HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/04/24 RDA Item 2
Item No.: ;)....
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATION (DRC-06-33) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-
06-025).
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY-
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM 15-06-007, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATION (DRC-06-33) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-
06-025), TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A HOME DEPOT STORE AND
PERMIT PERMANENT OUTSIDE SALES AND DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE,
LOCATED AT 1030 THIRD AVE. (HOME DEPOT USA I CORPORATED).
SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDI
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ;;1
4/5THS VOTE: YES CJ NO
o
BACKGROUND
The Applicant, the Home Depot USA Incorporated, has filed the following Design Review
Permit and Conditional Use Permit applications:
(1) Design Review Permit DRC-06-33 is a request for the demolition of the former
K-mart store structure and former restaurant building on the site and
construction of a 97,396 sq. ft. retail building and associated garden center,
649 space parking lot, and Project signage including wall and free-standing
signage (see Attachment 2, Site plan).
(2) Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-25 is a request for outside sales and display of
merchandise to identify and authorize the type of items that can be sold and
displayed outdoors, and to ensure that certain items specifically prohibited by
the CVMC code are not sold or displayed outside.
In May of 2004, the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Area was created, which
expanded the City's Redevelopment Area to include the Proiect site. Because the Project
site is in a Redevelopment area, approval of a Design Review Permit and a Conditional
Use Permit by the Redevelopment Agency is required. As of January 2006, all
2-1
"
Date, Item No.: <::.
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 2 of 13
Redevelopment quasi-judicial applications are required to go through a new process
involving the newly created Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) and ultimately the
Chula Yista Redevelopment Corporation (CYRC) for final review and approval.
Applications for this Project were submitted prior to the creation and operation of the
RAC and CYRC, and have been presented to the DRC and Planning Commission to
obtain input and direction. Based on City policy to smoothly transition Projects from the
former system to the new RAC/CYRC process, this Project is being processed under the
old planning/environmental process.
Environmental Review:
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Home Depot Project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an
Initial Study, 15-06-007 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the overall Home Depot Project, could result in significant effects on the
environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-
06-007 (MND).
During the 30-day public review period for the MND, written comment letters were
received from the public, including the Environmental Health Coalition and Theresa
Acerro. The comment letters raised issues related to impacts, including but not limited to,
Air Quality, Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics, and Traffic. These comments are
addressed in the attached Final MND (Refer to MND Attachment, the Responses to
Comments, Attachment 7). Additional environmental comments were received
subsequent to the 30-day MND review period. These comments have been addressed in
"Additional Environmental Comments" (Attachment 11) of this report.
The Design Review Committee and Planning Commission considered the MND and both
recommend that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-06-007 (Attachment 7, MND). See
the Boards and Commissions Recommendations section below for the specific action.
Neiqhborhood Meetinq:
A neighborhood meeting was held August 24, 2006 to introduce the Project, and obtain
public comments and input. Staff from the Planning and Building Department and
representatives of the Home Depot made presentations at the meeting. The meeting drew
10 individuals, including local residents, business owners, the Environmental Health
2-2
Date, Item No.: IL
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 3 of 13
Coalition and other interest groups. The following are some of the concerns expressed by
the attendees:
1. Diesel fuel emisSions and noise from trucks would impact residents west of the
Project site, some of which included town homes lacated 5 feet from the property
line. A suggestion was made to relocate principal loading area from the southwest
side to the south side of the building, and to relocate the lumber off-loading area
from the northwest side to the east side of the building.
Staff Response: An Air Quality Report was prepared, which addressed the issue of
diesel fuel vehicle emissions. As outlined in the attached MND, the Project
operation will not result in adverse air quality impacts. Air quality impacts
associated with construction activities will be mitigated to a level of less than
significant. Please refer to the Analysis section for a more detailed discussion of
building placement and loading areas.
Further, the Applicant has prepared alternative designs for the building footprint in
response to these comments, which are in included as Attachment 3, and
discussed in the Analysis section on page 9.
2. Noise impacts to residents to the east across Third Ave, and north across Moss
Street are likely, given the experience of noise impacts from the previous K-Mart
operations.
Staff Response: A Noise Report was prepared, which addressed the issue of
potential noise impacts. As outlined in the attached MND, all noise impacts will
be mitigated to a level of less than significant.
3. The traffic study estimates truck trips serving the Project to be a maximum of 30
per day (Mon-Fri.) and 4 per day on weekends. A concern was expressed that this
number is too low, since the number does not include customers or sub-
contractors.
Staff Response: The traffic study addressed Home Depot company truck trips and
assumed sub-contractor truck trips were to be 5-7% of the all truck trips (30 per
day (Mon-Fri.) and 4 per day on weekends). Customer truck trips are not included
in this estimate. The issue was addressed in more detail in the Air Quality Report,
and discussed in "Additional Environmental Comments", Attachment 11, page 17.
4. Concern that Home Depot may not comply with restriction of truck delivery hours
of operation from 10 pm to 7 am on weekdays and 10 pm to 8 am on weekends.
2-3
Date, Item No.: /],
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 4 of 13
Staff Response: Home Depot is required to comply with a limitation on truck
deliveries of Mondays-Fridays from 7 am -10 pm, and Saturday-Sunday from 8
am-'O pm, pursuant to the restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance
(Performance Standards and Noise Control, CVMC 19.68), and the attached
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
5. Concern regarding effect of a Home Depot on surrounding property values.
Staff Response: Staff has not received information to substantiate this. The
representative for the Home Depot stated at the meeting that they have studied the
effects of their stores on property values and found that no adverse effect on
property values occurs as a result of construction of a new Home Depot store.
6. Business owners and residents would like to see more high quality redevelopment
Projects such as Home Depot in their neighborhood. Increased vacancies like
Ralph's and K-Mart are contributing to crime in the area. Home Depot would help
bring mare jobs and improve the image of the neighborhood.
Staff Response: Comment noted, with staff in concurrence, regarding the
potential benefit of development of a new Home Depot store in this
neighborhood. The site is located in the Added Area of the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency conduct a public hearing and adopt
the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program IS-06-007, approving DRC-06-033, and PCC-06-025, based on
the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft Redevelopment
Agency Resolution.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
On December 4, 2006, the Resource Conservation Commission voted 5- '-0- 1 to find that
Initial Study IS-06-007 for the Project was adequate, and recommended that the
Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, IS-06-007 (See Attachment' 0, Resource Conservation Commission
Minutes).
On March '9, 2007, the Design Review Committee voted 5-0-0 to recommend that the
Redevelopment Agency approve Design Review Permit DRC-06-033 and adopt Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007.
2-4
Date, Item No.: ::..
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 5 of 13
On March 21, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment
Agency approve the PCC-06-025, and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007.
DISCUSSION
PROPOSAL
Design Review Permit:
The Project proposes demolition of the existing K-mart store and restaurant and
construction of a 97, 396 sq. ft. retail building with attached 31, 647 sq. ft. garden
center. Also depicted on the plans are a 649-space parking lot, and a sign plan to
include wall and freestanding signs. A Seasonal Garden Area is depicted in the parking
lot in front of the Outdoor Garden Center, which would be used for temporary sales such
as Christmas trees. The CVMC requires the Applicant to obtain approval of a separate
Temporary Outside Sales permit by the Planning & Building Department to conduct each
temporary outdoor sale.
Conditional Use Permit:
The Applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit for permanent outside sales
and display, pursuant to CVMC Section 19.58.370. Permanent outside sales and display
areas are delineated on the plans as "Sidewalk Display", and will be partially enclosed
by trellises, and single-story roof elements. The allowed outdoor display areas will be
demarcated by stomped concrete. There ore five proposed areas for outdoor display
located along the front (east side) of the building, adjacent to the customer entries, and
labeled on the plans (see Attachment 2, Site Plan).
The Applicant is proposing to permanently display four different categories of
merchandise outdoors. These categories include Building Materials, Outdoor Equipment,
Outdoor Furniture and Storage Units, and Live Goods (plants)/Landscape Supplies.
These areas are specified on the Project plans and discussed in the CUP section of the
report below.
PROJECT SETTING
The Project site is 11.1 O-acres in size. It is located on 1030 Third Avenue, with frontage
on both Third Avenue and Moss Street in southwestern Chula Vista (see attached locator
map). The site is adjacent to the existing Rolly's Burgers located on the southwest corner
of Third Avenue and Moss Street. The Rolly's Burgers site is not 0 port of the Project.
The subject parcel is currently occupied by vacant K-Mart and restaurant buildings (see
Attachment 7, Demolition plan). To the south is a vacant grocery store. To the east,
2-5
Date, Item No.: 2-
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Poge 6 of 13
across Third Avenue are smaller commercial businesses. To the north across Moss Street
are commercial, office and multi-family uses. To the west are multi -family residential
uses.
LAND USE
The Project site has a General Plan designation of Commercial Retail. The General Plan
designation for the site was not amended during the General Plan Update in 2005. The
proposed retail use is in compliance with the General Plan.
The site is zoned Central Commercial (CC). The purpose of the Central Commercial (CC)
zone is to stabilize and improve the commercial characteristics of major community
business centers. Retail commercial uses such as Home Depot are permitted in the
Central Commercial zone upon approval of a Design Review Permit. The Project is
consistent with and implements the intent of the CC zone.
ANALYSIS - DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT:
ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Primary access to the site is from Third Avenue, which is classified as a 4-lane Class I
Collector street. Secondary access is from Moss Street, which is classified as a 2-lane
Class II Collector street. The site will be served by two driveways from Third Street and
two driveways from Moss Street. Moss Street is not a truck route, however the Applicant
does have the right to utilize Moss Street as access to the nearest adjacent truck route,
which is Third Avenue. In addition, the Applicant will provide two, 5-foot wide pedestrian
paths adjacent to the centrally located entry driveways connecting the site to Third Avenue
and Moss Street.
A traffic study was prepared for the Project by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated April
19, 2006. The study used generation and vehicle rates based on existing Home Depot
stores in Chula Vista. The study analyzed the existing traffic conditions for the adjacent
and surrounding streets, and also studied these streets with the addition of the Project
traffic. The Project traffic study found that intersections would operate at level of service C
or better at peak hours, in accordance with City standards. Therefore, the Proiect will not
significantly impact traffic in the neighborhood.
Trucks deliveries have been estimated at a maximum of 30 trips per day during the
weekdays, Monday through Friday, and 4 trips per day on weekends, averaging of 115
and maximum of 158 trips per week. Delivery trucks will access the site using the
northwesterly driveway access from Moss Street to approach the loading docks at the rear
of the site, and exit via the southeasterly driveway to Third Avenue. Deliveries will be
limited to the hours of Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am to 10:00 pm, and Sat.-Sun. 8:00 am- 10
pm consistent with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance. Permanent truck parking is
2-6
Date, Item No.: 2-
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 7 of 13
not proposed along the western property line. In order to reduce the number of trucks
using the Moss Street driveway, the Applicant has proposed adding a truck turnaround
adjacent to the main loading dock, which will improve truck access into and out of the
site via the Third Street driveway.
PARKING
The Project proposes 649 parking spaces (consistent with required parking) generally
located on the east side of the lot between the building and Third Avenue. There are
three loading spaces at the primary loading dock, and one 10ft. by 25 ft. loading space
at the lumber off-loading area. The parking lot has been re-designed to eliminate one of
the three existing driveway entries to Third Avenue, which is presently adjacent and
parallel to the Rally's street driveway exit. At the request of Chula Vista Transit, the
Applicant will incorporate a bus stop into the Third Street frontage at this location.
