling. Indoor air screening has been performed in Building 29. The available soil, soil vapor, and indoor air screening data have been compared to relevant screening criteria.

Soil samples have been analyzed for the following chemicals of potential concern (COPCs): total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs; including phenols and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), and Title 22 Metals.

The analyses performed were specific to the historical environmental features identified on Parcel A.

There were five COPCs reported in soil at concentrations above their respective Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC), Groundwater Protection Level (GPL), and/or commercial/industrial California Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Level (DTSC-SL) on Parcel A: trichloroethene (TCE), PCBs, DDE, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and arsenic. The five COPCs that exceed a GPL or commercial/industrial DTSC-SL have been reported at five locations in the Building 29 Area (B29-23, B29-24, B29-05, B29-07A, and B29-12). Arsenic was compared to the background concentration established for the former South Campus. Seven locations exceeded background (B29-02, B29-03, ii
B29-03A, B29-03B, B29-07, B29-07A, and B29-07B). There were no soil exceedances in the Buildings 99 and 100 Area or on the vacant parcels to the north except for BB-23, where DDE was reported at the TTLC of 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) and below the commercial/industrial DTSC-SL of 9.3 mg/kg.

Five locations adjacent to Parcel A along the drainage swale in the railroad right-of-way (ROW) reported DTSC-SL exceedances for PCBs (UT-02), benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene (UT-18, UT-21, and UT-66). Arsenic was reported above Site-specific background in UT-03. The railroad ROW is not owned by Rohr and is not part of Parcel A.

Sub-slab and deeper soil vapor samples were compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s commercial/industrial sub-slab/soil gas Vapor Environmental Screening Levels (Vapor ESLs). The following VOCs were reported in soil vapor at concentrations above the Vapor ESLs: TCE, tetrachloroethene, chloroform, benzene, bromodichloromethane and ethylbenzene. The exceedances were reported at the locations of historical environmental features in Building 29. There were no environmental concerns related to soil vapor in Buildings 99 and 100. The TCE indoor air screening data were compared to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Interim TCE Indoor Air Response Levels (RLs). The RL exceedances during the February 2019 screening event were in the former Maintenance Department, where VOCs have been detected in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater. As an immediate interim action, Rohr increased air circulation by keeping the fans operating and the doors opened as well as sealing the cracks and joints in the slab in the northern portion of the building.

This Revised CSM was developed based on the Site history, location, and geology. Parcel A is situated at elevations ranging from approximately 13 to 28 feet above mean sea level datum. Unlike Parcel B, Parcel C, and the Former South Campus, located to the west at lower elevations and adjacent to the former shoreline of San Diego Bay, the geology beneath Parcel A is relatively simple. It is underlain, in descending order, by limited fill material, the Bay Point Formation, a clay aquitard, and the San Diego Formation. Because Parcel A is more than 1,000 feet upland of the former shoreline, there are no bay deposits or extensive fill present on this portion of the North Campus facility. However, a comparison of boring logs for Parcel A, Parcel B, and the South Campus suggest that the soil types are similar and finegrained. While it is believed that background and GPLs for soil derived for the Former South Campus are relevant, an evaluation will be included in the Feasibility Study for Parcel A that will be presented in the Soil Remedial Action Plan.

Historical environmental features on Parcel A have been investigated for their specific COPCs in soil, soil vapor, indoor air, and shallow groundwater. Historical chemical sources are coincident with former Site areas associated with long-term chemical usage. VOC releases have migrated through the soil to groundwater, resulting in a groundwater plume that extends westward below Parcel B. Soil vapor has the potential to migrate through the building slab and into indoor air. Potential receptors to soil and soil vapor include an on-Site commercial/industrial worker, a landscaper/utility worker, and a construction worker. Exposure pathways and receptors will be evaluated during the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA).

Based on our assessments, it is our opinion that the existing soil and soil vapor data support the Revised CSM and are adequate to proceed with an HHRA and a Soil Feasibility Study/Soil Remedial Action Plan (Soil FS/RAP). The COPCs analyzed, sample locations, and sample depths have been reviewed specific to each environmental feature to evaluate whether it has been adequately characterized. iii
There are no soil data gaps for TPH, SVOCs, PCBs, OCPs, and Title 22 Metals. There are soil data gaps for VOCs in the former Maintenance Department, including the small degreaser (Historical Environmental Feature No. 300). If additional sampling is needed to delineate soil that may require remediation, it can be conducted during the Soil FS/RAP once the building slab has been removed and the soil is being excavated to construct the loading dock.

The soil vapor surveys identified locations beneath Building 29 where VOCs are present at concentrations that exceed the Vapor ESLs. The locations of the exceedances are coincident with historical environmental features and VOCs in soil and groundwater. The Owner will be installing a subslab depressurization system (SSDS), and other remedies will be considered in the Soil FS/RAP for addressing vapor intrusion. The historical features that were associated with VOCs have been adequately investigated; however, there is a data gap associated with soil vapor at PW-11 and PW-12, where VOCs were reported above Vapor ESLs.

Indoor air screening was conducted based on the findings of the soil gas surveys and addressed cracks and other penetrations to the slab in Building 29. No indoor air sampling was necessary in Buildings 99 and 100. As previously noted, the Soil FS/RAP will address soil during construction of the loading dock.

The SSDS will also address potential vapor intrusion into the building. While indoor air sampling is a data gap, the data will only be relevant if the data are collected post-redevelopment prior to building occupancy. It is recommended that indoor air sampling be conducted at that time to address potential vapor intrusion concerns.

Table of Contents
Page
iv
Executive Summary i
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
List of Abbreviations viii

1. Site Background 1

1.1 SITE SETTING 1

1.2 SITE HISTORY 2

1.3 SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION 3

1.3.1 Fuel UST Closures 5

1.3.2 350-360 Bay Boulevard Site Assessment 5

1.3.3 1998 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 6

1.3.4 San Diego Formation Aquifer Testing 6

1.3.5 Blanchard Grinder UST Closure 7

1.3.6 2013 URS Supplemental Remedial Investigation 7

1.3.7 2016 Haley & Aldrich Phase I and IIs 7

1.3.8 2018 Sub-Slab Soil Vapor and Focused Deeper Soil Vapor Survey 8

1.3.9 2018 - 2019 Indoor Air Screening 9

1.3.10 2020 Data Gap Assessment 10

1.3.11 2020 GSI Phase II Screening Investigation 10

1.3.12 2020 Partner Phase I for 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard 11

