Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/08/10 (2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 94-02) A. BACKGROUND National Avenue Associates, in conjunction with Gatlin Development is proposing to construct a 219,219 square foot shopping center on a 32,5 acre site at the northern terminus of Fifth Avenue and bordered by SR-54 to the north and Broadway to the south, The proposed development would create a regional shopping center with a 149,289 square foot anchor store, a 52,640 square foot co-anchor, 10,790 square feet of additional retail space and a 6,500 square foot pad proposed for retail/restaurant (currently Walmart and Mega Foods are negotiating with the applicant for anchor and co-anchor stores, respectively), The project as proposed would require a General Plan Amendment from Industrial General to Conunercial Retail and an accompanying zone change, an amendment to the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan, an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, as well as Design Review approval. Various projects have been previously proposed for portions of the project site, including a golf range/ sports center, and an industrial/office development. The site is currently undeveloped but has been graded, The portion of the site proposed for grading and development (approximately 22 acres of the 32,5 acre site has been disturbed by previous grading activities, As a result of circulation of the Notice of Preparation, three conunent letters were received, Letters from both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District requested full mitigation for school impacts from the project. Additionally, Caltrans submitted suggestions regarding the scope of the traffic study. Three letters of conunent have been received to date (August 2, 1994) from circulation of the Draft EIR; these include: 1. Sweetwater Authority (June 28, 1994): indicating that the analysis is satisfactory and that they have no further conunents, 2, Chula Vista Elementary School District (June 30, 1994): requesting modifications to the methodology for calculating school impacts and mitigation. 3, Save Our Bay, Inc. (July 19, 1994): included conunents requesting clarifications on text and exhibits, and indicated concerns regarding the onsite wetlands and salt marsh habitats, Any additional comments will be hand delivered to the Planning Conunission at the Public Hearing (August 10, 1994). All comments received on the Draft EIR, both written and oral City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994 Page 2 comments, will be responded to in the "Responses to Comments" section of the Final EIR, An informal public forum has been held in the community to present the proposed project and solicit input, This was held on June 30, The Draft EIR was presented at the meeting, at which two members of the public were in attendance, The Resource Conservation Conunission considered the Draft EIR on July 25, 1994, The RCC voted 4 - 1 to recommend its certification. B. RECOMMENDATION It is reconunended that the Planning Conunission: Conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft EIR (EIR 94-02), close the hearing, and give staff direction to prepare the Final EIR. c. ANALYSIS 1. Land Use Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact Project impacts to coastal salt marsh would be inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program and impacts to the Chula Vista Greenbelt designation are considered significant. Mitigation Impacts to coastal salt marsh are mitigated through revegetation at a ratio of 3: I, Impacts to the Greenbelt would be mitigated through one or more of four mitigation scenarios identified in the Draft EIR. 2. Aesthetics Impact Summary: Less than Significant 3. Air Oualitv Impact Summary: Significant, Not MitigabIe Impact Vehicle emissions contribute to the regional (cumulative) air quality impact; short term construction impacts, Mitigation Construction impacts are mitigated through implementation of dust control measures and proper use of emission control on construction equipment, 4. Noise Impact Summary: Less than Significant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994 Page 3 5. Fiscal/Economic Impact Summary: Beneficial Impact 6, BioIol!icaI Resources Impact Summary: Significant, MitigabIe Impact Impacts to .06 acre of un vegetated drainage channel and ,15 acre of coastal salt marsh Mitigation Revegetation on site at a ratio of 3: I, to the satisfaction of the U, S, Army Corps of Engineers, U, S, Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, 7. Public Services and Utilities Impact Summary: Significant, MitigabIe. A, Fire - No significant impact. B, Police - No significant impact, C. Schools - Potentially significant impact mitigated through payment of fees and/or assessments, D, Sewer - No significant impact. E, Water - No significant impact, F, Parks and Recreation - No significant impact. 