NOISE WALL
The Applicant prepared a noise report for the Project. One of the mitigation measures
recommended by the report is the construction of noise attenuation walls along the
western property line. A noise wall ranging from 9 feet along most of the western
property line, to 15-ft high adjacent to the lumber loading area, is proposed. The sound
wall will be baffled to include material that absorbs, rather than deflects sound. This wall
can also be planted with vines to soften its appearance. Per the CVMC Fence and Wall
Regulations, zoning wall heights of up to 9 feet in rear and side yard setback areas may
be utilized in a situation where commercial or industrial zones abut residential zones. The
DRC recommended that the wall be stepped down from 15 feet to 12 feet to 9 feet,
northerly of the proposed 15-foot portion of the wall, to provide better noise attenuation
and design. In response, the Applicant has proposed to go beyond what the DRC
recommended, to provide an extension of the 15 foot wall for a distance of 18 feet to the
south and 9 feet to the north. It is important to note that the increase in height for these
portions of the wall is proposed to better screen neighboring properties to the west, but
does not constitute new mitigation measures for identified noise impacts. Parking will be
re-designed so that the minimum required parking would be provided (see revised wall
detail, Attachment 13). Staff recommends conditions of approval requiring submittal of
revised wall plans and a revised site plan showing these changes.
LANDSCAPING
The perimeter of the site, including the street frontages, the southerly and westerly edges
of the site, and the parking lot, will be well landscaped with a mixture of trees and
shrubs. The landscape design is intended to enhance the appearance of the street
frontage and break up views of the storefront. Landscaping will also be utilized to soften
the appearance of sound walls and the building facade. The pedestrian accesses to the
site from Third Avenue and Moss Street will be well landscaped.
2-7
Date, Item No.: 2.
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 8 of 13
On the Project site, there will be a 9.foot wide, 2: 1 sloped landscape buffer adjacent to
the properties to the west. This buffer will create an opportunity for landscaping that will
screen the main loading area to the west, as well as soften the appearance of the sound
wall. The Design Review Committee recommended that the landscape plan be
conditioned to require columnar.shaped specimen trees, and larger and heartier shrubs
in the landscape buffer area (See Attachment 5, Wall sections).
BUILDING PLACEMENT
The Project proposes one large building with an attached outdoor garden center, located
at the rear of the lot, set back approximately 348 feet from Third Ave, 96 feet from Moss
Street, and 60 feet from the multi.family residential area to the west (see Site Plan,
Attachment 2). The building has three customer entries on the east side of the building
facing Third Ave, with the primary entry in the center. The primary loading/receiving area
is on the southwest side of the building, and the lumber off.loading area is at the
northwest side of the building (see Site Plan, Attachment 2).
At the above-mentioned neighborhood meeting, area residents in attendance raised
concern about the location of the building and the loading/unloading areas, which are
adjacent to the westerly multifamily residential area (see Locator Map). The concern is
primarily noise and air pollution. Staff worked with the Applicant to research the
possibility of having a different site design arrangement. Two alternatives where analyzed
by the Applicant:
. The first alternative places the building along the south side of the property with
customer parking on the north side of the building and loading and unloading
facilities on the south side (see Attachment 3, Alternative Site Plans). Under this
arrangement the loading/unloading docks face west toward the multifamily
residential area. Although this alternative appears feasible, delivery trucks would
enter the site on Third Avenue and exit along the west property line to Moss Street,
in reverse of the proposed plan. In staWs opinion the issue of noise and air
pollution still exist under this scenario, with the added issue of parking lighting and
customer activity noise towards the north. This plan also makes Moss Street a
more attractive ingress and egress route for customers and delivery trucks. It will
also make shared access with the store to the south more difficult. The proposed
building orientation would block the visibility of this market from Third Avenue. In
steWs opinion, this alternative does not represent a better site design solution to
mitigate the issues raised.
. The second alternative places the rear side of the building along Third Avenue
with the parking lot on the west side, adjacent to the residential area (see
Attachment 3, Alternative site plans). Under this alternative the loading and
2-8
Date, Item No.: '2.
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 9 of 13
unloading facilities are located along Third Avenue, requiring 9 ft high wall along
the entire length of the building frontage to screen the loading facility from public
view. The parking and customer entrance to the store is on the west side facing the
residential area and primary access to the site is form Moss Street. Based on the
store operational parameters, customer needs and overall relationship to the
westerly adjacent residential area and major street, this particular alternative, in
staff's opinion, would be detrimental to the Third Avenue street scene and
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Further alternatives are precluded by an existing public storm drain easement running
diagonally across the southeast corner of the site that must remain clear of obstructions.
Based on the building functions, the proposed noise wall and landscaping, the internal
floor plan, loading and unloading facilities and customer loading needs, the proposed
site design offers a better alternative for its size and shape and operational needs.
LOADING
The site has been designed so that proposed loading areas have separate access from
the main public access, as suggested by the City of Chula Vista Design Manual,
Commercial chapter, Loading design guidelines page 111-7. The main loading area
facility is located behind the building to the west, away from public view and screened by
a combination of 12-foot high wing walls, the noise wall, and landscaping. It is
approximately 125 feet from the nearest adjocent off-site apartment building.
The lumber loading area is screened from the adjacent condominiums by the 15 ft. high
freestanding noise wall and landscaping. The loading area is approximately 65 feet from
the condominiums to the west. From Moss Street to the north, the lumber loading area
will be screened by a 6 ft high freestanding wall and a 25-foot wide landscape buffer at
the property line. In addition, the existing driveway has been shifted 56 feet to the east to
avoid direct line of sight down the rear access driveway.
SITE CONTROL PLAN
The Home Depot will operate the store in compliance with a Site Control Plan, which
specifies the operating requirements for the store (see Attachment 4). The Site Control
Plan is a requirement of the Home Depot USA Inc. The plan will include applicable
requirements of the MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Conditional Use
Permit, applicable building codes and CVMC requirements. The plan will clearly state
these operational restrictions, and be posted at the manager's office, every loading dock
and public building entry, so that employees and management will know and operate
under the restrictions. A condition of approval has been proposed to require that the plan
2-9
Date, Item No.: 2.
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 10 of 13
be approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of the Building
Permit.
ARC H ITECTU RE
The Design Review Committee has reviewed and approved the proposed site plans and
elevations and recommends that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed
design, and staff supports the recommendation of the Committee.
SIGNAGE
The existing K-Mart pylon sign will be replaced with a single 14 ft. lOin. x 13 ft.
internally illuminated monument sign at the main driveway entry on Third Ave. The sign is
designed with a color scheme and materials that match the architecture of the main
building. The Applicant has proposed wall signs on the Third Avenue and Moss Street
frontages. The signage complies with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (See
elevations, Attachment 2).
ANALYSIS- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
In recommending approval of the requested CUP to the Redevelopment Agency, staff
relies on the following points:
An important part of the Home Depot business is outside sales adjacent to the store
entries. Municipal Code Section 19.58.370.A1 (see Attachment 9, CYMC 19.58.370)
describes certain items that are permitted subject to approval of a site plan, including
(but not limited to) flowers, plants, model storage buildings, patios, and additions, but
goes on to include subsection i., which states "Any other item which is determined by the
Planning Commission to be of the same general character"; and subsection j., which
states "Any other item specifically approved by the Planning Commission to be displayed
in an area specifically designed for said merchandise".
The items that the Applicant proposes for outside sales and display are as follows:
Building Material display:
. Plywood, fence panels, landscape timbers, sheetrock, masonry Projects, roofing,
and bulk lumber.
Outdoor equipment display:
. A grill display, lawn tractor display, power mower display, and wheelbarrow
display.
2-10
Date, Item No.: 2
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 11 of 13
Outdoor furniture display and storage unit display:
. A picnic table display, outdoor table and bench display, hammocks, glider and
parch swing display
Live goods and landscape supplies:
. Seasonal flowers, Seasonal vegetables, and small trees.
Outdoor displays may sit on the ground, on racks, or on shelves, depending on the item.
The types of displays include freestanding displays of outdoor equipment, such as grills,
low rolling carts for items such as gazebos, stepped platforms for items such as fencing,
displays of flowers and plants on racks, shelves or planter blocks, and special display
racks provided by the manufacturer for items such as stone tile, solar panels and roof
tiles.
Staff has reviewed the proposed items and found that certain items that are proposed by
the Applicant for outside sales and display are permitted by the code. These include
flowers, plants, and model storage buildings. All the remaining items specified on the
plans and referenced in the Project Description above, including the Building Materials,
Outdoor equipment, Outdoor furniture categories, must be approved by the
Redevelopment Agency. Staff recommends that these items be approved as well, with one
exception noted below.
The Applicant has proposed outside sales and display of bulk lumber. Although not
expressly prohibited by the code, staff is concerned that there is potential that outside
sales and display of bulk items such as lumber will be so large as to be difficult to
manage, requiring use of forklifts for everyday operations. Large bulk displays may also
be out of scale with the setting, so as to be visually unattractive. Staff recommends a
condition of approval that these be limited to displays of typical samples of lumber.
Because any merchandise to be sold and displayed outdoors must be expressly permitted
by the Redevelopment Agency, these items are listed on the site plan. Any change in the
type of merchandise to be displayed will require approval of a modification to the
Conditional Use Permit by either the Redevelopment Agency, if it is a significant change,
or where appropriate, the Zoning Administrator. The intent behind Zoning Administrator
action is to enable minor changes to the products or display areas to be made
administratively, without necessity for a public hearing.
AESTHETICS
One of the major issues regarding outside sales and display is aesthetics. In staff's
opinion, views of large quantities of products, or product displays that are out of scale
with their setting, are not attractive. In response, the Home Depot has proposed
architectural elements to break up views of the outdoor sales and display areas, such as
trellises, single-story roof elements with columns, and landscaping at the far ends (north
2-11
"
Date, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 12 of 13
and south) of the building frontage, to help break up the side view of these storage areas
(see Attachment 8, Outside Sales and Display Detail).
SAFETY
Another potential issue is safety of pedestrians and vehicles. Outdoor displays should be
kept out of driveways and pedestrian paths, and should not obstruct sight visibility for
driveways. In response, the pedestrian paths have been noted on the plans, and the
outdoor display areas have been sited so that they do not obstruct pedestrian access or
visibility. A condition of approval is included that will ensure that outside storage and
display will not exceed areas delineated by enhanced paving or obstruct sidewalks and
entries.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND DESIGN MANUAL
The Project as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) , including the development standards of the CC zone, the
Design Manual, and Landscape Manual.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency
adopt the attached resolution approving Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, 15-06-007, Design Review Permit DRC-06-33, and
Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-02S, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained in the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Redevelopment Agency Members and has
found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is
subject to this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts from the preparation of this report and the processing of the
Design Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit. All costs are covered by the deposit
accounts.
2-12
ATTACHMENTS
1 Locator Map
2 Site Plan /Elevations
3 Alternative Site Plans
4 Site Control Plan
5 Woll Sections
6 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
7 Demolition Plan
8 Outside Soles and Display Detail
9 CVMC Section 19.58.370
10 12/04/06-Minutes of Resource Conservation Commission
11 Additional Public Comments on the Environmental Document
12 Public Correspondence
13. Revised noise/screening wall detail
14. Ownership Disclosure Statement
Date, Item No.: '2.
Meeting Date: 4/24/07
Page 13 of 13
Prepared by: Richard Zumwalt. Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department
J: IPlanning\casefiles\fy06-07\DRC\publichearing\D RC-06- 3 3\staffreport.HomeDepot- RD A.doc
2-13
.
.
I
"
,
~
.,
"
,
Rice
Elementarv
School
.,
r.
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT
LOCATOR PROJECT Home Depot PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: Miscellaneous
PROJECT 1030 Third Av Proposal replacement of currently existing 118,660 sq.ft. K Mart
ADDRESS: and 10,606 sq.ft. Restaurant with 97,396 sq.ft. Home Depot
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: retail building and 31,647 sq.ft. Garden center.
NORTH No Scale PCC-06-025 Related cases: DRC.06.033, IS.Q6.Q07
Z., 14
J.\plannlng\carlos\locators\pcc06025.cdr 01.17.06
A~rt, 'A' _.^~ ,\
b L!) .- 'f 'T Hllll! !!I~!I! ! I'
H ~~ ~ ;:;;l'!~
". < ~ " lIi;:)~~- i;~ ~i ;!;:!. ;!:~ l ,j
~ . 0 , " .
~~ , (') ,. :~ . H
~~-'~ 0 ~~ " ' ~~
~~i~ a Ii ~ - I I !l I ~!i L Ill! I ss
" .0 I jl! ! II! I
m <l: ~~ ~ Illq I Jill I hil IllJliH i! ! fl
u Ii l,U', d! Ii'l' 'I ',' .