2. Site Description 12

2.1 SITE GEOLOGY 12

2.1.1 Artificial Fill 12

2.1.2 Bay Point Formation 12

2.1.3 Clay Aquitard 12

2.1.4 San Diego Formation 12

2.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY 13

3. Environmental Features 14

4. Distribution of Chemicals at the Site 15

4.1 EXTENT OF CHEMICALS IN VADOSE ZONE SOIL 15

4.1.1 VOCs 16

4.1.2 TPH 16

4.1.3 SVOCs 16

4.1.4 PCBs 16

4.1.5 OCPs 17

4.1.6 Title 22 Metals 17
Table of Contents
Page
v

4.2 EXTENT OF CHEMICALS IN SOIL VAPOR 17

4.3 INDOOR AIR SCREENING 18

5. Conceptual Site Model 19

6. Data Gap Assessment 20

6.1 SOIL 20

6.1.1 VOCs 20

6.1.2 TPH 20

6.1.3 SVOCs 20

6.1.4 PCBs 20

6.1.5 OCPs 21

6.1.6 Title 22 Metals 21

6.2 SOIL VAPOR 21

6.3 INDOOR AIR 21
References 23
Tables
Figures
Appendix A – Boring Logs
Appendix B – Groundwater Protection Levels
vi
List of Tables
Table No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
List of Figures
Figure No.
1 2
3 4A
4B
4C
4D
Title
Historical Environmental Features
Summary of Vadose Zone Soil Data
Summary of Sub-Slab Soil Vapor Data
Summary of Deeper Soil Vapor Data
Indoor Air Screening Results - Breathing Zone in Building 29 Indoor Air Screening Results - Preferential Pathways in Building 29 Summary of Vadose Zone Soil Screening Criteria Exceedances Summary of Sub-Slab/Soil Vapor ESL Exceedances
Title
Site Locus
Historical Environmental Site Features
Sample Location Map
Detailed Historical Environmental Features and Sample Location Map – 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard
Detailed Historical Environmental Features and Sample Location Map – Buildings 99 and 100
Detailed Historical Environmental Features and Sample Location Map – Building 29 North
Detailed Historical Environmental Features and Sample Location Map – Building 29 Central
vii
List of Figures
(continued)
Figure No. Title
4E Detailed Historical Environmental Features and Sample Location Map – Building 29 South
5 Geologic Cross Section A-A’
6 Geologic Cross Section B-B’
7A VOCs in Vadose Zone Soil Exceeding Screening Criteria 7B TPH in Vadose Zone Soil Exceeding Screening Criteria 7C SVOCs in Vadose Zone Soil Exceeding Screening Criteria 7D PCBs Vadose Zone in Soil Exceeding Screening Criteria 7E Pesticides in Vadose Zone Soil Exceeding Screening Criteria 7F Title 22 Metals and Hexavalent Chromium in Vadose Zone Soil Exceeding Screening Criteria
8 Extent of TCE in Soil, 0-2 Feet Below Ground Surface
9 Soil Vapor COPCs Exceeding Screening Criteria
10 Extent of TCE in Soil Vapor
11 Extent of TCE in Zone A Groundwater
12 Indoor Air Screening Results – September 2018
13 Indoor Air Screening Results – February 2019
14 Conceptual Site Model
15 Exposure Pathways
viii
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
µg/kg micrograms per kilogram
µg/L micrograms per liter
µg/m3
micrograms per cubic meter
Adrian Brown Adrian Brown Consultants
ASTs aboveground storage tanks
bgs below ground surface
CAO Cleanup and Abatement Order
City City of Chula Vista
COPCs chemicals of potential concern
CSM Conceptual Site Model
DEH San Diego Department of Environmental Health
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC-SLs California Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Levels EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GPL Groundwater Protection Level
GSI GSI Environmental Inc.

Haley & Aldrich Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

HBRGs health-based remediation goals
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per liter
MSL mean sea level
NFA No Further Action
ng/kg nanograms per kilogram
OCPs organochlorine pesticides
Owner PSIP Wohl Bay Boulevard LLC
Partner Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.

PAHs polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
ix
List of Abbreviations
(continued)
Abbreviation Definition
PCE tetrachloroethene
Phase I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Phase II Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
RLs Response Levels
Rohr Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company
RSLs U.S. EPA Region 9 Regional Screening Levels
ROW right-of-way
SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Site Parcel A of the Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company, North Campus facility located at 850 Lagoon Drive, City of Chula Vista, California Sitewide CSM conceptual site model to address soil and soil gas for Parcels B and C as well as groundwater for the entire Site
Soil FS/RAP Soil Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan Soil RAP “Revised Soil Remedial Action Plan, Former South Campus, North of Exchange Parcel, Chula Vista, California”
SSDS sub-slab depressurization system
STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
SVOCs semi-volatile organic compounds
SWCS Storm Water Conveyance System
TCE trichloroethene
the 1998 CAO CAO No. 98-08
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRPH total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration
URS URS Corporation
URSGWC URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde
USTs underground storage tanks
VAP Voluntary Assistance Program
Vapor ESLs San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Sub-Slab/soil Gas Vapor Environmental Screening Levels
VOCs volatile organic compounds
Woodward-Clyde Woodward-Clyde Consultants
1 1. Site Background

1.1 SITE SETTING
Haley & Aldrich, Inc., (Haley & Aldrich) prepared this Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM) on behalf of Rohr, Inc., a Collins Aerospace Company, (Rohr) for Parcel A of its North Campus facility located at 850 Lagoon Drive, in the City of Chula Vista, California (Site). Rohr has decommissioned and is in the process of selling portions of its facility that occupies approximately 82 acres. The Site has been divided into three parts: Parcels A, B, and C. In September 2020, Rohr sold the property that includes Buildings 29, 99, and 100 (APN 567-022-30 and the eastern portion of 571-330-29) on Parcel A to PSIP Wohl Bay Boulevard LLC (Owner). The Owner is also planning to purchase the vacant parcels at 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard (APNs 567-022-28, 567-022-31 and 567-022-33) and is negotiating purchase of 350 Bay Boulevard (APN 567-022-17). These parcels, formerly included in Parcel C, are also included in this Revised CSM. With these added parcels, Parcel A occupies approximately 15.3 acres. The Owner intends to raze the northern portion of Building 29 to build a loading dock and may raze Buildings 99 and 100 to redevelop this parcel and the adjoining vacant properties to the north. Parcel B is in the process of being sold; and Parcel C will be retained and continue to be owned and operated by Rohr.

Haley & Aldrich prepared and submitted a CSM for the North Campus to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) on May 19, 2020 (Haley & Aldrich, 2020b). The SDRWQCB issued a letter on October 27, 2020, (SDRWQCB, 2020) commenting on the North Campus CSM. Haley & Aldrich responded to the SDRWQCB’s comments in a letter dated November 19, 2020.

As discussed on our conference call with the SDRWQCB on November 4, 2020, the Owner’s consultant, GSI Environmental Inc., (GSI) and Haley & Aldrich, the Owner plans to make some improvements to Building 29 for a tenant that will occupy the building in early 2022. The SDRWQCB has agreed that Rohr can submit a separate CSM specific to Parcel A for soil and soil vapor. This document is the CSM specific to Parcel A. A subsequent CSM will be submitted to address soil and soil vapor for Parcels B and C as well as groundwater for the entire Site (Sitewide CSM). The SDRWQCB is also in the process of finalizing a new Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) for the North Campus (CAO No. R9-2020-0099) that will supersede CAO No. 98-08 (the 1998 CAO).

The Site’s location is shown on Figure 1; the Site’s boundaries and Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are shown on Figure 2. Parcel A includes the properties occupied by Buildings 29, 99, and 100 and the vacant properties north of Buildings 99 and 100 at 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard. Parcel A is bounded on the east by Bay Boulevard, on the west by the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad right-of-way (ROW) and Parcels B and C, on the north by the remainder of Rohr’s vacant Bay Boulevard properties that are part of Parcel C, and on the south by H Street and Rohr’s former South Campus. The former South Campus is owned by the San Diego Unified Port District.

Parcel A is approximately 1,000 feet upland of the former San Diego Bay shoreline. Ground surface elevations range from approximately 13 to 28 feet above mean sea level (MSL). There are no surface water features on the Site. The storm water conveyance system (SWCS) in the Building 29 Area is simple and includes the drain lines shown on Figure 2 that discharge to an asphalt-lined drainage swale.

Surface water in the swale flows south toward H Street (Rick Engineering, 1998). Surface water sheet flows across the vacant properties to an unlined drainage swale on the west where it infiltrates or flows south and joins sheet flow from the Building 99 and 100 Area that flows west along the north side of G 2 Street into the SWCS between Parcels B and C. The SWCS discharges to a tidal inlet to San Diego Bay west of Building 61 on Parcel C.

1.2 SITE HISTORY
The history of Parcel A is primarily derived from information appearing in the following documents:
 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) prepared by Adrian Brown Consultants ([Adrian Brown], 1998);
 Data Compilation and Evaluation Report prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants ([Woodward-Clyde], 1998);
 Phase I prepared by URS Corporation (URS) when United Technologies Corporation acquired Goodrich Aerostructures Group (URS, 2013);
 Phase I prepared by Haley & Aldrich for Buildings 29, 99, and 100 on Parcel A (Haley & Aldrich, 2016a); and
 Phase I prepared by Haley & Aldrich for the Vacant Bay Boulevard Properties (Haley & Aldrich, 2016b).

The Owner recently had a Phase I ESA performed by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) for the parcels at 350, 360, 364 and 368 Bay Boulevard (Partner, 2020).

Rohr’s industrial activities on the North Campus included the manufacture and assembly of aerospace parts, primarily engine parts and covers (nacelles). These manufacturing operations included metal cutting, punching, bending, stretching, forming, anodizing, alodining, milling, etching, and painting as well as chemical handling and storage, wastewater treatment, and material recycling. Chlorinated solvents, acids, caustics, cutting oils, petroleum fuel products, and metals were historically used at the North Campus. Other activities conducted at the facility included manufacturing and assembling light rail cars, buses, large array antennas, and missiles, among others (Bodhi, 2013).

Parcel A consists of two areas that have been part of the Rohr manufacturing facility. Buildings 99 and 100 and the vacant properties are located north of G Street, and Building 29 is located south of G Street.

Industrial activities and historical chemical use on Parcel A were more limited compared to the main manufacturing portions of the facility located on Parcel B and the former South Campus. Rohr acquired the vacant Bay Boulevard properties from the City of Chula Vista (City) as part of the 1999 Relocation Agreement. Rohr has conducted no activities on these properties since acquiring them from the City.