8, Traffic Circulation Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impacts: A, Project traffic would significantly impact offsite roadway intersections including 4th Avenue/Brisbane Street and 5th Avenue/C Street. B. Project traffic would incrementally contribute, in conjunction with buildout of the City General Plan, to significant impacts to the left turn at SR-54 westbound offramp at Highland and to Broadway and E Street. City Planning Conunission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994 Page 4 Mitigation: A. The project applicant shall signalize the intersections of 4th Avenue/Brisbane Street and 5th Avenue/C Street. B, The project applicant will complete and/or pay a fair share portion of improvements at the SR-54 westbound offramp at Highland and at Broadway and E Street. 9. Geolo!!v Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact Significant impacts have been identified for soil suitability, seismic hazards and liquefaction Mitigation The applicant is required to conduct a surchage operation that will compress soils to a suitable state for construction to reduce soil and liquefaction hazards to less than significant levels, Structural design to resist seismic impacts is required, 10. Hvdrolol!V/Water QuaIitv Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable Impact Drainage facility capacities and introduction of urban pollutants and sedimentation have been identified as potentially significant impacts, Mitigation Demonstration that the drainage facilities can convey the appropriate flow levels and installation of water quality protection devices is required, D. ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires a description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project", and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives, The discussion of alternatives "shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly, " The following discussion presents a brief summary of each alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR. City Planning Commission Agenda ltem for Meeting of August 10, 1994 Page 5 "No Proiect" Alternative No changes to land use would occur under the No Project Alternative, and project objectives would not be met. "Aooroved Use" Alternative This alternative would leave the site as is, with its present designation and ability to develop as industrial uses. Impacts would be reduced with this alternative, however, air quality and noise would remain significant and not mitigable, The project objectives would not be met with this alternative, but it has been determined to be the "environmentally superior" alternative, due to a reduction in significant impacts (though not to a level below significance), "Reduced Densitv" Alternative Development of 146,877 square feet of commercial floor area would occur, rather than the 219,219 as proposed by the project. Generally, impacts would be reduced, though the not- mitigable impacts to air quality would remain, This alternative would meet the project objectives, however, to a lesser degree than the proposed project. Alternative Sites Three alternative sites were evaluated in order to determine whether another site might be environmentally superior, Generally, similar impacts or scale of impacts would occur with each of these, and project objectives may not be met due to the non-viability of the respective market areas. E. CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed Channelside Shopping Center project would result in significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality. Otherwise, all significant impacts can be reduced to a level below significant, Project alternatives resulted in the same impact summary (with the exception of the "No Project" alternative), though the existing General Plan alternative reduced impacts resulting in its identification as the "environmentally superior" alternative. SWEETWATER AUTHORIT' ~~nv~~ ~.S <: ,,/.~ :'V(;^:....~ ~f10,,\ 505 GARRETT AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912-2328 (6191420-1413 FAX (6191 425-7469 GOVERNING BOARD BUD POCKLlNGTON. CHAIRMAN GEORGE H WATERS VICE CHAIRMAN SUE JARRETT EDWIN J STEELE MARGARET A WELSH JAMES S WOLNIEWICZ CARY F WRIGHT June 28, 1994 WANDA AVERY TREASURER DIAN J REEVES SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE Environmental Projects Manager City of Chula vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula vista, CA 91910 ~ Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER CASE NO.: EIR-94-02 SWA DEV, FILE: WAL-MART ". c. f' i..: Gentlemen: Sweetwater Authority has reviewed the referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Dudek and Associates. The Authority finds that comments concerning water service for the project are appropriate and have no further comments. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Russell Collins at 420- 1413, ext. 239. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ?~~ ,-) '~1-- ~ James L. s~t~ "'--_;:hief Engineer JLS:RC:vls k:\laurie\vickie\wal-mart.eir A Public Agency, Serving National City, Chulo Vista and Surrounding Areas BOARD OF EDUCATION JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, Ph.D. LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDD GREG R. SANDOVAL SUPERINTENDENT LIBIA S. GIL, Ph.D. CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIS'IRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH June 30, 1994 Mr. Joe Monaco City of Chula Vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Draft EIR - Channelside Shopping Center EIR Dear Mr. Monaco: Thank you for providing a copy of the Draft EIR for the proposed Channelside Shopping Center for our review and comment. There are a few errors that need to be corrected. On page 4.7-8, the amount shown for current mitigation fees is incorrect. The total fees for both Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) are $1. 72/square foot for residential and $ .28/square foot for non-residential. The amounts shown in the Draft EIR represent Sweetwater's portion of the total fees. In addition, the description on that same page of the school mitigation study is completely inaccurate. First, it is SourcePoint, a non-profit arm of SANDAG, that is doing the study. The purpose is not to determine if adequate funding is available for each school site in the South Bay area. The purpose of the study is to analyze and quantify sources of student enrollment and provide strategies for accommodating enrollment projections also, the study area is restricted to the City's planning area and CVESD's boundaries, not the entire South Bay. Still on page 4.7-8, the CVESD operates 32 elementary schools, 25 of which are within the City's boundaries. Four schools are in San Diego, and three are in the County. On page 4.7-10, the base rate for Community Facilities District (CFD) No.5 is $0.161 for 1993-94. This figure changes every July 1 based on the inflation factor contained in the Engineering News Record for Los Angeles County. June 30, 19~ Mr. Joe Monaco Page 2 RE: Draft EIR - Channelside Shopping Center EIR My June 3, 1994, comments to you (copy enclosed) included the recommendation that, since the City's growth analysis anticipated the new Wal-Mart alone to employ 500 persons, that the worst case scenario in the EIR be based on this figure instead of the calculation from the 1990 SourcePoint study. Utilizing that number, total students would be 83.45, double what is estimated from the 1990 study. I believe the most current and detailed projections should be used for making student projections, and clearly the City's analysis is project-specific and much more recent. I note that this recommendation was not incorporated. The proposed mitigation of annexation into CFD No. 5 is acceptable; however, the caveat that mitigation may be adjusted (reduced) if the SourcePoint study or other information shows less of an impact is not acceptable. Once a project annexes to a CFD, a lien is placed on the property and there can be no adjustment. This works both ways. The study could produce findings that impacts are greater than anticipated. To attempt to provide for a reduction without providing for an increase should the evidence so indicate, is certainly one-sided, and would place the District in the position of having to oppose the project. The District requests that this language be deleted. Failure to do so would be in violation of the City's agreement with the District to either not process projects until the SourcePoint study is completed, or to condition projects such that they will comply with whatever form of mitigation results from that study. I appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to seeing these corrections made to the Final EIR Sincerely, h~~ ~~-r- Kate Shurson Director, Planning & Facilities KS:dp cc: Tom Silva bchalOnelside 100 ~L_~_ ~_u;;~~__~_ [0 i ;.' 1:,. II JUL 2 I ice,:) ... L.,__ ,..... Ci;\ i' C'. " ...~._.._-..- . __w__ 457 Delaware Slreel, Imperial Beach, CA 91932-T.I: (619) 429 7946 1422 July 19. 