I' -.!,' '!1
I 'i8. ~I <IIi
I ',' ~ ~ g 0:::
:~U ~ ~.1 0
-J.,
I ',~. i~" ; 0l!S
-I 1 illl .
II :'I! Hlj., .. > ,a..
1 I' I h , 1,,11, ~ ~ ~ ;..1. ::J
l~~.l" "_~~~15 1:3 '" ~ <.\:;; U
t :; I~~ ! ~~!~~ t ~ j I ~ :
z
<(
...J
(j~ 0-
.{i!; 0:::
tii~ 0
>~ 0
:5ffi .....J
~EU.
r< ~
u - UJ
f-
Ui
,
I
I
-""U
---jj -
~
~
"
,
,
o
o
, '/1'- I I II
f ~ "11 Ill" I
f! . ~ I It
. 'Ih" 11,1 1(1
.- ~
iI,~ ~ lid} 1_ I 'I
l~ is lilh C"III h
~ !:'~{i - {IJ Ii P
.j 0
., ~ l'lIll III hlil.1
~!l ~ fi!!ii! !1l!1!lf!'
!. 0
Ii! ~3
~~ n~~
al'o~g_, .
i:5 u ":l.... "=:'i" ~,.3
01;;;': ~ 1Jt lit 1::::I~
'::':1 <'Si5....c::O:::""ifli3
1.0-1 ~ i [~J
,
I
I
=: =110 J.
I
I~
~~
d
.-
~
"
,
>
o
u
=,
=,
-,
=,
=,
-,
1I1~~~
~~
. ..
~~
2-15
@
In
~
Q)
E
Q)
..c
II
(fJ
I. c
" C1l
'! D..
f.
~ ;', Q) "
''',ll +-' III
jh (7j ]
~I~U @
ATTAoV{1 M~N'-- 'A
~-- ~~.: ~:"'..,. ._~"" ~:::- _....~ 'I.?=~ ~-;:=_ . ....-
. ::;;:-: -, .~.... ."., 1lIlII. . ~ff~ ::ff::'
....,. ~
, " "
, ~~~
:::::.:."::..':,... ~~,,-,~ - =-=-"
1 FRONT ELEVATION
'~ .
:::n '-' "no ~n "~~, -)b~ -- - ::',
2 REAR ELEVATION .....--..." ---~
- ~
~
~",.,,, _ ., ""'. J ::~::~t
_:," ....'.
. .
~ .~.....~
4 RIGHT ELEVATION :::;=-''::..:~..
N
I
~
en
3 LEFT ELEVATION
~
~
,..... .. . m .. ::::,
" ......
LEGEND'
l.WALLPANElS,PAlNTTOMATCH:ICI.1JO"PALMSPRINGSTAN"
2. WALL PANElS,PAlNTTD MATCH: IClf07Q "TUSKTlJSK"
3.ACCENTOETAllS,PAINTTOMATCH:ICI#651"ORANGERY"
4. NOT USED
5. WALL PANELS, PAINT TO MATCH: ICI .127 "MANIUA TAN"
6. STONE VENEER 'VIEATHEREOOE lEOGESTONE: WISCONSIN" BY CULTURED STONE
7,CANVAS,"HOMEOEPOTORANGE"
6.WALLPANELS,PAJNTTOMATCH:ICI#316 "CLAY POT"
9. FLAT CONCRETE ROOF TILES, COLOR: "BLACK"
West Coast Support Center
3800 West Chapman
Orange, CA92868
Tel: (714)940-3500
'1J'I:B:]l I::B::IlllJI]: J:L1::D:lJW
SWC Moss Sl. & Third Ave.
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
mi THE H.OME DEPOT
SWCTbirQJ"o,..,o@
-"
Jr.. ChulaVlsta,CA
CA-HD03-K.5
Z g~llVSSOCIAlFS
=~-_.'lI;I'It::.:
ProjeClSummary:
~-
_eo..._ 1'05.,...Q11.1'""
"i:="""'"' lj,;~:~ ,~::
--""""'--
"""""''''''"'
ThO_Po,,",
v.._
"'-<)onlo,c....,
Ttt;>T""""""
05,"'"
',>61"
".....
':>9,1""
...........""""
...................
-......"""'11....'.-
_""-@.JII'.ooo
'foO'...._
----I""'''''''
'''''''......-...
:;-
~
~-
_TOOOI_
--'_Inol'~
T""'._"........
.--
"..,...
~
.~:=
",.....
.1.....
::.~
14'....
""'"
""".000"
......CIoo_"""
"""'""' cCPC"",''''''''''''''''
__ cc.oCo'""~","
_-""I",.~..,
C....."'..,CA"."
"'........P--
::=':~O:="""I->O
.......................,
--
il$OOW,~_
~,CA"'"
ConIo... -"""'_
--
'-'.7""0_01""""-"'\
01............,01..._...._
.........5M._...,"'11,'980~...""1
~'~~:;".,C""O,oIs.n'""""
ProjeclNo,:
PlolScale: 1".40'.0-
1.."aDe'a: February2B,2007
Prep.redSV' \'SP
5. D. G.: JoI1nHan:;ej1
R.E.Marlager; GaorgeR.y
CUP & DR
REECNama'
CHULA VISTA, CA
(KmartTakeDver)
ELEVATIONS
" l() !I l' HT I'I!~ m~i~ ! II I 'IB . ~ ~ "! i Z
0 ~ 2~ ~ 5~~~ i~!:2 I ~ ' · c::
". < I I;lt 5~ <(
~!h 0 , n \III ~ ~ II . lj! no "--'
~i 0; C') II ::':.5.. ;::" ~ a...
OL5 0 i " . ~s ~ . ~ d O/S
~~ I . ,I !l II . I i II" ~'F w~
~~i~ 0 I LI . .111 i" a. 5~ 0::
" " I ,I I .! I, I "11' h'l ~~ 0
"" 0 ft ,p~ I >',1 I I i Ih!, .!jli1i :::>
<l: "I! I
~ I hill!, I . j;l}. 11111,. ! ! ti U 6~O
U II I Hi, Ill' .111'il II ,'ii, i L 1 I 'Hill. ii,!l ci --'
. LL
--I
, II
--I
r
I
--,
I,
_-Ii
I
I
r
I
1
I
,
--I
I
--I
~
-ii1
:1
Ii
H
~ '
Ii
_~J
,
r
C
ell
0..
"
...
o
o
u..
ell
::l
...
0-
Q)
(J
c
o ~
U ~
~
I
1
I
i 1 ii 1 Ii
1 I, , 1
, 1
--.._~..-<,,---_...----_...~
_,,-:t.,:::
2-17
Ii L()
[blill <( ~
~ ~ u. .
:d ~ C"')
~~oj~ 0
~~j6 ~
~~
,-,
*
O-LI O"if
"
00
@J
-,
!!
8
,.
i
I
!I
II
'1-' n~.
:11 ;:: ~iij ~
.. ill ~"'~ I(i
i~. -
II t I I.
'1-- .'
I II- ",:!! lllll
i ,. ilHil
~
, 0
I ~
1l~!11 !!~!~ I II
l!
h-t1 _Ii j M
l li;li. I !ilj I
I "Illll llpll,! ,--I
. ili'il i,h'il i i
I 'Ii
, I hit
" 'j-
;'jl- ,d
II ,Ill i,li
II "j"l- !'jl_'I_
~ !! ~~ ~ .
III i!"'!" ", l. l
"HhH!~iH ~ ~
~
.
~ ~ 00
~::: ,:O:::U
@ i i: ! !~!ji :
, ,,--:---:-61-.c1'-1-
. "'" '<(Iln' I
: ! ! ! ! : is! ! !
~
E>
E>
E>
e
~
E>
E>
E>
e
~
E>
E>
E>
e
~
.,
,
~
E>
E>
E>
e
E>
~
E> E>
e
~
E>
e
E>
E>
00
E>
2-18
0::
o
06
ll.,
::l;
U;
~
~z
. <:
. -'
. (L
~ LL
1ij 0
EO
>S~
}.
!~
r~
';~Ji
!'j
"
-1m
~~H
c
C\l
0-
....
o
o
a:::
C\l
:J
-
D-
ID
II
C __
o "
U~
~
i :\ li!., Ii
! II l! I;! '
I 1I1nl. II I
I Iii II PI ! ,
'I 11l:1 J J II ,( ~ ..
I mIll II'i
~ .. C"
::1:1 :1::1:1; (I...
,.;,...11 "'$ iJ:!i;!! ;li '!I!:!;,!t;, ~ ~ti
.. '... i ~.
.0
,~~I~ n~n~~~~'" b b . ~,.
I I::;: ::::::::: i ':;';:ill- 1(1
:t ill: ullil!!! I 1.1111 j!!
! I illll I il!lIllll.lilliill! I !
,~'bj@<l.j. I 11:11 l.
13~$O~ r-t~'" I ~
!
~U~
"'1
Ill,
!"l!
.Ill!
mil
mmm
11I11111I
mmm
IUU tit!
111111111
"-
..
::;
~
'"
N
.
~
,
l I
..
1,.)11
).
.'.
....f.g
1;1 j
.,
."l,f
~ i~ t
i-o !I~~;
!i~I'I'
lid.!
;~il!!l
'I' !,II'
SJ'!;
o i
.
"
--
I
. I
.:.t.. ~
33<; 3N11H?1 \11-<
L-l G€ l33HS
~
-
~
II
~ II
<I I
O'
a:
~
e<>
! ~Iill ;U
!d iI 8 0
il! I
III I~!
it ag
.,
$j,li
~~Ii
0'
~i
o
z
w
I'J
w
--'
>-
~ I
([ J~
~
"-
r
I
o
--'
:u I
w "
:r ~~
~ lj
,1"
... .!!
p_~.!l~
~ J ~
",
,-
'.
"
II"
I ~l!
! i~I'!'
IlIl.!
,1111'
"!~I!
8 !!r
~':, i:
'#' ~;!i
"i ,
....----
o.:.:.;e3i::€"-
-..---...-
~ 10'
.
C I
~
....
~ I
UJ
:~ot
~ ~}10/03 ~
1: I II \"""" LOT UIE
( 10 ~ #lWST[O)
:iT
l : LUMBER
. SlcewAU<.~.PLAY I VESTIBULE
r:i..~~~ 1.012 sa FT
~~~~ ~\
------- -""'""
CUSTOMER P ., AU<
SCREE ED
BUILDI G
MATERI S/
WILL C LL
AREA
2,261 sf
T.R.C. D
MATERIALS
S89Sf -
1\
I \
\
-I """""' -.....
I
"'s-
MATC~LINE eEE e~EET 39 <L-1J
.
H..I . .
_-":I~fUl
.......... "
WI
AD
PR
140'-0'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
--...
_1CCfM.".O
KEY UAP
e. --L-ll
-'=" . ~ . ;;-"-/-.-.'
eEE ef.iEET L-1 FOR FLANT LEGEND I t;lRBJ:AI=-. .,.:EJfE I
-
tn'YOf etll.A.A VISTA _Dl'......hT_k.
~...--';:HEHouE DEPOT 080:0....
,
~
~
-
~
. ..
--.
- .--
"'-
r-r-
t 11<1 12'
J t.
r(-~~__-
, '0""'. 182'-4. I
OUTD OR GARDEN
ENTER :
1,836 sf :
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
\IlNE:SONlIOTH
....,,""'"
,
~
/
i.
/'
--
.-
H.,' .
_':::C"-"'1I::t.:f-:=~-':u,_-':-._.-.J
--
--
--
gw,cc:-..:;..rm
'i
The Home Del) Iii
95,642 sf 'I ~
95K-Rec-32GC-Side-Ritj IIJ
Prototype:95REC-32K-Side q" !JI
I :II
'.i.
U
ENTRYIEXlT :t
VESTIBULII I:
1,255 sa Ff
. ~ ~04'-~
Tra&h
Compactor
32'-8.