Prior to Rohr’s ownership, the parcels at 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard were developed agriculturally as a citrus grove from as early as 1929 to approximately 1944. The parcels were used for row crop cultivation from that time until at least 1953. The properties were then developed with mixed commercial/industrial and residential use as summarized in the following table. 3 Street Address Occupants/Businesses
350 Bay Boulevard
Casey Const. Co. (1956)
B & H Metal Co., metal goods (1964)
Jackson’s Auto Wrecking/Import Auto (1970-1985)
Campbell Enterprise (1981)
360 Bay Boulevard B & H Metal Co. (1956-1964)
A & R Used Auto Parts (1964-1985)
364 Bay Boulevard So. Bay Veterinary Hospital (1956-1964) Post Aircraft Co./For Mac Co., aircraft parts rear (1960-1964) 368, 368½ Bay Boulevard
Mansell Marine Inc./So. Bay Marine & Boat (1956-1964)
San Diego Pump & Compressor (1964-1985)
Residential (1976-1985)

Businesses that occupied these parcels included aircraft parts manufacturing, refrigeration unit repair, storage, junkyards, and a veterinary hospital (Haley & Aldrich, 2016b). 350 and 360 Bay Boulevard were formerly used for auto maintenance and repair, auto dismantling, and salvaging that included a gold ore extraction/recovery operation. By the mid-1980s, many of the properties were acquired by the City and business operations ceased. Rohr considered purchasing the vacant Bay Boulevard properties in the late 1980s to construct its corporate headquarters but purchased the property west of the railroad ROW instead. Rohr has never used or conducted any operations on the vacant Bay Boulevard properties.

Rohr purchased Buildings 99 and 100 in 1986 and primarily used them for administrative purposes. Test laboratories were housed in Building 100. Building 29 was constructed in phases beginning in about 1957 through 1962. Both areas of Parcel A were owned by others and used for other purposes prior to Rohr’s ownership. (Adrian Brown, 1998; Woodward-Clyde, 1998; URS, 2013; Haley & Aldrich, 2016a, 2016b, 2018a). These other historical uses included agriculture, a trailer park, employee parking, truck engine repair, and a possible lumber yard. Based on historical aerial photographs, the area occupied by Buildings 99 and 100 were citrus groves as early as the 1920s, and the northern portion of the Building 29 Area was also used for agriculture. The agricultural use of portions of Parcel A appears to have taken place through the 1940s.

Building 29 was primarily used for tooling, machining, and office space for most of its history. At one time, the northernmost portion served as the Maintenance Department for the facility. Most recently the building housed laboratories, kitting, an After-Market Spares Warehouse, Service Center and FAI repairs, storage, tool calibration, product development, and office space.

Another former building (Building 28) was built on the southern portion of Parcel A in the mid-1940s and served as offices, including finance and payroll. The building was located south of Building 29 and was demolished around 2000. The area is now occupied by a parking lot.

1.3 SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION
Historical environmental features on Parcel A are listed in Table 1 and shown on Figure 2. Site assessment activities were initiated in the late 1980s when Rohr considered purchasing the vacant properties for constructing its corporate office complex (Building 107).

4 Several investigations and soil remediation activities were conducted specific to 350-360 Bay Boulevard under the regulatory oversight of the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) and the City received a No Further Action (NFA) Letter contingent on continued commercial/industrial property use.

Adrian Brown completed a Phase I in 1998 (Adrian Brown, 1998) to comply with the directives appearing in the 1998 CAO issued to Rohr by the SDRWQCB (SDRWQCB, 1998a, 1998b). The Adrian Brown Phase I predates Rohr’s acquisition of the vacant Bay Boulevard properties from the City in 1999. The Phase I identified historical environmental features that could be potential sources of chemicals in soil on the North Campus and included aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), paint booths, and vapor degreasers. Woodward-Clyde also prepared a compilation and evaluation of existing Site and adjacent property data as another directive under the 1998 CAO (Woodward-Clyde, 1998). This document includes information on the vacant Bay Boulevard property site assessment activities that was available at that time. In 2013, URS completed a Phase I as part of due diligence during the sale of Rohr to United Technologies Corporation (URS, 2013). In addition, Haley & Aldrich completed two Phase Is in 2016: one for Buildings 29, 99, and 100 and the other for the vacant Bay Boulevard properties in anticipation of a property sale (Haley & Aldrich, 2016a, 2016b).

Previous investigations on Parcel A have included soil, soil vapor, and groundwater sampling. Indoor air screening has been performed in Building 29. Analytical results for soil and soil vapor samples are provided in Tables 2 through 4. The sample locations are shown on Figure 3. Figures 4A though 4E provide detail maps at smaller scale from north to south so that the environmental features and their associated boring locations can be seen more clearly. Indoor air screening results for Building 29 are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.

Site assessment activities on Parcel A, conducted under SDRWQCB oversight, have included the following:
350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard
 Eleven direct-push and Hydropunch borings; and
 Twenty-two soil and two groundwater sample analyses.

Previous assessment and remediation activities conducted at 350 and 360 Bay Boulevard under DEH oversight are described in Section 1.3.2 below. Information related to these investigations is limited to that appearing the Woodward-Clyde “Data Compilation and Evaluation Report” (Woodward-Clyde, 1998) and some documentation in the DEH’s electronic library database.

Buildings 99 and 100
 Six direct-push and Hydropunch borings;
 Nine sub-slab vapor probes and one deeper vapor probe; and  Ten soil, nine sub-slab soil vapor, one deeper soil vapor, and one groundwater sample analyses.

5 Building 29
 Sixty-six direct-push and Hydropunch borings;
 Seventeen temporary sub-slab soil vapor probes;
 Twenty-one temporary deeper soil vapor probes; and
 One-hundred twenty-six soil, seventeen sub-slab soil vapor, twenty-three deeper soil vapor, and nineteen groundwater sample analyses.

Several borings (seven; borings UT-02, -03, -18, -19, -20, -21 and -66) were advanced and fourteen samples analyzed during URS’ 2013 supplemental remedial investigation on the adjacent parcel occupied by the railroad ROW. While these data are described and included in this Revised CSM, they are not located on Parcel A.

A chronology of the Site assessment activities on Parcel A is provided in the following sections.

1.3.1 Fuel UST Closures
In 1986, four fuel USTs in the Building 99 and 100 Area were removed and closed under permit with the DEH. McLaren Environmental Engineering conducted a subsurface investigation prior to Rohr’s purchase of the property formerly occupied by Valley Detroit Diesel. Four groundwater monitoring wells (MW-A through MW-D) were installed on the perimeter of the Building 99 and 100 Area. Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH) and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in soil and groundwater were relatively low or not detected (Woodward-Clyde, 1998). In June 1996, the DEH provided Rohr with approval to destroy the wells.

1.3.2 350 and 360 Bay Boulevard Site Assessment
The following summary is primarily based on information appearing in the “Data Compilation and Evaluation Report” prepared by Woodward-Clyde in 1998 (Woodward-Clyde, 1998) and limited information in the DEH electronic library database. In October 1987, Woodward-Clyde conducted soil excavation, disposal, sampling, and analysis for the City related to petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil with petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations greater than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram ([mg/kg]; 85 cubic yards) was excavated and properly disposed. Lead (greater than 200 mg/kg) was detected in surface soil at 350 Bay Boulevard, around the area believed to have been formerly used for gold ore extraction. A sample contained Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) lead at a concentration of 20 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which was above the regulatory limit of 5 mg/L.

In 1988, when Rohr obtained an option to purchase these parcels, Woodward-Clyde collected 25 surface soil samples at random locations and installed and sampled three groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1B, MW-2B and MW-3B). Soil lead concentrations ranged from 75.2 to 16,400 mg/kg and STLC lead concentrations ranged from 1.0 to 538 mg/L. The lead concentration in groundwater in well MW1B was below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.050 mg/L. Trichloroethene (TCE) was also reported in well MW-2B at a concentration of 14 micrograms per liter (µg/L).

In 1991, TorStan destroyed well MW-3B and characterized surface soil on the property for the City. Soil sample were analyzed for total and STLC lead (44 samples), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxin and furans. Total lead concentrations in the samples 6 analyzed ranged from 13.3 to 3,490 mg/kg. Three samples contained lead above the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) of 1,000 mg/kg. STLC lead ranged from not detected (<0.275 mg/L) to 84.6 mg/L, and 24 samples contained STLC lead above the regulatory limit of 5 mg/L. The upper 80 percent confidence interval concentrations for TTLC and STLC lead were 399 mg/kg and 12.0 mg/L, respectively.

OCPs were detected in the 12 samples analyzed, and included DDE and DDT at concentrations ranging from approximately 0.0075 to 0.0361 mg/kg, below the TTLC regulatory limit of 1.0 mg/kg for each compound. PCBs (as Aroclor 1254) were also present in 10 of the 12 soil samples at concentrations ranging from 0.063 to 2.585 mg/kg.

Four additional soil samples were analyzed for PCBs, and dioxin and furans. Two of the samples contained PCBs (Aroclor 1254 and 1260) at concentrations of 0.055 and 7.438 mg/kg. Dioxins and furans were detected in two of the four samples analyzed. Compounds detected included hexa, hepta and octa isomers; concentrations ranged from 3.2 to 1883.7 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg). TorStan concluded that the concentrations of the isomers detected were below the TTLC for tetradioxins (10,000 ng/kg). Soil containing PCBs was excavated and properly disposed off-site under DEH oversight.