1994 Hon, 'rim Nader, Mayor city of Chula Vista and 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 City Council Members Attn: Joseph Monaco, AlCP Community Development Department Dear Mayor Nader, Lady and Gentlemen: We are thankful for the privilege of commenting on the Draft ElR for the Channelside Shopping Center. Since Chula Vista Committees, such as Planning, have yet to review the "Draft", we assumed we have not missed any comment deadline; but if we have, we plan to comment to the U,S.Army Corps of Engineers when application for a permit is made to them. We will, of course, be interested in reviewing the Final ElR when it is circulated to the public, Our specific comments are: page(p)ES-2, paragraph(para)l: Impacts to the General Plan Greenbelt are NOT to be mitigated. why NOT? p ES-2, para 2, Aesthetics: The site could be turned into a native plant garden. Which would be prettier, a garden or a shopping center? P ES-2, Air Quality. Where will the exported 200,000 cubic yards go ? We note in Appendix A that the (CA) State Clearinghouse pre - sumably sent NOP to nine (9) State agencies? Apparently only one, CALThANS, responded, Is there any proof the other eight agencies received the NOP? To whom has this EIR been sent? SAVE OUR BAY, INC page 2 P 2,0-1, para 4, last sentence: Is Eucalyptus Park shown as General Roca Park on Figure(Fig)2-2? Fig 2-): Even a lOX hand lens will not reveal what might be elevations on this Figl! p 2.0-1 through 6: To assess cumulative impacts to the area. National City Plans north of the Sweetwater River Channel and west of 1-5 should be described in 2,0. Environmental Setting (also see p 4.1-). para 4, Planned). A description of what existed on the Project Site. now Cleared and Graded (Fig 4,6-1) would also be helpful in learning what we have already lost, Fig )-1: 'rhe legend should explain what are the vertical lines with diamonds? 'lie See no "Pad A" (Table )-1) de- signated on this Fig. p ).0-6, proj. Objectives: To what level are unemployment levels to be irr.proved? p 4,1-9. para) (III. Local Coastal Program): un this pro- ject site. "The existing saltwater marshes,_ _ _ should be preserved and enhanced" (underscoring supplied)"_ _ _," p 4,1-15, para 2(Dedication of On-site Open Space), para) (Off-site Mitigation): Is it possible that this EIR chould be certified prior to acquisition of the required informa- tion? Could ElK certification be speculative? Fig 4.2-2: Do matchlines match? p 4.)-9. Level of Significance After Mitigation. If" long-term cumulative impacts to the ozone emissions are significant and not mitigable,... is there any hope? - -- p 4.6-), para 2. Drainage: Is "non-wetland waters" an oxymoron term? p 4.6-6. para 2. Mammals : Scat. strongly resembling that of coyote. was observed on the site on July 1). 1994. p 4.6-8. PROPOSED MITIGATION. If the proposed mitigation is done prior to the project construction or if adequate performance bonding is required. we agree that mitigation will be adequate for the proposed project but not for habitat already lost in the already cleared and graded area. SAVE OUR BAY, IN~, page 3 P 4.10-2, para 41 Does tidal influence extend as far east as the "six Caltrans 36-inch_ _ _(RCP)(see Figure 4.10-1)"? If so, how does "fresh water flushing of the historic_ _ _ wetlands: _ _occur? p 4.10-4, para 1, 21 Where is the 6,5' x 6' RCB in relation to the 4' x 8' RCB? p 4.10-4, para 21 If "The hydraulic capacity of the eartheD channel_ _ _" has not been determined, will it be? Will scouring it contribute how much sediment to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge? p 4.10-5, para 11 If "_ _ _a request to grant an exception of floodproofing requirements was not filed for the southerly parcel.", will such a request be filed? p 4.10-11, Table 4,10-5, Project Storm Flows: On line, Basin 2, what does 50 mean in the Facility column? p 4.10-12, Fig 4.10-21 How many 48" culverts will be under the proposed bridge? p 4,10-13, para 1: How will the 48" culvert carry storm flows to the channelized river? p 4.10-15, 16: We are particularly concerned that maintenance of the grease traps (para 4.10-C) be guaranteed especially since the Regional Water Quality Control Board is so poorly staffed (p. 4,10-10, "_ _ _(NPDES) Permit Program", last sentence)! p 6.0-1, 6.0 Significant Cumulative Effects: More National City Projects should be considered, such as that around the old Santa Fe Depot north of the Flood Control Channel and West of 1-5. p. 6.0-3, Hydrology/Water Quality: fresh water run-off into salt water discussion I The cumulative impact of habitat needs further p 8.0-2, 8.2, sentence #11 Are some words missing here? p 8.0-4: Night light could impact wildlife uses in the salt marsh; this impact should be mitigated. Finally, we congratulate Dudek and Associates, Inc, for one of the more honest EIR's that we have reviewed in California, stu::::z: ~ ~ William E. Claycomb President