'r;;ro"
Enclosed Recycling Area
to Indude CardbOard
Bales and Pallets
w/6'CMUWalts&
10' H Malal Roof Abova
~
ill
SIOEW:SPlAY
SEEDEr. A. FOR
MORE INFO :nON
_IL-_._
-,
MATCj.jLINE 5EE 5I-lEET 40 (L-a)
.
,
'is'' 43t
I
~
I ~
-
:=;.'U;"::::':c:;=::-
....~....:-=~:::........
00_.LO. CUI.
-'-"-~
..... .--
-
.
5EE 5I-lEET L-' FOR PLANT LEGEND
-
.
"'.......
Io;IItuOI.II
~ L-X)
~ I [J~a~I~~ I
CfTYOflClfUlAV1trA
--
--
THE HOME OE,.OT
J' I W.. All 110 It..,
.........
,.
,
'"
,
-..,.
,
'::0
~ \.
~
~--,
to..;..
b
I
'.>:'
(0,
"
'00lVASllAClC" lei #458
"atllmGlO' Ia #2Il8
,
12'-0'
,
~3'-O"
"
,
SIGN SPEClflCATIONS:
@ INlERNAllY lU.Ul.lllIAiED AUllIlliUII FAIlRICAiED SIGN CNlINET PAINTED TO WITCH
SITE CONSiRUCIlON. SEE SIGN PROGI!N.I fOR SPEClflCATIONS
fB\ CENTER to. ILl.UIIINATION TO BE FWORESCENTI.N.lP5. SEE SIGN PROGI!N.I FOR
\!:V Sl'EClFlCATIONS
@ PAINT WlIH A TEX-coTE FllllStl. COlORS TO WATCH SItE CONSlllUCllOH
@ i" FlATCIJT OUT BlACK PlEXl1JI!RS SURFACE lIOIJN1E)TO IolONlJt.IENT
CO STONE VENEER TO WITCH CENTER "I'/(ATHEREllGt 1.ElICESTONE:WlSCONSIN' BY
CULTURED STeNE
2-23
A--7I. ''Z
/
X> '0. ~X
)<)<(Q< ~ ><>OX
XI )(X, )<)< ><x .y:)Q
x .yy.y. Y\ (\ )<>00<
v x^.>< R ~ ?
y<~ )<~ ",,,.><Y ~ .(>Q:;V?\
~ x X .J<y ">f'0" "..)<,
x X?< 'Vx '>< x; Q<x ?:xv
X; ~ X< Y' >QO< XV X,(
~Y' '><~>>;XX< vV >Q<x
xx xp ~ "x
Y ~ 'h, >0Q<
x x;p y<X
)< >>?\ 2"> (Q<
Ix ~ Q<
'><~ ~
XX
~
r
V
/'><
POST CAP MALLEABLE IRON DOME SHAPE
FASTENED WITH TWO STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS 180 DEG. APA
END CLAMPS
TENSION BAR
BLACK VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK
/
PANEL POST
SURFACE RESTING POST BASE
(UN-ATTACHED TO SURFACE)
><Q<
y('
;:;
(\
Z
N
>>
.)<.)Y
^x""
x ~
& ~
N< V><><:>
000
0~
">(>< x.
'>)0 (\ ^x
xV ^x ~
* """X)(:x
Yx v ^J<>. " ~ 9:
y .,;<, x x 0; ^x: ><x
x<< 0^ ~ AV\6
~ x xX><>< (><X>Q< Qy x @
61_0"
"
REMOVABLE CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYP.)
Scale: NTS
CUP & DR
CHULA VISTA, CA
(KmartTakeover)
\.'
RT \-
.,
-d
~
""-
-"
.~
~
.-
-.
'<t
N
I
N
i
,
"
,
f~: \
~ ~J \
3:"", :t1:
- ~
s ~
I"~ _1:;[1
~ -\
-/
'~' W
~
~
t
--
,
I'.)!
I'
1'.):
0'1,
O ~ 1'1'11; II: I' , Ii' 1'llltOO I ! : I'
-t-- --- nr --I" --t - uf- -tl--tj- -t---I- '[ 'i-" .-. !-.,)., "'I"
~
n :" I'll 11'1' 1:"11111100 I II n
U, I,,j I1II I: I ~ 11111 I I U
Gttti-tttH~tttmt~H I~
[}tHIHIHIIHIH~HIHH~1 HI r~
'<'1'<':' , 1 , 'lJ 111I 00 1'111 n
;'1,1, ,;", 'ITlrITrTr~lllrITrITITTrU
1ttttH1tttttH8tftJ+ttml+H+D'~'-'
,~ I. I '
w, ~'"_,,,','
UJ .
~ .
. t;; I' J
~
(J) ,',',,"',""
c.o ,;;;;,"
~-~
- "
I .-J l ~ j
"
: ] I
~> ---
f-
r'ld
.
I,
r
'i_t,
]
i
I
'I -rri
-1- =11 I
'-n" )
--- -,
,~.'!
n
I
~~
~\ :1
", ~
~i1
;? ?!
-\ '\Ii
C<:f
,,'i 1i
~,\ i'i,i
-\ w-
(\
\)
-'0
::1
C"
't
~
CAR AND
TRUCK
CIRCULATION
PATH
CONFLICT
II
!I
II
I
I
"
\i
j
~,
" C
Z;;
'1,.-"'-> -
III," I'f''''': h~.'
,[\,,1",1,,',.-',",8, I
/ ';,
, '"f=d--n-..:,
UJ
I
I
CAR AND TRUCK
CIRCULATION PATH
CONFLICT
L
\ -~\;\
\."-
,
~Dn nr
i-"~~,,) __'
nt~OM~~~L
I I
I
il
~
ISSUE DATE
OO/OOROO]
Operating Restrictions Site Plan for Home Depot Store # 1849, 3rd & Moss Street, Chula Vista, CA
EMPLOYEE PARKING
EmplO)'eE5 are rnqLJired 10 park on,.lle. Nooll..sne parking ISp"rmIIl<>d
!~
~
\'-J
~
:t
~
f
'l::
CITY OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
O"'"""~ from the f'\'bl~; approval pmcass lor" Coodltlonal Use
PormllforouldQ01dl'lPlayandenfQrcellbyCQdeC(011p1,,"ce
"ffkers, aWlTJved Slte Pia" arid approved BulldlngElevaUol1.
CITY ORDINANCES
C~yrnChv!aVlsl"Mu"lolpaICO<l\la"dp",j1lClCorKlillonsof
Approval (PCC..()6..()25)
PREPAREOBY
Jol,nl1ebnrth,ZlelmrthAMoclalesArchltedu,,"""dPl:annl"9
T"I.(619) 233-6450
HOME DEPOT lEGAL CONTACT PHONE NUMBER
Forlog~1 qvesHo"s,)'OII may contact the Home Depo! Legal
Deparimenlal(7141940-3500,lIyourec:olvaavlolaUon,please
'eferjoSOP09-08.llyouarelmwrewhallodo,cotll;lctLegal.
CITV CONTACT PHONE NUMBERS
Plal,ningIPonnll.: Rich",dZUlTlW311,(619)691_5255
COO" Enlorcemant:TBD. (619)691-5260
Fire; TBD,(619)691-5055
P~I",,: TBD,(619)691-5151
ZONING
CIl".. VIsta Central Commercial CCP
REQUIRED PARKING
Parklngrequl....d_6'l9spa""s.
Parldngprovlded-6S1spaces.
r<E()'-,Hr:'OFW,f:N:,G~",
STORE HOURS
Home Depot 6 am to 1 0 pm Monday through Saturday,
7.rnto10pmSllnday
DELIVERY HOURS
7:00a.m. to 10:00p,m. Mond"ylhrnug"Sunday. Notrud<.~
aHowedongltepliorto7am.
LOADING AREAS AND HOURS
LoadIn9areaSllre<lss"ownonpllln.O"'sldelorldlftoparatlon~
sha~ be Ilmillld 10 7am 10 10pm Mondaythru Sunday.
NOISE.!. P.A. SYSTEMS
Tes"ng of emergency gene'alor shall OCCIJrperlodloally be1w<!en
the l>corn g,OOam and 5:00pm MandBy1hru Frlday
PAw,lem shaH be Iocatedl","d../Jul!ding and~<Irdenr.ent"rend
dl,ected away from 1he nearest residential property IlI1e. No P.A.
nolsep"rmltle<lb~lore 7:00am.
MAINTENANCE HOURS
Swooping and sleam daantng of I"" ~t,,: 7;00 am 'n 10:00 pm
Mund"ytflrol'ghSunday. Pa1"i<in91<>t and rntall bulldll1g paijo
swesplngar1dde"otr>gshalocc"'dally. Steamdeanlngwlll
OCCllr quarterly. Opernlkm o! Trash Compactt>rs: 1:00 am to
10:00 pm Monday lIwough Sunday
REFUSE AREAS
RellISe Enclosure(s) must be OOVt!1"e<l pe' SUSMP ,equl,emems
daS~Mdt"s"'eenanyrnfuseoontalr"'dwllnlncl9.lgnaled9rea,
RECYCLING
A'ocydlngplanl.tobelmplomentlldlnacoordanoowkhtheclty
apl'fo.oo,ecycl",gplanonnle
O\}TUOOR STORAGE AREAS
No sto'age <>t mawlal. I. pe<"'~led CJ<,t.!<w I!;e end;e,c,M srea
(If!het<J~h'llloadl''!ld':>ckannga'de<1o~;'I,,,r
SlAGINGAREAS
-'-cm;lo'll'Yatagi"'lls{lnlyall"...",jlnr.rcasMs>gnal;odmt,h1e. Nonmc-J~I
r!H.llt..'talled alx>v""ldj.~(,."'tsc'Mnw,,~.
TRAILER STORAGE AREAS
Deslgnatad on the soulh slcIe ot lf1e Ganjen Clint....
LOAO-(~..i30 T;',UCK ('lENT"L
n""\J"nmd en fhe nc"n~~;lsle'" "id.. of t~, ~uli,j;'g
Ol;ffiOOFl. DISPUI,YS
OUldoordlsployaHowedlnftvedeSlgnalwareasonly.\Wbt!o,jeN"natod
onslle by llMled pnvOtn""t. See9i1Il plon_ DI'playsmaylillong'"""d.
On racks. "ran shel~e. dependlnqOfl~'a Items bt!olng dlsplaj'i'd. ~trt shall
nmlnlaln '" allth"aa a podeatrnln pat~1 of l'a~el amllnd il nnd be limited 10
amade""llml'led,lhO(>"looordl.playsl,allbellml\edlnU,eJollowiw,l
<:alogorles <Jfsa'e Iterm:
A. Building Ma!edals (p~wood dl6p1ay. fun"" panel display, laadscapo
t1mberd"'olay,sl'....I:Ot*dlsploy,'na~o"'yp'O'Jucldlsplay,'''''flng
d,sp\ay.some bul;., ILlmbor).
B. OuldOOt"'1uiprmmt(grill<JISlllay.lawnl'ac!<>'dlspl<!Y,p"""<!rn"lw<'1
dlsplay.wl1eeiharrnwdlsplay),
c OuldMfFllmllllreandStorngeUnlls(plr...nlctabledisplay.lIt1Idoor
lI!lI1a&ban(".hdl$pl..y.hamm"';';,glkler&porch~"ingdl~play)
o UveGondsar.dLllndscapeSuppllas{sessonalfl",.........sea""".o1
""9..tIIb1E'~,.mIl'111""ea,.
SEASON:,; U.J.ESEVF,T3
i')p,,,,,II,,,,, 0; S"nson,,! 1:';,loll G",..:mn '" '~:lt)t"t<"1 h~ U,,,t,; '/:sl~ M"nl",p~i
o:;",j', ~ndl"" '9,58,:)7(1 IS1, n", ell, "11t-"",'S r""ar.~r,," s"",~ "ilb a T ";,,,r,r~'r
t.I,,, I"m"-~ "I'l'm,,"~ !n'" 1":''"'': "I 24 :ja,> In ''''1, c:,I',""li" ;',"'" 1,,,( I'm
",,,,,,",,!;.,,, H'''''' ,::o,,,,.e',li'(f\ M;';, tH ",""." U,,,,; ~I> p",mits.. ,,,~,- ",,,.Ii
b", ,~:>""d tn ;"'~ ,_:!"e b,,~I"e':, or ~tlr,p('I"'1 ""~'.pfe~
iENTS & AWNINGS
Tenls....qulm a Sr>erJ!II Evont PermII approved by fho CIIy. Tontswlllonly
be allowed In SeasooalNea.