TorStan conducted quarterly groundwater monitoring of wells MW-1B and MW-2B in 1991 and 1992.

No OCPs were detected in groundwater samples when analyzed during the first quarter 1991. TCE concentrations in well MW-2B were above the MCL of 5 µg/L during each monitoring event. According to DEH records, MW-2B was destroyed, but MW-1B could not be located. It is unclear if this well remains on the property.

In February 2001, the lead-containing soil was excavated across the property to a depth of 2 feet, and 800 cubic yards of lead-containing soil was removed and consolidated with burn ash from the Shinohara Burn Site on Otay Valley Road. The materials were used as part of the foundation of the cap for the former Otay Class I Landfill operated by San Diego County. This landfill was permitted to accept hazardous waste. Confirmation soil samples were collected from the perimeter and the floor of the excavation at random locations. The mean total lead concentration of the confirmation samples was 54 mg/kg, and the upper 95% confidence interval was 71 mg/kg. An NFA letter was provided to the City by the DEH VAP on September 17, 2001.

1.3.3 1998 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Adrian Brown was retained to conduct a Phase I of the Rohr facility in 1998 (Adrian Brown, 1998) in compliance with the 1998 CAO issued by the SDRWQCB. In this Phase I, Adrian Brown identified possible Site environmental features potentially containing hazardous substances and petroleum products such as process lines, sewers, sumps, drains, storm sewers, tanks, storage vessels, equipment vaults, degreasers, waste treatment storage areas, and chemical use areas. The historical environmental features identified by Adrian Brown are included on Figure 2.

1.3.4 San Diego Formation Aquifer Testing
In 1998 and 1999, URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde (URSGWC) conducted a drilling program to assess subsurface geology and hydrogeology of the San Diego Formation at the Rohr Site (URSGWC, 1999).

These data were collected to support the redesignation of the groundwater basin uses from beneficial to non-beneficial for the area west of Interstate 5. The drilling program identified subsurface geology to a depth of approximately 550 feet and evaluated the vertical hydraulic connection between shallow groundwater and a deeper, coarse-grained gravel zone identified at 180 to 200 feet below ground 7 surface (bgs) by conducting aquifer testing. In addition to the five wells installed (DB-2, DB-4, DB-5, OW-3, and OW-4), two pressure transducers (OW-1 and OW-2) were installed in separate grouted boreholes to monitor changes in pressure within the aquitard during aquifer testing. Three wells (DB-2, DB-4, and DB-5) and the two transducers (OW-1 and OW-2) were recently destroyed under permit with the DEH. Wells OW-3 and OW-4, screened in Upper Zone B and Lower Zone B, respectively, remain for monitoring purposes. Groundwater use remains beneficial west of Interstate 5.

1.3.5 Blanchard Grinder UST Closure
The former Blanchard Grinder UST (Rohr Tank No. 3-09598) was in the tooling area in the southern portion of Building 29 (see Table 1 and Figure 2). The machine sat on a metal plate above a concrete sump that served as a reservoir for coolant that was used to circulate through the unit while operating.

URSGWC drilled soil borings in 1999 adjacent to this UST and analyzed samples for TRPH. None were detected. Based on the results, the DEH approved the in-place closure of this former sump.

1.3.6 2013 URS Supplemental Remedial Investigation
Following completion of a Phase I, URS conducted a Site investigation in 2013 when United Technologies Corporation acquired Goodrich Corporation (URS, 2015). During this investigation, 62 direct-push and four hand-auger borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 1 to 22 feet bgs on the Rohr facility. The investigation included soil and shallow groundwater sampling to identify potential sources of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) at the facility. There were four borings drilled on Parcel A (UT-22, UT-23, UT-24, and UT-25) and seven other borings were advanced adjacent to the drainage swale west of Parcel A on the railroad ROW (UT-02, UT-03, UT-18 through UT-21 and UT-66).

The borings were advanced hydraulically downgradient (west) and outside of buildings, except for UT22. The results of the investigation were compared to industrial/commercial screening criteria consistent with the Site’s commercial/industrial use. Soil samples from the borings were analyzed for VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons-extended range (TPH), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs, specifically polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs}, PCBs, PAHs, Title 22 Metals, and hexavalent chromium depending on location and Site history. None of the soil samples from the borings on Parcel A contained COPCs at concentrations above their respective Groundwater Protection Level (GPL), commercial/industrial California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Screening Level (DTSC-SL) or TTLC. However, there were some soil samples from the drainage swale that contained one or more COPCs above their respective screening criteria. Soil in UT-02 contained the PCB, Aroclor 1254 at a concentration of 770 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg), exceeding its commercial/industrial DTSC-SL of 590 µg/kg. The PAHs, benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene were reported in soil from borings UT-18, UT-21 and UT-66 exceeding their respective commercial/industrial DTSC-SLs of 1,300 and 310 µg/kg. The presence of these compounds is attributed to railroad operations unrelated to the Rohr facility.

1.3.7 2016 Haley & Aldrich Phase I and IIs
Following completion of Phase Is, Haley & Aldrich conducted supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (Phase IIs) in 2016 to investigate soil and groundwater on the Building 99 and 100 and Building 29 Areas (Haley & Aldrich, 2018a) and the vacant Bay Boulevard properties (including 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard [Haley & Aldrich, 2018b]). The locations of the borings advanced during the Phase IIs are shown on Figure 3. The results of the Phase II and Rohr’s plans to sell Parcel A were 8 discussed with the SDRWQCB in late 2017. The SDRWQCB opened a GeoTracker ID for these areas to track investigation and remediation activities for these areas separately from the rest of the North Campus (Eastern Parcels, Global ID no. T10000011095). Subsequently, Rohr notified the SDRWQCB that it planned to retain the vacant Bay Boulevard properties to be included in Parcel C. A summary of the findings for each Phase II conducted by Haley & Aldrich is described below.

1.3.7.1 Buildings 29, 99, and 100
Haley & Aldrich advanced 25 soil borings and analyzed samples for the following COPCs: TPH, VOCs, SVOCs (phenols and PAHs), OCPs, PCBs, and Title 22 Metals. None of the soil samples analyzed for TPH, VOCs, SVOCs (phenols), or OCPs contained an analyte at a concentration above its respective commercial/industrial DTSC-SL except for one sample (B29-05-02) collected at 2 feet bgs that contained the PCB Aroclor 1260 (1,300 µg/kg) above its commercial/industrial DTSC-SL of 580 µg/kg. None of the samples contained any COPCs at a concentration above its GPL or TTLC.

Arsenic was reported in soil at three locations (B29-02, B29-03, and B29-07) on the northern portion of the Building 29 Area at concentrations greater than the Site-specific background threshold of 8 mg/kg (established for the Former South Campus), but below the Site-specific GPL of 24.3 mg/kg. None of the other Title 22 Metals were present in soil at concentrations exceeding screening criteria described in Section 4. No environmental concerns were identified in soil or groundwater in the Building 99 and 100 Area.

1.3.7.2 Vacant Bay Boulevard Properties
Haley & Aldrich advanced 27 soil borings and analyzed 49 soil and 9 groundwater samples for COPCs. Of the borings advanced and samples analyzed, 11 borings and 22 samples were specific to 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard. COPCs included TPH, VOCs, PAHs, OCPs, and Title 22 Metals. None of the soil samples analyzed were reported to exceed a GPL, commercial/industrial DTSC-SL or TTLC for the COPCs identified. One sample collected from BB-23 was reported to contain DDE at its TTLC of 1 mg/kg. Two in-situ groundwater samples from BB-17 and BB-23 were reported to contain arsenic slightly above the MCL of 0.010 mg/L (0.0149 and 0.0122 mg/L, respectively). The presence of low levels of arsenic in groundwater is likely naturally occurring and attributed to background.

1.3.8 2018 Sub-Slab Soil Vapor and Focused Deeper Soil Vapor Survey In May 2018, and in preparation for the property sale, a soil vapor survey was conducted in Buildings 29, 99, and 100 in accordance with the California Environmental Protection Agency’s “Advisory Active Soil Gas Investigations” dated July 2015 (Haley & Aldrich, 2018c). Sub-slab soil vapor sample locations were selected considering past Site use and previous subsurface VOC soil and groundwater concentrations.

The soil vapor samples were analyzed by a mobile laboratory using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method TO-15. The temporary vapor probe locations are shown on Figure 3.