BUFFERS & SGREENING
Bulfern and screening pe.-approved sIIe plans. AIIouldoorslomgelncl1J<:lIng
equlpmenl storage shall be oomplel!lly scmened lrom stmetll by Ihe use of
appro'lOOSCfeenlnglfelldng,wall,l..ndscaplngorboll1
LANDSCAPE & MAINTENANCE
AJlplarrtlngssltaHbemafnlalnodlllahea!lhyandfl'rlvlnguondlUooand
relaUvelywelldl,ee. AlIplanls w!\IchM lutf1rlve because of disease.
damage. accident Of o1her cause shall be Immedalely replaCfld wIIh a
plant of tltosarnespudesand slzeasodglnanyapproved_Althedlscrntlon
of tlte Oly Planner, replauement of any planf ma"'rlalslhal have ooan
ImpfOpe~y malntalnlld shaft be requlmd af" size equllllo the size Ihe pla,,1
would h..".. been had I! bolen prope~ycared fo" No prants shown on eo
approvad~anma~be'a""",ed...othoulpermI9slonntlheCllyPlann"'.
AJI lrees shell bemalnlalned In a manne, lhat ,etalns tIte nalu,allo,," ollM
sped9s_Topplngandeggresslveprunlngwlllnotboallowed.AIIscnll!'nlng
shrubsshallbomalnfalnedalahelghttlmfelfecU....lys~'"lheare.a!hal
wmeplantedloob$Clifll;te,parldngareas.lrashendosures,loadlngareas.
Landscaping andd",,"up.ervlcesare performed Iwk:e a week end Inulude
bl1lam not Im!Ied to W<ledlng, fertHtzer,lf\mrn1ng endrJea"'-'p.
SIGNS & BANNERS
Signage nollu e~ooIId ma~lmum helghl, number. square tcolage and type
allowed per appfUVEld slge pad<<>ga 0' as aJowed In lhemunldpal
SECURITY
S9CUdlyshall be pro\<ldlldbythlllnssP,e\lOOtlon Department
durtr>gh<lursofsloreoperaUon.24hollfEmergencyNumbar;
CaIHomeDafWt@1-872-4J6-3376.
SHOPPING CART MANAGEMENT
Snopplng cart comlls are to be provldedthrougnoutlhe par1<lng 101 and al thelronl ollhe sl Or<! HomeDepnlemployeeswilloollecllhee;arts
conUnuouslylhroughoullheday.
GRAFFITTI REMOVAL POLICY
Allgtllf!h(shallberemovlld~tn24hO\lf"S.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PlAN
Provisions lor maintenance of lhe wal.... qlJaHty BMP's specffylng the requ~ed malnfenance adlv""'s and the time Interval 10< regllla'
m1dnlenancels klentllled In 1he ""Ill Slnrm wala' managemenl plan (SWMP) lor the property wtrictlls aflachod as an appandl. 10 fhe
Management Plan,
PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF MANAGEMENT PLAN
If violations <Jf lhe Managemenl Plan or the Condlllons 01 Approval are idenUlled and lhe slOle managemenf I. nul ,,,sponslve to tt>e City's
reqoosls,enforcemenlaclionswmbalakeni1ac<:orrlancewithlheappllcablepruvlslonsofll1e Chula Vista MunldpatGode
FIRE LANE
MUST BE CLEAR
AT ALL TIMES
VISTA PACIFIC
VILLAS
LOAD & GO
PARKING
SOUl}IBAY
MANOR
c
Ie
OUTDOOR
DISPLAY-
l"-
N
I
eN
FXIST1NG RAI PH'S Bt 00.
~
SEASQNAC,'
SI\LES
" ',",
,<
I
~
Coo
:":":'':;;;~~~~'---'--'':'''':'' .::lHlRD-A.Va~~~~::::,'''=
COMMEn_~
~
!2
~
CD
-
'"
o
o
(J)
(/)
m
o
-l
o
Z
o
"t"
n!
'S
"6
'"
(1}
'"
.~
:~
;z
'"
i~
: .-i:'.ji;
.,.
m
)>
(/)
~
m
(/)
-l
(/)
m
o
-l
o
Z
OJ
...
.j>.
~~~ ~i~~ ~~@ ~~
~.~it ~~""; ;~'f> ::
.<>" ~<~" -." .
~~ ~~5;~ ';...~ E;
.. ... ./"......_ I'"
I, I>> z.2\~ 1
, I.
~--'"''''..' {
-;;.';'1"'- j .I
'./ /i /
- ~/-
'"
~
~
-
"''''~.i::'*
H..~l<
....=>?;;O'#-'il.
>:':l!!~;1'-
,,"~~i!l
_01\:;:~iS:
~j~-J'"
a~
;; ;;
"
.
. 'l' t ..
~ -". .lJ!~~
.:I~~~..."" ::n"'Zi
l:~..,,,. e~, Eo ..~
';i!~ r.i lE~~~
li;~ ~e S;ye,,~
j_;.:E $~ ii~~~;;
:si~g;,;, ~;~;;;~...
, \
m
)>
(/)
-l
~
m
(/)
-l
i
'$Z'
16:
~
Cf)
m
o
::!
o
z
)>
m
)>
(/'J
::::!
~
m
(/)
-l
\l
--"".
3!<iol~~ii
"'.~~~~
j~~f
~~i:.;
~~~1
"",.",:~
~'1'"
"
'$
~
i
'---';~"''';~;;''~'''';~' .
i, 'ftI
i /:,'~' I _---" i~
. '."Lrh f F
~
BL:-
2-28
/tlT4CBMEtVT S-
I iF I
/ ",-';p';'r
'~111
gllj
~:"I, II
Ii
.." ~lll
4J.'.ii'."J J ",lnlm,bl";;'!n~>
Y.li~:'
(-~+ilt.l\l I; [
,I, I I ."
!;;X.lsm4GCHAlN:IJtlK ,,_.0
rlmf;f.&.SCRne.H
CWlH 10 R.EMAlN
E
D
C,,':":;-l:".'.'..:,>
~~\;:hl;;i.fFi;;
SECTION D - EAST! WEST
HVAClllU'S. REfRIGERATED
10/19/2006
SECTION E.. EAST/WEST
.-1YAJ.9.1l'i.1];O COOLERS..
ENLARGEO SECTION D & E.. EAST/WEST
AT LUMBER TRUCK UNLOADING AND
!!s..~E2JJjy!\~qI3.P~I!Yl:,fQQ~!'B IQtL.
J I .
r U:
, ) ~~l:r.~~~i' 'J II
'so fJO, . I
W l
I I r
I
ID
~
cp
(f)
(f)
@
m
N
I
N
15
e EXIS'jNOCH.\I~ltJ~IK
fE:lfCl!:-a. S(;riE:E~l
CLmH ro HEMAIU
\1
F
E
D
I
il
I
o
(Y)
I
N
J ,'. ,_.~
~',./ '\ 1'''''';''''.
;J[:':~:
'JI"
". .---.:
,/ '["'-
~/ .,,"~
rr:.~!;,L_.rACL
:;:jUI\
17\ 11 ~
('.' .
./',
\-1
l.t-
....r
\'1 ;'
!\l
SECTION F.. EAST! WEST
10/19/2006
ENLARGED SECTION F -, EAST/WEST
@BACKUPGENERATORENCLOSURE
16
~XI!mNQ CHAltl UN-,
"!.:.tICl! 1\ fH;fH:t'~f
tl.OtH'ro AF.'.Ii\li~
E
"J ,i Ie,
'HJ ".',
,.J I"
""".0.1\,1
.OJ''''' I
' sf) Nt),
WAI.
I ,
~ I
~ Ii
\lJ I
~
W
J)
~
~
C")
I
N
=::I~:
C::I'.'"
_1.
, -j,
\~1
J l:!:),OO
ADJACENT %--------.
MUL TI- FAMIL*_",,(j~).j)L "---1j
l'.{FMk~'1Jl,~
SECTION G ~- EAST/ WEST
LOADiING DOCK & COMPACTOR
10/19/2006
17
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
Home Depot
PROJECT LOCATION:
1030 Third Avenue
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
619-051-12/13/28/68/69
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Home Depot/Ziebarth Associates
CASE NO.:
1S-06-007
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUlVlENT:
October 30, 2006
DATE OF RCC MEETING:
December 4, 2006
DATE OF FINAL DOCUlVlENT:
January 12. 2007
Prepared by:
Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner
Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of
the draft Negative Declaratiou are denoted by uuderline.
A. Proi ect Setting
The project site is a previously disturbed 11.10-acre parcel located on the southwestern
corner of Third Avenue and Moss Street, witbin the Redevelopment Project Area of the City
of Chula Vista (see Exhibit A - Location Map). The project area consi~ts of five parcels
containing public access, utility, lease and emergency service easements, (see Exhibit B -
Existing Site Plan). The entire project site was previously developed with existing
commercial retail buildings, and associated parking, as well as an active food kiosk and
currently vacant restaurant.
The topography of the site is essentially flat, with a slight downward elevation change from
east to west. The land uses immediately surrounding the project site are as follows:
North:
South:
East:
West/Southwest:
Fast Food Kiosk/Apartments and Behavioral Center
Retail Center with vacant supermarket
Fast Food Kiosks and Commercial Centers
Multi-Family Residential
B. Proiect Description
The project proposal consists of the demolition of an existing (vacant) 118,669 square-foot
commercial retail building (K-Mart) and replacement with a Home Depot store. The
proposed 129,043 square-foot building includes a 31,647 square-foot garden center. An
existing 10,600 square-foot restaurant is proposed f<,Jr demolition to accommodate the project
parking lot. The existing fast food kiosk located on the corner parcel would be retained.
2-lg 2
f\t\-Otd'\\\\pX\ \- b
The project site plan calls for an outdoor sales and display area, customer merchandise
pickup area, and building materials will:call area. The proposal includes a loading/receiving
dock area and lumber off-loading area to the rear (west) of the store building. The proposal
contains a paved parking area to accommodate 666 parking spaces, which is 21 spaces in
excess of the required parking per the Municipal Code.
The proposal includes the removal and relocation of driveway accesses along Moss Street
and Third Avenue, relocation of light posts, as well as the abandonment and installation of
new fire hydrants. Proposed on-site improvements include new storm drainage facilities,
water service extensions, sewer lateral connections, relocation of driveway accesses, trash
compactor, emergency generator, a 6-15 foot high sound/screening wall along the west and
north property lines. Additional onsite improvements include enhanced landscaped
treatments and new lighting standards.
Hours of operation for the store are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and
7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. on Sundays. The anticipated number of store employees ranges
from 150-200 employees with 75-100 employees expected at anyone time. Truck deliveries
will be limited to between the hours of7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. (Weekends). in accordance with the City Municipal CodelNoise Ordinance.
The maximum number of daily delivery vehicles is 30 trucks during the week and 4 trucks
per day on the weekends. and an average of 115 trucks per week.
The project site is located within the CCP (Central Commercial/Precise Plan) Zone and CR
(Retail Commercial) General Plan land use designation.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project site is within the CCP (Central Conunerci2.lIPrecise Pl;;n) Zone and CR
(Commercial Retail) General Plan land use designation. The project has been found to be
consistent with the applicable zoning regulations and the Chula Vista General Plan. The
proposed project requires the approval of a Design Review Permit by the Design Review
Committee, a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator for outside sales and
displays, and a lot consolidation by the City Engineer.
D. Public Comments
On January 30, 2006, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a
500-foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended February 9,
2006. Written and e-mail comments were received regarding noise, traffic/parking, air
quality and road deterioration issues. (A verbal comment was received regarding the
redevelopment goals of the project area. This comment was referred to the Community
Development Department).
The City and the applicant held a Community Workshop on August 24, 2006 to present the
project and receive public input. The City received public comments regarding business
redevelopment, project redesign, potential noise/traffic and air quality impacts and
cumulative impacts generated by the proposed project.