Analytical results for sub-slab soil vapor samples are summarized in Table 3. VOCs were identified in sub-slab soil vapor samples collected beneath the slab of Building 29 and in the deeper soil vapor samples. Samples were collected at a depth of 1 foot below the slab. TCE was detected in 10 of the 17 sub-slab soil vapor sample locations beneath Building 29 at concentrations ranging from 42 to 920,000 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
). The highest TCE concentration in the sub-slab soil vapor samples was detected at probe B29-V03.
9 Deeper soil vapor data are summarized in Table 4. The deeper soil vapor samples were collected at depths of 5 and 10 feet below the slab in the former Maintenance Department since groundwater beneath this area contains VOCs. TCE was detected in each of the deeper samples collected beneath and in proximity to Building 29 except for samples from probe B29-V05. TCE concentrations ranged from 100 to 3,000,000 µg/m3 in the 5-foot samples, with the highest concentration detected in probe B29-V03. TCE was detected in three of the four soil vapor samples collected at 10 feet (just above the level of groundwater) at lower concentrations, ranging from 64 to 3,400 µg/m3 . This suggested that TCE
in soil vapor was related to a shallow soil source. Based on these findings, Haley & Aldrich recommended supplemental indoor air and potential preferential pathway screening in the building.

The SDRWQCB concurred with our recommendations.

Relatively low concentrations of some VOCs were reported in soil vapor samples collected beneath Buildings 99 and 100. None of the VOC concentrations exceeded screening criteria and as such, are not considered an environmental concern.

1.3.9 2018 - 2019 Indoor Air Screening
In September 2018, Haley & Aldrich conducted indoor air screening in Building 29 to evaluate whether total VOCs and TCE may be present in indoor air (Haley & Aldrich, 2018d). The screening was based on locations where TCE had been detected in soil, shallow groundwater, sub-slab soil vapor, and near slab penetrations that could serve as preferential subsurface vapor migration pathways. Air grab samples were screened using a photoionization detector and Hapsite gas chromatograph. It should be noted that the measurements represent a moment in time rather than a time-weighted average concentration over an 8- or 10-hour workday. The results were only used for screening purposes and to determine if interim mitigation measures were warranted prior to implementing building improvements (beyond sealing potential preferential pathways for vapor intrusion). The results of the indoor air screening indicated no immediate interim measures appeared to be required for Building 29.

TCE screening results for September 2018 are summarized in Tables 5 and 6 for the breathing zone and preferential pathways, respectively. The TCE screening results ranged from 0.012 µg/m3 to 2 µg/m3 ,
except for two locations where 4.2 µg/m3 and 5.5 µg/m3 were measured in the breathing zone near utility trenches in proximity to a floor slab crack, suggesting that potential preferential pathways may be contributing to TCE screening results observed in indoor air. None of the results were greater than the EPA Region 9 Indoor Air Response Action Level of 8 µg/m3 for TCE, also identified by DTSC as the commercial/industrial worker accelerated response action level assuming an 8-hour workday. No immediate interim measure was required in the building. However, there were several samples in the building where the TCE screening results were greater than the lower end of the health protective risk range for the 8-hour workday for a commercial/industrial worker (3 µg/m3 ). This concentration is based
on a 1 x 10-6 risk threshold assuming chronic long-term exposure.

Indoor air screening was conducted again in February 2019 at the same locations based on DTSC guidance (Haley & Aldrich, 2019). Doors and windows that are typically open were closed in February.

TCE screening results for the February 2019 event for the breathing zone and preferential pathways are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. There were six locations in the northern portion of Building 29 where TCE screening results in the breathing zone were greater than the accelerated response action level for the commercial/industrial 8-hour workday (8 µg/m3 ). TCE screening results at six additional
locations in the northern half of Building 29 were greater than the lower end of the health protective risk range for the 8-hour workday for a commercial/industrial worker (3 µg/m3 ). As an immediate
10 interim measure, Rohr increased air circulation by keeping fans operating and doors opened. In September 2019, Haley & Aldrich sealed cracks and joints in the slab in the former Maintenance Department.

1.3.10 2020 Data Gap Assessment
A data gap assessment was conducted in January 2020 to further characterize the nature and extent of VOCs in soil and groundwater and conduct some step-out sampling in areas where arsenic and PCBs had been detected above screening levels during the Phase II (Haley & Aldrich, 2018a; 2020a). Arsenic was detected in soil at a concentration slightly greater than the GPL of 24.3 mg/kg in step-out boring B29-07A (24.6 mg/kg). The other analyzed step-out samples contained arsenic concentrations less than the GPL. PCBs were not detected at concentrations greater than the commercial/industrial DTSC-SL in soil samples collected from the step-out borings for boring B29-05.

Several borings were advanced in the former Maintenance Department to identify the potential source of TCE in soil gas and groundwater beneath this area. Soil samples B29-24-010 and B29-23-010 were collected at 1 foot bgs beneath the former Maintenance Department. The samples contained TCE at concentrations greater than the EPA Region 9 commercial/industrial Regional Screening Level ([RSL]; there is no DTSC-SL) of 6 mg/kg (7.83 and 37.8 mg/kg, respectively). TCE in soil sample B29-23-010 also exceeded the GPL of 27 mg/kg. Groundwater analytical results indicated that TCE was present at up to 1,490 µg/L in boring B29-23 beneath the former Maintenance Department. It is our understanding that a relatively small degreaser, once located in this area, appears to have been the source of TCE and other VOCs detected in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater in this area. None of the soil samples contained a COPC concentration above its respective TTLC.

Step-out borings were also conducted around the former mill and lathe locations. None of the COPCs in soil were reported at concentrations above GPLs, commercial/industrial DTSC-SLs, or TTLCs.

1.3.11 2020 GSI Phase II Screening Investigation
GSI conducted a Phase II screening investigation on Parcel A (excluding 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard) in August 2020 on behalf of the Owner (GSI, 2020). The investigation included additional soil and soil vapor sampling and analyses.

The soil analytical results are included in Table 2. Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in PW-12 in soil at a concentration of 4.7 µg/kg at 1.5 feet bgs, and TCE was detected in PW-07 at a concentration of 23 µg/kg at 1.5 feet bgs. PCE and TCE were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in other soil samples. PCBs (Aroclor-1260) were only detected in PW-11, at a concentration of 180 µg/kg and below the screening criteria. PCBs in other samples analyzed were not detected above the reporting limits. No analytes were detected in soil samples at concentrations exceeding GPLs, commercial/industrial DTSC-SLs, TTLCs, or background soil concentrations for arsenic.

Seventeen soil vapor samples (including two duplicate samples) were collected at 15 locations from depths between approximately 3 and 5 feet bgs and analyzed for VOCs. Soil vapor analytical results are included in Table 4. TCE was the constituent detected at the highest concentrations in both the GSI and Haley & Aldrich soil vapor assessments. GSI concluded that the soil analytical results did not indicate a need for additional assessment on Parcel A, and the soil vapor results were generally consistent with the data collected by Haley & Aldrich in 2018. 11 1.3.12 2020 Partner Phase I for 350, 360, 364, and 368 Bay Boulevard Partner conducted a Phase I for the property buyer in late 2020 (Partner, 2020). Partner concluded that the parcels had a recognized environmental condition, since they are part of the ongoing larger Eastern Parcels (Parcel A, Case Number T10000011095) investigation under the oversight of the SDRWQCB.

12 2. Site Description

2.1 SITE GEOLOGY
Parcel A is situated at elevations ranging from approximately 13 feet above MSL on the south and 28 feet above MSL on the north. Parcel A is underlain, in descending order, by limited fill material, the Bay Point Formation, a clay aquitard, and the San Diego Formation. Because Parcel A is more than 1,000 feet upland of the former shoreline, there are no bay muds or extensive fill present on this portion of the North Campus facility. Geologic cross sections A-A’ (north-south) and B-B’ (east-west in the Former Maintenance Department) are provided as Figures 5 and 6, respectively.

2.1.1 Artificial Fill
Artificial fill generally consisted of yellow to brown, silty fine to medium sand with degraded asphalt and sub-angular fine gravel were observed during the Phase II and the data gap assessment (Haley & Aldrich, 2018a and 2020a). The maximum thickness of fill encountered was approximately 5 feet, in boring B29- 33A.

2.1.2 Bay Point Formation
The Bay Point Formation can also be referred to as Quaternary alluvium, as suggested by Wes Danskin formerly with the United States Geological Survey (W. Danskin, pers. comm.). The thickness of the Quaternary sediment can be highly variable in the San Diego embayment, ranging from approximately 200 feet to possibly as much as 700 feet. The Bay Point is Pleistocene in age and was deposited in nearshore marine and onshore fluvial depositional environments.