2~33
On November 13.2006 a Notice of Availability of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the DToiect was vosted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to vrovertv owners within a 500-
foot radius of the proiect site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on December 15. 2006.
Comment letters were received from the public and from the Environmental Health Coalition. The
issues raised involved noise. air quality/risks imvacts. traffic and other proiect related impacts. The
issues raised in these letters have been addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and attached
checklist. as well as in the attached response to comments (Exhibit "C").
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project may have potential significant
environmental irupacts, however, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
project to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Air Quality
To assess potential air quality impacts of the project, an Air Quality Technical Report for the
Chula Vista Home Depot, Chula Vista, California, dated October 16, 2006, was prepared by
Scientific Resources Associated (SRA). The results of this analysis are summarized below.
Thresholds of Significance
To determine whether a project would create potential air quality irupacts, the City evaluates
project emissions thresholds in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SQAMD) standards.
In order to analyze potential emission irupacts, the emission factors and threshold criteria
contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air
Quality Analysis were used.
Short- Term Construction
The emissions associated with the demolition and construction activities of the proposed
proj ect with mitigation will result in air quality impact below the significance thresholds for
all construction phases and pollutants. The minimal grading of the site, building
remodeling/renovation construction and worker and equipment vehicle trips will create
temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air pollutants associated
with the construction and demolition activities. Air quality irupacts resulting from
construction-related operations are considered short-term in duration since construction-
related activities are a relatively short-term activity.
In order to analyze potential project impacts/emissions, the emission factors and threshold
criteria contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for
Air Quality Analysis were used. Based upon the emission factors and anticipated
construction activities it is estimated that the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD's
daily threshold emission levels, if not mitigated.
23.34
A comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQ:MD's emission thresholds of
significance for each pollutant was analyzed. Emissions were calculated using the
URBEMIS 2002 model.
Implementation of the' Mitigation Measure 1 contained in Section F below would mitigate
short-term construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. These
measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
See the noise section below regarding potential truck idling air quality impacts and
mitigation measures.
Long-Term (Operation)
In order to assess whether the project's contribution to ambient air quality is cumulatively
considerable, the project's emissions were quantified with respect to regional air quality.
The proposed project once developed will not result in significant long-term air quality
impacts. The minimal project generated traffic volume would not result in significant long-
term local or regional air quality impacts. The proj ect results in a reduction in cumulative Air
Quality impacts due to fewer net vehicle trips for the overall proj ect site. No area source or
operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance thresholds;
therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Toxic Air Contaminant Evaluation/Health Risk Assessment
The study contains a health risk assessment and results of toxic air contaminant (T AC)
emissions and potential risks associated with Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) from project
related and development traffic during construction and operational phases. According to the
California Health and Safety Code a T AC is an air pollutant that that may present a potential
hazard to human health. Typical risks emitted from on-road traffic include gasoline-fueled
automobiles, diesel-fueled trucks/vehicles and stationary sources, such as diesel-powered
engines, and truck idling. In order to estimate the emissions to a worse case scenario, a
conservative 70-year exposure model scenario of emission factors from truck traffic was
used. The study concluded that there is no health risk based upon established thresholds.
Hot SDots
In order to determine the potential for significant air quality impacts associated with CO
emissions, an evaluation of CO hot spots was completed. This was done to determine if the
proposed project emissions exceeded the acceptable regional criteria and violated the CO
standard. The CO "hot spots" were based upon the findings of the proj ect traffic study. The
traffic study indicated that the project-generated traffic would not lower the Level of Service
(LOS) below LOS "D" and, therefore, in accordance with regional standards, the CO levels
would not create significant impacts to the ambient air quality.
2135
Geology and Soils
To assess potential geological and soils impacts of the project, a Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation for Proposed Improvements to Home Depot Store, 1030 Third
Avenue, Chula Vista, California, August 4, 2005, was prepared by Twining Laboratories, Inc.
The results ofthis analysis are summarized below.
The project site is not located in an active Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault is
the Rose Canyon fault approximately 5 miles away. No known significant or suspected
seismic hazards associated with the project site have been identified.
According to the preliminary geological study, existing fill soils on the project site will be
over excavated and recompacted as engineered fill. The upper soil under the building pad
will consist of aggregate base over non-expansive import material. Elevations at edge
conditions were taken into account and identified in the preliminary geotechnical report and
considered in grading design and preliminary earthwork estimates. As a standard condition,
a final soils report will be required for review by the City Engineer. In addition, erosion
control measures will be identified in conjunction with the preparation of the grading plans
and implemented during the construction phase. The mitigation measures contained in
Section F below would mitigate potential geological impacts to a level of less than
significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
In order to a&sess potential hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project, a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc., entitled Home
Depot Development/Chula Vista, dated August 24, 2005. In addition a pre-demolition
asbestos survey and support data was prepared. A copy of the technical study is available for
review at the Planning and Building Department.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) previously located_in the former Kmart auto service
center were removed in 1993. Several soil samplings were taken and analyzed under the
direction of the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS).
No significant release was identified and the County required no further remediation or
assessment actions necessary.
Four USTs previously located in the former Chevron station located at the northeast portion
of the site were removed in January 1990. A release of gasoline resulted from closure
activities and soil contamination occurred. The release was investigated and remediated
under the direction and to the satisfaction of the County DEHS, according to their closure
letter dated February 17, 1999. No further action was necessary.
22,36
The Phase I identified an auto repair section containing former hydraulic lifts and wheel
alignment area for the previous Kmart Store. Those areas have since been replaced by the
existing retail and storage space. No indications of these former features were observed
during the site reconnaissance and it is assumed that these features were removed around the
time of the UST removal in 1993. However, this area should be observed during site
demolition and grading activities for the proposed project. In the event any original auto
repair work area features are discovered or suspicious environmental concerns are
encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That
may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis if warranted, identifying any
new environmental concerns with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review
Coordinator for review. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would
mitigate potential hazardslhazardous materials impacts to a level of less than significance.-
These measures are included as it part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Lead and Asbestos Removal
Due to the age of the existing commercial building and restaurant, there is the potential for
lead and asbestos containing materials within the buildings proposed for
demolition/renovation. Additional evaluation was required to determine the presence of any
of these hazardous materials prior to demolition activities.
According to the Phase IT prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants, dated August 3, 2005, a pre-
demolition asbestos survey was performed by a registered asbestos-consulting firm on July
29, 2005. It indicated that all accessible areas were inspected for possible asbestos-
containing materials, including flooring, ceiling, and penetration mastic materials of the roof.
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) were identified in some of these areas. The purpose
of the pre-demolition asbestos abatement was to remove (ACMs) within the building. On
December 16, 2005, abatement was conducted to remove the identified ACMs at the site by
CST Environmental Inc. and removed by a licensed hazardous materials hauler to a
registered hazardous materials site in accordance with appropriate federal, state and local
hazardous waste disposal regulations.
Inaccessible areas such as inside walls were not sampled. If during demolition and
renovation suspect (ACMs) materials are observed, additional sampling and analysis prior to
removal and renovation activities will be required. Therefore, abatement will be performed
by registered asbestos and lead abatement contractors in accordance with all applicable local,
state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District Rule 361.145, Standard for Demolition and Renovation. The mitigation measure
contained in Section F below would mitigate potential hazardslhazardous material impacts
associated with the release of asbestos and lead to below a level of significance.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
During the site assessment transformers and other electrical equipment were observed around
the existing buildings. No leaks or staining were observed on or around the transformers.
Historically, PCBs were used in cooling oil Jor electrical transformers. The age of the
transformers was not known at the time of the site assessment, and those within the electrical
rooms appeared to be older than those outside. Therefore, there is the potential of PCBs
2~37
within the cooling oiL Additional sampling of the cooling oil for possible PCBs is required
prior to removal for site demolition. In addition, the fluorescent light ballasts located
throughout the project site were unknown as to whether or not they had been retrofitted.
Therefore, there is a potential presence of PCBs in the light ballasts within the store and
restaurant. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential
hazards/hazardous material. impacts associated with the release of PCBs during
demolition/renovation activities to below a level of significance.
Hvdrologv and Water Ouality
Based upon review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are .
no significant issues or impacts regarding the proposed drainage improvements for the
proj ect site. The proj ect proposes the installation of a storm drain system, filtering treatment
system, backflow device and preventor, drain piping, catch basin, inlets and conceptual Best
Management Practices include gravel bags, dikes, landscaped areas, and improvements to
existing brow ditch along the western property line.
As required, the proposed drainage must be directed away from existing and proposed
buildings including adjacent properties. A final drainage study will be required in
conjunction with the preparation of the proj ect grading plans and must demonstrate that the
post-development peak flow rate does not exceed the pre-development flows. The proposed
drainage improvements designed in accordance with local and regional requirements as
described above would improve the overall on-site drainage system and acco=odate the
proposed project. The drainage facilities will be installed at the time of the site development
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The applicant will be required to comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water
Management Manual and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent
pollution of the storm water systems during and after construction. The applicant will also be
required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01 and other permit
requirements, identify storm water pollutants that are generated with proposed BMPs, and
submit a water quality study with submittal of final grading/improvement plans to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (See Section F).
Storm or non-storm water from such designated area shall not be discharged into City storm
drainage systems but disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and Local laws and
regulations. No significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system or water quality are
anticipated to result from the proposed proj ect.
Noise
In order to assess potential noise impacts of the proposed proj ect, a noise study was prepared
by Giroux & Associates, Inc., entitled Home Depot @ Third & Moss Streets, dated October
13, 2006. The noise assessment analyzed the project with respect to the regulations
contained in the Chula Vista Municipal Code (noise control ordinance). A copy of the noise
study is available for review at the Planning and Building Department.
2238
Critical noise sources are all located within the rear alley (western property line) that include
truck movement, loading/unloading dock activities, lumber offloading, idling trucks,
forklifts, backup alarms, emergency generator, trash compactor and trash collection. These
activities are located next to the western property line and to the closest residential
development.
Other noise sources include the customer pickup lanes and the outside sales area located in
the front of the store (easterly elevation), outdoor and rooftop mechanical equipment, P A
systems, building/parking lot maintenance, short-term construction noise, vehicle noise in the
parking lot, and traffic noise on adj acent streets.
Loading/Unloading Dock and Lumber OjJloading
The new loading/unloading dock, located along the soathcaat southwest comer of the
building, is in approximately the same location as the existing dock. A lumber-offloading
pad is proposed on the northwest comer of the rear truck route is buffered by a screening
wall. No lumber or other materials will be stored outside in the rear alley. Only palettes will
be allowed to be stored further to the south along the western property line for future pickup.
Typical noise sources associated with loading/unloading docks may include idling truck
engines, truck backup alarms, fork lifts, banging of hand carts, and roll-up doors, noise from
public address systems and employee voices.
Typical loading dock support equipment such as small or medium trucks or forklifts usually
contain backup alarms. The semi-trailer unloading dock and trash compactor will create a
second source noise that is separated by setback and distance. Operational loading/unloading
dock noises are considered significant noise impacts if not properly mitigated. A sound
absorbent material or sound aborbent cladding will be c011Structed between the harrier wall
and rear of the store building. The loading dock will contain a product feature consisting of
foam seal and enhanced bumpers on the deck leveler to reduce dock mating and truck plate
noise impacts. A wing wall extension will be added to the comer of the building extended
for 75 feet. For those impacts to near by noise receptors, a major noise reduction can be
accomplished with the installation of a 6-15 -foot high sound wall along the western
perimeter boundary. These features will effectively shield the will call and
lumber/offloading dock areas, thus bringing operational noise into conformance with the
City's Noise Ordinance.
The project includes typical noise sources generated from pickup/delivery service businesses
such as public address systems or bell signaling systems. Even though the store hours of
operation are from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the City ofChula Vista Noise Ordinance, Section
19.68.050, and the proposed project limitations regulate these public address and signaling
systems. Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, the operation of the public address system
and other signaling systems cannot occur prior to 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (weekdavs)
and 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (weekends). No significant noise impacts are expected to
occur to any residential receptors as a result of the operation of the public address system or
other signaling systems.
2..8s 9
Truck Idling
There is the possibility of operational noise impacts to the adjacent residential development
caused by extended truck idling. To avoid this potentially significant noise impact, trucks
will not be permitted to idle along the rear of the store near residential properties, or park on
the public street for extended periods while waiting for the business to open.
Proposed mitigation includes rear store loading/unloading activities limited to between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (weekends).
Mitigation measures also include the requirement that the noise/screening wall be"
constructed in accordance with the project noise study. Steady noise from idling diesel
trucks awaiting access to the rear of the store will be minimized because truck idling is
subject to a five-minute time limitation in accordance with State law, Chapter 10, Section
2485. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate
unloading/loading dock activities including truck idling related noise impacts to below a
level of significance and in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance
standards.
Emergency Generator/Trash Compactor
An emergency power generator and trash compactor are proposed near the western property
line, adjacent to residences. There is the potential for noise impacts to the residents or
employees during these operational activities. The emergency generator will only be used
for a few testing minutes per month or in the rare event of a major power outage. However,
in order to mitigate any potential significant noise impacts proper proj ect design and
operational mitigation measures the applicant will include installation of a special sound-
reduction-enclosure (minimum 9-fQot high CMU walls) around the emergency generator.
The enclosure entrance doors will be closed during generator operation.
The trash compactor operation would be considered incidental nuisance noise. The use of
the outdoor trash compactors will be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m. (weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (weekends) in accordance with the City
Noise Ordinance standards.
The mitigation measures contained in Section F below ','{ould mitigate power generator and
trash compactor noise impacts to below a level of significance.
Outdoor/Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Noise
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HV AC) equipment is proposed on the roof of the
commercial building. The noise generated by the machinery motors would vary depending
"on the type and size of the mechanical equipment. Based upon the mechanical plans, the
study concluded that noise generated from the HV AC would not exceed the City's noise
standard even for night-time operations with the proposed parapet screening. Therefore, the
mitigation measures contained in Section F below have been included to mitigate HV AC/or
rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts to below a level of significance.
2240
Short- Term Construction Noise
Pursuant to Section 17.2.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, construction work
(including demolition) in residential zones that generates noise disturbing to persons residing
or working in the vicinity is not permitted between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday
through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday, except when
necessary for emergency repairs required for the health and safety of any member of the
community. Due to the presence of the adjacent multi-family residential development, this
provision of the Municipal Code applies to the proj ect and would ensure that the residents
would not be disturbed by construction noise during the most noise sensitive periods of the
day. .
Traffic Noise
The proj ected traffic noise impacts associated with traffic volumes along Third Avenue and
Moss Street and at the project site were assessed in the noise analysis. The report concluded
that the traffic volume would have a less than significant impact on noise.
Transportation/Traffic
To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the project development, a Traffic
Impact Analysis dated April 19, 2006 was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Inc.
Traffic impacts were defined as either as project specific impacts or cumulative impacts. The
traffic study is summarized below.
Andysis Methodology/Significance Criteria .
In order to anticipate cumulative future projects in the area, a conservative methodology
approach was applied to the existing traffic volumes. This created a foundation or baseline
for the proposed project impacts to be measured and used in the traffic analysis. The analysis
included existing volumes, existing plus growth volumes and existing plus growth plus
project traffic volumes (cumulative); a 1.5% growth factor was applied to existing traffic
volumes.
Existing Conditions
The project site is currently accessed via five driveways: three driveway accesses off of Third
Avenue and two driveway accesses off of Moss Street. Third Avenue is classified as a Class
I Collector within the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan. Unsignalized and signalized
intersections were studied based on the anticipated traffic circulation within adj acent and
surrounding street segments. Peak hour intersections currently operate at Level of Service
(LOS) C or better in accordance with City threshold standards.
2-4?
Site Access/Truck Operations and Parking
The proposed access to the site is through four driveways, two off Third Avenue and two off
Moss Street. The project includes the elimination of one existing driveway to improve
circulation and access to the project site. The northwesterly driveway from Moss Street will
be used primarily for truck entrance and will be realigned to allow proper truck circulation,
accessibility, and turning movement for delivery access to the loading docks and lumber
staging area located at the rear of the building. Truck accessibility was looked at from three
locations; entrance, loading docks and exit. Modifications have been included in the latest
site plan and through project design, the proposed accessibility and circulation have been
adequately addressed.
In accordance with the City Municipal CodelParking Ordinance (Section 19.62), the
proposed proj ect requires 645 parking spaces. The Home Depot proj ect proposes 666
parking spaces, 21 parking spaces in excess of the Municipal Code requirement. No
significant traffic impacts will result relative to traffic or truck circulation, site access or
parking.
Existing plus Growth and Proposed Project (Intersections)
Signalized intersections were studied during the peak hour operations including key
intersections at Third AvenuelMoss Street and Third Avenue/Naples Street. All signalized
intersections will continue to operate at adequate levels of service during the AM and PM
peak hours. The key signalized intersections will continue to operate at LOS C or better in
accordance with the City threshold standards. No significant intersection/capacity related
traffic impacts would result from the proposed project.
Truck Loitering
There is the potential for truck loitering to occur with similar type projects thus creating
potential traffic impacts onto the surrounding public streets. However, due to ample parking
available on site, proper truck circulation, and the restriction of delivery hours (the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. ((weekdavs) and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.m. (weekends)), adverse
impacts are not anticipated. The mitigation measures contained in Section F (Noise Section)
below would mitigate potential truck loitering impacts to below a level of significance.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air Quality
1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable
grading, and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be
deviated from unless approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review
Coordinator:
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units.
11
2-42
. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment.
. Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment.
. Water the construction area minimum three times daily to minimize fugitive dust.
. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust.
. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust.
. Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if
available.
. Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction
site prior to public road entry.
. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads. .
. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence.
. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle
travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred.
. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto
public roads.
e Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off
during hauling.
. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles
per hour.
Geologv and Soils
2. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide the signature of
the geotechnical engineers as evidence to the City Engineer that all the reco=endations
in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 4, 2005 have been
incorporated into the plans.
3. Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the applicant shall submit a final
soils report for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4. Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement
contractor shall perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in accordance to all
applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation.
5. If during demolition and renovation activities potentially Asbestos Containing Materials
(ACMs) are observed within the inaccessible areas such as interior walls, additional
samplings and analysis prior to the removal of such materials shall be required.
Abatement shall be performed in accordance with standards and regulations noted in
mitigation measure no. 4. In the event suspected ACMs concerns are encountered, a
12
2-43
qualified professional will be retained to assess the areas of concern. That may include
the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new hazards/hazardous
material impacts with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for
reVIew.
6. Prior to the removal of any electrical transformers for site demolition, the transformers
will be inspected. If the transformers are not labeled as PCB-free, they will be presumed
to contain PCBs and they will be disposed of in compliance with applicable standards and
regulations. In the event potential environmental concerns regarding PCBs are
suspected or encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of
concern. That may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying
any new hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate measures to the
Environmental Review Coordinator for review.
7. Prior to the removal of fluorescent light ballasts located within the proposed buildings or
portion thereof for demolition, the ballasts will be inspected. If the ballasts are not
labeled as PCB-free, they will be presumed to contain PCBs and they will be disposed of
in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. In the event potential
environmental concerns regarding PCBs are suspected or encountered, a qualified
professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That may include the
preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new hazards/hazardous
material impacts with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for
reVIew.
8. During the demolition and grading activities for the proposed project, the area of the
former hydraulic lifts and wheel alignment shall be monitored. In the event additional
auto repair work area features are discovered or suspicious environmental concerns are
encountered, a qualified professional will be required to assess the areas of concern. That
may include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis identifying any new
environmental concerns with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review
Coordinator for review.
Hvdrology and Water Oualitv
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be required in
conjunction with the preparation of final grading plans and must demonstrate that the
post-development peak flow rate does not exceed the pre-development flows. The City
Engineer shall verify that the final grading plans comply with the provisions of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with
respect to construction-related water quality best management practices. If one or more
of the approved post-construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP
plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement
of construction. Compliance with said plan shall become a permanent requirement of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
2!.~4
10. Prior to the co=encement of grading operation, temporary desilting and erosion control
devices shall be installed. Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet
to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be
reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and Environmental Review Coordinator.
Noise
11. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related
construction activities including demolition shall be prohibited between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Saturdays and Sundays. .
12. A 6 to IS-foot high noise attenuation wall, including screening wall shall be constructed
along the western property line in accordance with the noise study dated October 13,
2006, and as depicted on the project development and grading plans to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
13. A 12-foot high wing wall extension shall be added to the corner of the building extending
for 75 feet. in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, 2006, and to the
satisfaction of the City Environmental Review Coordinator.
14. Truck deliveries shall be restricted except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Monday through Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays in
accordance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance (Section 19.68).
IS. The loading dock shall contain a product feature consisting of foam seal and enhanced
bumpers on the deck leveler to reduce dock mating and truck plate noise impacts in
accordance with the noise study dated October 13, 2006, and to the satisfaction of the
City Environmental Review Coordinator.
16. The lumber unloading area barrier wall shall be constructed of sound absorbent material
or equipped with sound-absorbent cladding to minimize multiple sound reflections
between the barrier wall and the rear of the store bUilding in accordance with the noise
study dated October 13, 2006.
17. All diesel delivery trucks shall turn off their engines during unloading/unloading
activities at the Home Depot loading docks and lumber offloading pad whenever
possible. In the event a delivery truck is not able to immediately enter the loading docks
or lumber off-loading area upon arrival, the diesel truck idling shall be restricted to a
fiye-minute limitation in accordance with State law. Trucks will not be permitted to idle
along the rear of the store near residential properties or park for extended periods of time
while waiting for the business to open.
2~\5
18. A minimum 9-foot high sound reduction enclosure surrounding the project emergency
generator shall be constructed in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, 2006.
During emergency generator operations all sound enclosure doors shall be kept closed.
Prior to issuance of building pennits, the design shall be reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Review Coordinator.
19. Outside operational activities located along the rear and sides of the building including
docking/unloading/loading, trash compactor, emergency generators, trash/recycled
cardboard pickups, and signaling systems shall be restricted between the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday to Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays
in accordance with the City ofChula Vista Noise Ordinance (Section 19.68).
20. All rooftop pumps, fans, and air conditioners shall include appropriate noise abatement
and be screened by a minimum three-foot high rooftop parapet that blocks the line-of-site
view from the backyards of the nearby residential properties to the exposed roof and
mechanical ventilation systems, consistent with the noise study dated October 13, 2006.
G. Agre=ent to Implement Mitigation Measures
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and will irnpl=ent same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project
be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an
Environmental Impact Report.
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
Date
Date
Signature of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
NIA
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
NIA
Signature of Operator
Date
15
2-46
(if different from Applicant)
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City ofChula Vista:
Steve Power, Planning and Building Department
Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager Department
Richard Zumwalt, Plarming and Building Department
Miguel Tapia, Redevelopment Department
Garry Williams, Planning and Building Department
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Division
Jim Newton, Engineering Division
Frank Rivera, Engineering Division
DaVid Kaplan, Engineering Division
Ben Herrera, Engineering Division
Sohaib AI-Agha, Engineering Division
Hasib Baha, Engineering Division
Michael Maston, Engineering Division
Gary Edmunds, Fire Department
Justin Gipson, Fire Department
Lynn France, Conservation and Environmental Services Department
Others:
Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Sweetwater Authority
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, 2005.
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, ElR No.
05-01, December 2005.
City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003.
Traffic Impact Analysis for Third Avenue Home Depot, Chula Vista, CA and dated April
19,2006 (Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers).
Noise Impact Analysis for Proposed Home Depot at Third and Moss Streets, Chula Vista,
CA and dated October 13, 2006 (Giroux & Associates).
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Home Depot Development, Chula
Vista, San Diego County, CA and dated August 24, 2005 (GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc.).
16
2-47
Asbestos Survey, 1020/1030 Third Avenue, ChulaVista, CA and dated July 29, 2005
(JMR Environmental Services, Inc.) and Asbestos Abatement Closeout Document,
10321/2 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA and dated December 23,2005 (CST
Environmental Inc.).