2.1.3 Clay Aquitard
A blue-gray estuarine clay, designated as a “clay aquitard” occurs below the sandy interval at about 125 to 150 feet bgs (Huntley, 2000). The clay aquitard was identified during URSGWC’s San Diego Formation aquifer testing program. The clay aquitard varies in thickness from 20 feet to almost 40 feet. A bluegray clay layer has also been encountered beneath the North Campus at a depth of approximately 125 to 150 feet bgs with a thickness of 20 to 65 feet. Although the aquitard materials encountered may differ in color at various locations throughout the North Campus and Former South Campus, the materials are characterized as clay with a low hydraulic conductivity.

2.1.4 San Diego Formation
There is a 20-foot-plus thick interval of coarse sands, gravels, and cobbles beneath the clay aquitard that is attributed to the San Diego Formation (Huntley, 2000). These strata were investigated during a drilling and aquifer testing program that Rohr conducted in 1998 and 1999 on behalf of the Sweetwater Authority to characterize the hydrogeology beneath the North Campus (URSGWC, 1999). These coarsergrained sediments were referred to as the Upper Gravel Unit in the URSGWC study and, based on 13 geophysical logs and borehole flowmeter logging, Huntley suggested that the Upper Gravel Unit is the most productive zone investigated during this study (Huntley, 2000). The Upper Gravel Unit is underlain by a series of discontinuous lenses of fine to medium sands, silty sands, clayey sands, and silts and clays to a depth of at least 400 feet bgs (Huntley, 2000).

The San Diego Formation consists of two portions: the upper and lower members. The upper member of the San Diego Formation is present on the land surface in the vicinity of downtown San Diego and Chollas Creek but does not seem to be present or exposed in the South Bay, where the Site is located.

The upper member was deposited in a higher energy environment, closer to the continent; the lower member was deposited in a lower energy environment, typical of a deeper marine environment. The thickest section of the San Diego Formation is located adjacent to the southeastern edge of San Diego Bay, south of the Site.

The age of the San Diego Formation is less well defined but considered to be of the Plio-Pleistocene age.

Like the Quaternary sediment, the San Diego Formation was deposited in nearshore marine and onshore fluvial depositional environments. The contact with the overlying Quaternary alluvium is erosional and very difficult to distinguish in the subsurface and in geophysical logs. The term “San Diego Formation” has historically been used quite liberally, and in some instances, probably inaccurately. For example, marine mollusks present in the clay aquitard during URSGWC’s study were found to be Pleistocene age and part of the Quaternary sediments (Bay Point Formation).

Recent work by the United States Geological Survey indicates that San Diego Formation groundwater near the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers is isotopically enriched, reflecting the process of seawater intrusion (Anders et al, 2013). Furthermore, chloride concentrations decline within the saline section of the San Diego Formation at depths of about 500 to 820 feet bgs, indicating that the greatest quantity of regional groundwater recharge (originating in higher elevations to the east), may flow through the coastal aquifer at these depths.

2.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY
Because this Revised CSM focuses on soil and soil gas on Parcel A, the discussion of Site hydrogeology is limited to depth and flow direction in the uppermost water-bearing zone (Zone A). Groundwater is present in the Bay Point Formation ranging in depth from approximately 10 to 20 feet bgs, based on observations during drilling and water levels in the wells that are north of Building 99. Boring logs for the direct-push borings and the monitoring wells are provided in Appendix A. The locations of the borings and the existing and former monitoring wells are shown on Figure 3. The thickness of the vadose zone on Parcel A ranges from approximately 10 to 20 feet based on this information. The direction of groundwater flow is generally to the west. Wells present on Parcel A have been limited to those installed for the San Diego Formation aquifer testing program (URSGWC, 1999). Two monitoring wells remain north of Building 99 and serve as upgradient wells. OW-3 is screened in Upper Zone B at 10 to 30 feet bgs, and OW-4 is screened in Lower Zone B at 60 to 80 feet bgs. 14 3. Environmental Features
Historical environmental features on Parcel A are described in Table 1. The table first describes Rohr operational features, followed by pre-Rohr operational features. The information has been compiled from numerous historical sources and the results of Site assessment activities. References are also noted and listed on the last page of the table. As previously described, soil remediation activities on Parcel A have been limited to 350-360 Bay Boulevard and occurred prior to Rohr’s acquisition of the property from the City. The City obtained an NFA letter for soil remediation performed on these two parcels. Rohr has not conducted any activities on the vacant Bay Boulevard properties.

Figure 2 shows former operational features, including buildings, ASTs, USTs, underground vessels, vaults, paint booths, degreasers, hydraulic equipment, and maintenance and storage areas. Rohr Tank IDs are noted in Table 1 and on Figure 2, where appropriate. The numbering of these features on Figure 2 corresponds to that appearing in Table 1. The numbering of the features in the table and on Figure 2 is consistent with the Adrian Brown Phase I (Adrian Brown, 1998), the URS Phase I (URS, 2013) and the Haley & Aldrich Data Gap Assessment (Haley & Aldrich, 2020a). 15 4. Distribution of Chemicals at the Site
The distribution of chemicals in vadose zone soil, soil vapor, and indoor air (based on screening) are described in the following sections. As previously described, no discussion of saturated soil is included in this Revised CSM as requested in the SDRWQCB letter dated October 27, 2020, since fill is not present in the saturated zone on Parcel A as noted on geologic cross-sections provided as Figures 5 and 6 and on the boring logs provided in Appendix A.

4.1 EXTENT OF CHEMICALS IN VADOSE ZONE SOIL
The Site soil data have been compared to the GPLs developed for the Former South Campus (Haley & Aldrich, 2014a, 2014b), the DTSC-SLs for commercial/industrial use (where no DTSC-SL is established, the EPA Region 9 commercial/industrial RSL was used, for example for TCE), and the TTLCs appearing in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Section 66261.24 – Characteristic of Toxicity. In the case of arsenic, Site-specific background for the Former South Campus is greater than the commercial/industrial DTSC-SL (0.36 mg/kg). Therefore, soil arsenic concentrations were compared to background established for the South Campus (8 mg/kg; Haley & Aldrich, 2014a, 2014b).

The GPLs and background concentrations for the Former South Campus should be relevant for the North Campus since the operations were the same as the South Campus (they were the same facility) and the hydrogeology and soil types are very similar. The justification for applying these values will be described and evaluated in the Soil Feasibility Study/Soil Remedial Action Plan (Soil FS/RAP) that will be prepared for the North Campus. GPLs for vadose zone soil are summarized in Table 10 of the “Revised Soil Remedial Action Plan” (Soil RAP) for the northern portion of the South Campus (Haley & Aldrich, 2018b).

A copy of this table is provided in Appendix B. The GPL for total PCBs is 130 mg/kg. The PCB concentrations in soil have been compared to the commercial/industrial DTSC-SL and TTLC in lieu of the GPL. The commercial/industrial DTSC-SL for total PCBs in 580 µg/kg and the TTLC is 50 mg/kg.

Soil samples on Parcel A have been analyzed for the following COPCs: VOCs, TPH, SVOCs (phenols and PAHs), PCBs, OCPs, and Title 22 Metals. Figures 7A through 7F summarize the assessment results by chemical class: Figure 7A – VOCs, Figure 7B – TPH, Figure 7C – SVOCs (including phenol and PAHs), Figure 7D - PCBs, Figure 7E – OCPs and Figure 7F – Title 22 Metals. Locations where samples were analyzed and did not contain a COPC for a particular chemical class above a screening criterion are shown in yellow. Locations where samples were not analyzed for that chemical class on the Site are shown in black. Locations where a sample exceeds a GPL are shown in blue, locations where soil exceeds a commercial/industrial DTSC-SL or RSL are shown in yellow and locations that exceed a TTLC are shown in orange. Locations that exceed the Site-specific background for arsenic are also shown in yellow. The COPC, sample depth and its concentration are noted on the figures for screening exceedances.

The analyses performed were specific to the historical environmental features noted in Table 1, and in many instances, none of the COPCs were detected at concentrations that warranted further investigation (see Figures 2 and 7A through 7F).

The locations and COPCs where exceedances of these criteria have been identified are shown in Table 7 and on Figures 7A for VOCs, Figure 7D for PCBs, Figure 7E for OCPs, and Figure 7F for Title 22 Metals (arsenic). The exceedances are described by chemical suite below:
16 4.1.1 VOCs
TCE was reported at a concentration above the GPL of 27 mg/kg at B29-23 in the former Maintenance Department in Building 29, where a small former degreaser was once located. The concentration reported was well below the TTLC of 2,040 mg/kg. B29-23 and B29-24 (also in Building 29) both reported soil TCE concentrations above the EPA Region 9 commercial/industrial RSL of 6 mg/kg. Both locations are approximately 3 feet south of a subterranean vault that runs along the northern portion of Building 29.

The extent of TCE (and VOCs) in soil on Parcel A is shown on the isoconcentration contour map provided as Figure 8. TCE in soil is primarily limited to the northern portion of Building 29 and a location in the southern portion of the building near the former Blanchard Grinder. As shown on cross sections provided as Figures 5 and 6, the vertical extent of TCE appears to be limited as well.

B29-23 and B29-24 lie within the footprint of the proposed loading dock where soil will be excavated during construction proposed by the new Owner. The area is currently underlain by thick reinforced concrete, since this area was used to test large and heavy equipment. There is also a complex network of subsurface utilities that supported the test laboratory. The extent of TCE in the former Maintenance Department can be conducted as needed prior to constructing the loading dock in this area.

4.1.2 TPH
None of the samples analyzed on Parcel A were reported to contain concentrations that exceeded their respective GPLs and DTSC-SLs for certain TPH carbon ranges.

4.1.3 SVOCs
Phenols were not detected in the samples analyzed in the vicinity of the former lumber yard that was formerly located on a portion of the Site. The PAH dibenz(a,h)anthracene was reported in soil at B29-12 above its commercial/industrial DTSC-SL of 0.31 mg/kg. While not on Rohr property, soil at three locations (UT-18, UT-21, and UT-66) in the adjacent railroad ROW contained benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene above their commercial/industrial DTSC-SLs of 1.3 and 0.31 mg/kg, respectively.

The PAHs are often associated with rail lines, and the presence of these compounds in the railroad ROW is attributed to railroad operations, not the Rohr facility.

4.1.4 PCBs
The PCB Aroclor 1260 was reported in B29-05 above its commercial/industrial DTSC-SL of 580 µg/kg and well below the TTLC of 50 mg/kg. Soil in step-out borings (B29-05A, -05B and -05C) was reported to contain PCBs at concentrations less than its TTLC and commercial/industrial DTSC-SL. Step-out sampling has delineated the extent of PCBs that are present in soil above its commercial/industrial DTSC-SL on Parcel A. While not on Rohr property, one location adjacent to Parcel A along the drainage swale in the railroad ROW reported a commercial/industrial DTSC-SL exceedance for PCBs (UT-02).

17 4.1.5 OCPs
A surface soil sample from BB-23 on 368 Bay Boulevard was reported to contain DDE at a concentration equal to its TTLC of 1 mg/kg. The concentration reported was below its commercial/industrial DTSC-SL of 6.2 mg/kg.

4.1.6 Title 22 Metals
Arsenic was compared to the background concentration established for the former South Campus.

Arsenic in soil was reported above background and below the GPL of 24.3 mg/kg in the Building 29 Area that was historically used for agriculture. Seven locations exceeded Site-specific background (B29-02, B29-03, B29-03A, B29-03B, B29-07, B29-07A, and B29-07B). While not on Rohr property, one location adjacent to Parcel A along the drainage swale in the railroad ROW reported an arsenic concentration above background (UT-03).

Arsenic was reported in step-out boring B29-07A for B29-07 at a concentration of 24.6 mg/kg, slightly above the GPL, and well below the TTLC of 500 mg/kg. The boring is immediately adjacent to an underground utility bank. Based on the step-out sampling and the location of the utility bank, arsenic in soil exceeding the GPL is limited and has been delineated. The sample is located beneath pavement in an area that will undergo improvements by the Owner.

A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for Parcel A is in progress and has been submitted to the SDRWQCB. An evaluation of the relevance of soil background and GPLs developed for the Former South Campus to Parcel A will be included in the Feasibility Study for Parcel A that will be presented in the Soil RAP.

4.2 EXTENT OF CHEMICALS IN SOIL VAPOR
The soil vapor VOC data have been compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s commercial/industrial sub-slab/soil gas Vapor Environmental Screening Levels (Vapor ESLs).

Tables 3 and 4 summarize sub-slab and deeper soil vapor results, respectively. Vapor ESL exceedances are listed in Table 8 and shown on Figure 9. There are no environmental concerns related to soil vapor in the Building 99 and 100 Area.

The following VOCs exceed their Vapor ESLs in sub-slab vapor samples in the following locations:
 TCE: B29-V03, B29-V04, B29-V07, B29-V08, B29-V09, B29-V10, B29-V16, and B29-V19;  PCE: B29-V03, B29-V04, B29-V05, B29-V07, B29-V08, B29-V09, and B29-V16;  Chloroform: B29-V03, B29-V07; and B29-V09; and
 Benzene: B29-V03, and B29-V05.

The following VOCs exceeded their Vapor ESLs in deeper soil vapor at the following locations:
 TCE: B29-V01, B29-V02, B29-V03, B29-V06, B29-V07, B29-V08, PW-01B, PW-02, PW-03, PW-04, PW-05, PW-06, PW-07, PW-09, PW-14, and PW-15;
 PCE: B29-V01, B29-V02, B29-V04, B29-V07, B29-V08, PW-05, PW-07, and PW-12; 18  Chloroform: B29-V01, B29-V03, B29-V07, PW-02, PW-03, PW-04, PW-05, PW-06, PW-07, PW-08, PW-11, and PW-12;
 Benzene: B29-V01, B29-V02, B29-V05, B29-V06, and B29-V07; PW-04, PW-08, and PW-12;  Bromodichloromethane: PW-09, PW-11, and PW-12; and
 Ethylbenzene: PW-09.

The TCE soil vapor concentrations on Parcel A are shown on the isoconcentration contour map provided as Figure 10. The distribution of soil vapor is consistent with the soil and groundwater VOC concentrations detected in the Building 29 Area as shown on the TCE isoconcentration contour maps for soil and groundwater provided as Figures 8 and 11, respectively. The Site data are sufficient to conduct the HHRA and develop HBRGs for soil vapor beneath Building 29. An HHRA for Parcel A is in progress.

HBRGs are being developed for Parcel A, and this section of the Revised CSM will be updated based on the results of the HHRA.

4.3 INDOOR AIR SCREENING
The TCE indoor air screening data for the breathing zone appearing in Table 5 were compared to the EPA Region 9 Interim TCE Indoor Air Response Levels (RLs). The locations where measurements in the breathing zone exceeded the TCE indoor air RL are shown on Figures 12 and 13 for September 2018 and February 2019, respectively. The six exceedances during the February 2019 screening event were in the former Maintenance Department, where VOCs have been detected in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater as shown on Figures 8, 10 and 11, respectively. TCE screening results at six additional screening locations in the northern half of Building 29 were greater than the lower end of the health protective risk range for the 8-hour workday for a commercial/industrial worker (3 µg/m3 ). As an immediate
interim measure, Rohr increased air circulation by keeping fans operating and doors opened and sealed cracks and joints in the slab in the northern portion of the building. There are currently no occupants in the building.
19 5. Conceptual Site Model
As previously noted, historical chemical sources are coincident with former Site areas associated with long-term chemical usage. A summary of historical environmental features and status of their investigation are provided in Table 1. The Revised CSM for Parcel A is provided on Figure 14. Figure 15 shows the Site human health exposure pathways and depicts historical chemical sources, primary release mechanisms, primary impacted media, transport mechanisms, secondary impacted media, exposure routes, and potentially exposed receptors for Parcel A. Exposure pathways considered to be potentially complete will be quantified in the HHRAs. Those pathways considered to be insignificant will not be quantified.
20 6. Data Gap Assessment
Historical environmental features on Parcel A have been investigated for their specific COPCs in soil, soil vapor, and shallow groundwater. The detailed maps provided as Figures 4A through 4D show the locations of samples with respect to the historical environmental features on Parcel A from north to south. Figures 7A through 7F show the locations of samples with respect to the historical environmental features based on chemical class supporting the discussion in Section 6.1. Based on our assessments, it is our opinion that the existing soil and soil vapor data support the Revised CSM and are adequate to proceed with an HHRA and a Soil FS/RAP. The COPCs analyzed, sample locations, and sample depths have been reviewed specific to each environmental feature to evaluate whether it has been adequately characterized. Our assessment is provided in Table 1. The following data gaps are described for soil, soil vapor, and indoor air in the sections below. Groundwater data gaps on Parcel A will be described in the Sitewide CSM.

6.1 SOIL

6.1.1 VOCs
VOCs are COPCs for the Site, and extensive sampling has been conducted associated with its historical environmental features as shown on Figure 7A. There are data gaps for soil in the Former Maintenance Department, including the former location of a small degreaser (Historical Environmental Feature No. 300; B29-23 and B29-24). Additional sampling to delineate the extent of soil that may require remediation can be conducted when implementing the Soil FS/RAP following the removal of the building slab and excavation to construct the loading dock.

6.1.2 TPH
Extensive sampling for TPH was conducted for historical features that were known to use materials containing petroleum hydrocarbons (oils) as shown on Figure 7B. TPH was reported primarily in the oil carbon ranges (C17-C32) at concentrations below the GPL of 7,300 mg/kg and the commercial/industrial DTSC-SL of 18,000 mg/kg. Based on the number of samples analyzed and the locations and depths sampled, there are no data gaps associated with TPH at the Site.

6.1.3 SVOCs
Phenols were considered a COPC for a portion of the Building 29 Area that may have been occupied by a lumberyard as shown on Figure 7C. PAHs were also analyzed in the Building 29 Area. An assessment of this area for phenols indicated that none were reported at detectable concentrations, some PAHs were reported in soil, and dibenz(a,h) anthracene was detected at a concentration above its commercial/industrial DTSC-SL in B29-12. Based on the analytical results and the locations and depths sampled, there are no data gaps related to SVOCs, including phenols, and PAHs in Site soil.

6.1.4 PCBs
Extensive sampling for PCBs has been conducted beneath Building 29 as shown on Figure 7D. Building 29 was primarily used as a machine shop for tooling. There is one location where PCBs were detected above the commercial/ industrial DTSC-SL (B29-05). Step-out sampling indicated that the exceedance 21 was limited in extent. Based on sample results and the locations and depths sampled, there are no data gaps associated with PCBs in soil at the Site at this time.

6.1.5 OCPs
Soil has been analyzed in the Building 29 and Buildings 99 and 100 Areas, and 350, 360, 364 and 368 Bay Boulevard that were historically used for agriculture (see Figure 7E). Only one sample analyzed was reported with DDE concentrations at its TTLC, but the reported concentration was below its commercial/industrial DTSC-SL (BB-23). Based on the number of samples analyzed and the locations and depths sampled, there are no data gaps associated with OCPs at the Site.

6.1.6 Title 22 Metals
Extensive sampling for metals has been conducted on Parcel A as shown on Figure 7F. Of the metals, only arsenic has been detected above its GPL at one location (B29-07A) in the northern portion of Building 29 Area that was historically used for agriculture. The area is paved and immediately adjacent to a subsurface utility bank. If it is found that this area is disturbed during construction of the tenant improvements to Building 29, the limited volume of soil can be addressed at that time, if necessary.

There are no data gaps with respect to metals (including arsenic) on Parcel A.

6.2 SOIL VAPOR
The soil vapor surveys identified locations beneath Building 29 where VOCs are present at concentrations that exceed the Vapor ESLs. The locations of the exceedances are coincident with historical environmental features, and impacted soil and groundwater as shown on the TCE concentration contour maps provided as Figures 8 and 11, respectively. The historical features that were associated with VOCs have been adequately investigated. However, there are two locations (PW11 and PW-12) in Building 29 in the area that was once occupied by a lumber yard where VOCs were reported above Vapor ESLs and are considered data gaps. The Site data are sufficient to conduct the HHRA and develop HBRGs for soil vapor beneath Building 29. The Owner will be installing a sub-slab depressurization system (SSDS) to address soil vapor intrusion. Other remedies will also be considered in the Soil FS/RAP to address vapor intrusion.

6.3 INDOOR AIR
Indoor air screening was conducted based on the findings of the soil gas surveys and addressed cracks and other penetrations to the slab in Building 29. No indoor air sampling was necessary based on the soil vapor survey results in Buildings 99 and 100. The results of the September 2018 screening in Building 29 indicated that none of the results in the breathing zone were greater than the EPA Region 9 Interim TCE Indoor Air RL of 8 µg/m3 for TCE. However, during the February 2019 screening, there were locations that were above the RL in the former Maintenance Department. Rohr implemented immediate interim actions to increase air circulation and sealed cracks and penetrations in the building slab in the former Maintenance Department. It should be noted that the measurements represent a moment in time rather than a time-weighted average concentration over an 8- or 10-hour workday. The results were only used for screening purposes and to determine if interim mitigation measures were warranted prior to implementing building improvements (beyond sealing potential preferential pathways for vapor intrusion). The results of the indoor air screening indicated no immediate interim measures appeared to be required for Building 29.
22 As previously noted, the Owner will be making improvements to Building 29 that include constructing a loading dock in the portion once occupied by the former Maintenance Department. In addition, the Owner will be removing TCE-containing soil as part of loading dock construction and installing an SSDS to address vapor intrusion. While indoor air sampling is a data gap, the data will only be relevant if the data are collected post-redevelopment prior to building occupancy by the tenant. It is recommended that indoor air sampling be conducted at that time to address potential vapor intrusion concerns.

23 References

1. Adrian Brown Consultants, 1998. ASTM Phase I Site Assessment, B.F. Goodrich Aerospace, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California. June 4.

2. Anders, R., Mendez, G. O., Futa, K. and Danskin, W.R., 2013. A Geochemical Approach to Determine Sources and Movement of Saline Groundwater in a Coastal Aquifer. Ground Water. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12108, 13 p. Available at
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/sandiego/pdfs/AndersEtAl2013.pdf.

3. Bodhi Group, Inc., 2013. Draft Report, Source Evaluation of Waste at Outfall 4, L-Ditch and Goodrich Aerostructures Facilities, Chula Vista, California. December.

4. GSI Environmental Inc., 2020. Limited Phase II Screening Site Investigation, Rohr, Inc. a Collins Aerospace Company, Parcel A, North Campus, 850 Lagoon Drive and 390 Bay Blvd., Chula Vista, California. September 11.

5. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2014a. Derivation of Site-specific Groundwater Quality Protection Levels for Vadose Zone Soil, South Campus Property, Chula Vista, California. January 30.

6. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2014b. Revised Derivation of Site-specific Groundwater Quality Protection Levels for Vadose Zone Soil, South Campus Property, Chula Vista, California. November 11.

7. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2016a. ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Rohr Property IDs 7 and 15 (Eastern Portion), Chula Vista. July 21.

8. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2016b. ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Rohr Property IDs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Chula Vista. July 21.

9. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2018a. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Buildings 99 and 29, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker Global ID# T10000011095. January 11.

10. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2018b. Revised Soil Remedial Action Plan, Former South Campus, North of Exchange Parcel, Chula Vista, California. April 20.

11. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2018c. Sub-slab and Focused Soil Vapor Survey Report, Rohr, Inc. – Eastern Parcels, Buildings 29, 99 and 100, Chula Vista, California. September 6.

12. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2018d. Indoor Air Screening Technical Memorandum, Rohr, Inc. – Building 29, Chula Vista, California. October 31.

13. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2019. Indoor Air Screening Technical Memorandum, Addendum No. 1 – Winter Screening, Rohr, Inc. – Building 29, Chula Vista, California. April 19.

14. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2020a. Data Gap Assessment Report, Rohr, Inc. – Rohr, Inc. - Parcel A, Building 29, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, SDRWQCB Code No. SMC:20- 0283.051:alot, GeoTracker ID: T0000011095. February 18. 24 References
(continued)

15. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2020b. Conceptual Site Model, Rohr, Inc. – North Campus, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker ID No. T10000001489. May 19.

16. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2020c. Conceptual Site Model, Rohr, Inc. – North Campus, Parcel A, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker ID No. T10000011095. December 24.

17. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., 2021. Revised Conceptual Site Model, Rohr, Inc. – North Campus, Parcel A, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California, GeoTracker ID No. T10000011095. March 31.

18. Huntley, David, 2000. Analysis of the Potential for Downward Leakage of Dissolved-Phase Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, BF Goodrich Aerospace Facility, Chula Vista, CA. January 9.

19. Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 2020. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Bay Boulevard – Parcel A, 350, 360. 364 and 368 Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA 91910. December

28. 20. Rick Engineering, 1998. BF Goodrich Aerospace Campus Existing Storm Drain Exhibit. July 10.

21. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1998a. Staff Report for Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 98-08 issued to The Aerostructures Group of BF Goodrich Aerospace (formerly Rohr, Inc.) and BF Goodrich Company” by K. Zachary. March 26.

22. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1998b. Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 98- 08, Aerostructures Group of BF Goodrich Aerospace (formerly Rohr, Inc.) and the BF Goodrich Company, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. April 2.

23. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2020. Conceptual Site Model – North Campus, Chula Vista, CA (Site ID#2092900). October 27.

24. URS Corporation. 2013. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, UTAS – Chula Vista, 850 Lagoon Drive Chula Vista, California 91910. April 2.

25. URS Corporation. 2015. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report, Rohr, Inc. – North Campus, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, California. May 1.

26. URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde, 1999. Report of Subsurface Investigation, BFGoodrich Aerospace Facility, Chula Vista, California. January 12.

27. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1998. Data Compilation and Evaluation Report, Rohr, Inc., Chula Vista, California. May 27.
\\haleyaldrich.com\share\sdg_common\127827_North Campus\023_Parcel A Conceptual Site Model\Deliverables\043021 RWQCB Submittal\2021_0430_HAI_NCSCM_F.docx TABLES
TABLE 1

HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
ROHR, INC. ‐ PARCEL A

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 4 ends

Chula Vista City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Chula Vista City Council
November 18, 2025