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for Proposed Home Depot Store,
1030 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA and dated August 4,2005 (The Twining
Laboratories, Inc.).
Air Quality Technical Report for the Chula Vista Home Depot Chula Vista, California,
dated October 16, 2006 (Scientific Resources Associated (SRA).
3. Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any
comments received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the
independent judgment of the City ofChula Vista. Further information regarding the
environmental review of this proj ect is available from the Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Date:
die /lYT
/ /
J:\Planning\MARlA\lnitial Study\Home Depot\IS-06-007DraftMND.doc
17
2-48
Rice
Elementarv
School
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Home Depot PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: Initial Study
PROJECT 1030 Third Av Proposal replacement of currently existing 118,660 sq.ft. K Mart
ADORESS: and 10,606 sq.ft. Restaurant with 97,396 sq.ft. Home Depot
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: retail building and 31,647 sq.ft. Garden center.
NORTH No Scale 15-06-007 Related cases: DRC-06~33, PCC~6~25
~ ~~
J.\plannlng\carlos\locators\ls06007.cdr 11.16.05
....-;" '\TTTTU T'T" A
~
I
!~
H
! lilt
e!"'~
l~H
[li]~
Hi~
::~i
~ai
11 ~I~ .< "'..~ ~~r'! "n ~ H
:~~ i _.~ ~ <"9' "'-;Ill:!..
- r ,," ~-.. ~ ~:!i!~ i;j:ril! j'
'i'ii~ "
;'~ h H
...."'i! I 8~
t , .! ~~i , , Jl
j :<!~ ~ '~ . i H~~i'! 'J ,!l ~
"" ~H l ,~"!
~ !.1: I UHf! ~h1!j~ ~
, d~ ~ j ~~ ~
~. .. H
! . H" ;eF i l~j =i~ H!~~F ~
,
." ~
J:!i :!
;j ~~
_u ~~
~~
~ij
jr;
H
..~
0,
il"
s,h
t{i.~ !I.t; H
~ f~;:H 1 it'
~ 'jtn: iSi; 11' i
VI j ~t;l nil.. il i
Ei ni~H ~l!!~ ~f ~!
a: l'i-'~I1 l{. "I ii ,,1
g ;'l"J ~! T . ~I'
o t~iiI1. H!h Hl L
is nUfi} H! !i Hr ii
1H~h'. .." .
II
g ~~
i: ~-'"
...!!i: <::/:0
~I:i~::i
..J '" c .... e;: =: c
1""-1 i
,
"
"
w.
,
:E I I
8 I I
"(~H5 =t ::;10
-, -- T'O"'ft 0
I I I
~WI~
, "'--
~
w
~
o
"
IL-
I I - \
2-50
- Z
<{
~ IX <~ ..J
, 0 u. Q.
..,:e; 0::
00 " . 0
~~
D.. >" 0
<< ..J
Ai' " .
. :J o E U.
~ ~ r~ W
c [ 0 () c-
o < d " f-
" . - us
@
~
E-<
.....
~
.....
::0
~
r-1
f~
~~
.'
,!.g,
H1J
~:d
;.g ~
~i~
"I'"
~~H
("')
;{
Q)
E
Q)
.r:
()
(f)
c 0
CIl "
,
D.."
~
Q) OJ
:t:::: ro
c
w
(f)
@
Comments
Pag~ 1 of I
Maria Muett
From: Malr Nae [drmnae@yahoo.coml
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:47 PM
To: Maria MueH
Subject: home depot
~-1 [
Dear MmeJSit,
We are living ncxllo old K-Mu11345 moss street.We heard that this spot wiH change:o Home
Dqpol. We arc very gud about that because our life will change very bacHy.They receive 30AO
trucks in a <lay the noise and the traffic will create ll-catastrophe in our daily jifestykl don't
want 10 mention how mat")Y trucks,QJ' hig, cars that belong to the costumers will come to this
urea:
N
I
CJ"I
~
C:I(m)coreI5 & 9 fileslhme depot mnd.cdr 01.12.07 c.j.f.
Response - A
Resident Mair Nae, 345 Moss Street
(Response e-mail communication - dated December 12,2006)
A-I) As stated on Page 10 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
Traffic Analysis prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Inc.,
dated April 19, 2006 assessed potential transportation, traffic,
project generated trips and site access impacts associated with the
proposed project. The traffic study was prepared in accordance
with the City ofChula Vista's Guidelinesfor Traffic Impact Studies.
The study concluded thaUhere would be no significant impacts
associated with transportation/traffic. Thirty operational trucks is
the maximum in a day with an average of 115 trucks per week.
EXHIBIT C
1
Comments
IA-2
[They told that they will build 11 SO~lild wall~ that will make us to live Iike-we are in a
"Ghetto". The air pollution produced bytheegzosted gases will be another problem for our
heallbln any Hcime Depot stores thel'e aren't residencies cJosertlum ours.Home Depot also
[ chromcallyhave huge amounts qf outdoor storage and day laborers and unlicensed co.ltractors
hanging around ull day.That also will disturb our lifestyle.
A-3
""
I
C11
""
A-2)
A-3)
Response - A
As noted on Page 7 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Noise
Section, a noise study was prepared in order to evaluate potential
noise impacts created by the project. The noise study concluded that
in order to mitigate identified significant noise impacts to sensitive
noise receptors (i.e., residential), a 6 to IS-foot-high sound
attenuation wall is required. The sound attenuation wall would be
situated within the applicant's property, approximately IS feet to
the east of the westerly property line. According to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and noise study, noise impacts can be
mitigated with the proposed mitigation measures and design
features. The sound attenuation wall would effectively shield the
will-call, lumber/offloading dock areas, and other operational
activities from sensitive receptors. Thus, bringing the operational
noise impacts of the proposed project into conformance with the
City's Noise Ordinance.
In addition, as stated on Page 3 of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Air Quality Section, an air quality report was prepared
to evaluate potential project related air quality impacts. The report
identified impacts related to short-term construction/demolition,
construction vehicle trips, dust, exhaust and other ail' pollutants
related to construction, traffic and demolition activities. These are
considered short-term in duration since construction related
activities are identified as a short-term activity. With the proposed
mitigation measures, the construction related air quality and ail'
pollutant impacts would be mitigated to a level of less than
significant.
Comment noted. This comments does not address the adequacy of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission
will address the outside display areas during their review of the
associated Conditional Use Permit.
2
Comments
IA-4
A-5
A-6
[With few trees they hope they will save the aesthetic, ""ieh is wrong loo.Another subject :As
an excmple I would like to glve the H streel~s Home Depot had ,126 calls for Police service in
200S,Down the same street K~Mart bad 45, The sand boxes lila! they setting themOlll, with the
[wind will be lmother problom for ourhealth'and homes cleal~ing. Additionally HAZARDS and
HAZARDOUS Jllllterials -many are. slored and transpol'ted reglilarly to und frolll Home pepoL
[ Finlllly the will build 129.000s1: arcll,lhis will take.34 weeks business "dust and noise.
Please Help liS to not destroy our lifestyle ,our daily problems are enough rol' us
Best wishes .
Mail' Nae
345 moss street #5
Cbula Vista
A-5)
A-4)
Everyone is raving about tile al}ne~..X!!lliwJ..!\1gjLbcla-,
'"
I
0'1
(.0)
Response - A
Comments noted. According to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration/Initial Study Checklist, the project site is serviced by
the Chula Vista Police Department and adequate police services
and response times can be provided.
As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Pages 5 and 6,
Hazards/Hazardous Materials Section, Environmental Site
Assessments and asbestos surveys were completed in order to
assess potential hazards/hazardous materials on site. No
significant hazards/hazardous materials were identified on the
existing site. Appropriate mitigation measures were included in the
event ofthe possible discovery of hazards or hazardous materials
created by building remqval (lead and asbestos, transformers,
PCMs), underground storage tanks and previous auto work and
hydraulic lift areas. The applicant is required to be in compliance
with the Building Code, Fire Code and San Diego County
Environmental Health Services rules and regulations regarding
proper storage, usage, and disposal of hazardous materials.
A-6) Comments noted. See SectionA-2 above.
3
Comments
December I J, 2006
Maria tvluelt
Cll)' ofCIUllu Vistt\
PJUl1llillg HIlO Building Dl:parlmcnt
276 4th {\ YC,
Chula VislU, CA 91910
RE: fvlND Home DcpOL projcctliIS-06-007
B-1
Dc,ll'l'v\S.{I,'lucll:
J appreciiltc the opportunity to comment UPOlllhis document. An MND for (L
pr(~iect of this magnitude with the potential for signiJ1cant negL'!tive effects is totally
unucceptable. An EIR with a tldlrange of alternatives is needed to meet minimal
CEQUA disclosure requirements. The mosl blatant omission in the documents b the
,Icknowledgemcnt of the fuel that Home Depot is more than 11 rclnil center. II dearly hilS a
warehollse! distribution function as well. The sign on the SUllIrn and all stores built prior
10 the Saturn store acknowledges that it is "California's Home
WmcllOl1Se," The huge ~\m0l111t ofbllilding materials fOllnd at
the baek ofalll-lomc Depots also aLtests 10 this fact. Saying
fhat Lhis is equivalent to ,I retail store and a reslaurant is absurd,
The back OfSiltllfll store: ","' :;;r~
Th~ front orthe Dennerj'
~l5~, 'e:
WurchQuse: "u wholesllle store, or,
sometimes, n Inrgc retail store" (Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary, 1979.
Response - B
Public Comment Teresa Acero
(Comment letter via e-maiJ/facsimile/mail -dated December 13, 2006)
B-1. This coml)1ent states that an ErR should be prepared for the
project and not a mitigated negative declaration. Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070:
A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject
to CEQA when:
a)
The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light
of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a
substantial effect on the environment, or
B)
The initial study identifiedpotentially significant effects, but:
1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or
agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated
negative declaration and initial study are released for
public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effects
would occur, and
2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole
record before the agency, that the project as revised may
have a significant effect on the environment.
Substantial evidence has been included and relied upon in the initial
study that demonstrates that the project as mitigated will not have a
substantial impact upon the environment. Therefore, in accordance
with state law a mitigated negativedeclaration has been prepared.
Teclmical studies have been prepared by qualified experts that
show all impacts associated with the project for such issue areas as
noise, air quality, drainage, water quality, and traffic are mitigated
to a level ofless than significant. Public Resources Code section
21080 (e) states that .. ...substantial evidence includes jact, a
4
Comments
Response - B
reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion
supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument,
speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative. "No substantial
evidence of a potentially significant environmental impact
associated with the project has been submitted. Public Resources
Code Section 21080.2(c) states that public comments that are not
based upon a specific factual foundation (expert opinion) do not
constitute substantial evidence of an environmental impact.
Home Depot is a member of the
Rancho Cuyamaca Chamber of Commerce as a ~Home Improvement
Warehouse" (along with Home Expo and Lowe's,
hUo:/lwww.ranchochamber.ofQ/membersIv04/Home Improvement Warehouse _11
lOlL) 'The perception that warehouse outlets are unsafe has the
potential to seep into customers' psyches about home improvement
8...2 stores in generall which is why other companies say they are
redoubling their efforts to improve the safety of their operations (see
sidebar, above)." From article abotJt Home Oepot at:
Iitt/J://www.lindartk:/es.comarticles.rn/OVCW./s17 2liai 66.122
/186. "If Home Depot won't disclose injury numbe 5, state Of federal regulators
should force the company and similar "big box" warehouse retailers to do so. >> AT
IlttO:J/www.biziournals.com/allanta/slories/2003/02/24/editoriaI1.l1tml
This comment states that project alternatives should have been
analyzed in the MND. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires
that proj ect alternatives be identified and analyzed in
environmental impact reports (EIRs). There is no requirement for
an analysis of project alternatives in an MND. Since there is no
substantial evidence of an envirOlm1ental impact associated with
the project after mitigation, an EIR is not required. It would,
therefore, be inappropriate to analyze project alternatives.
B-2) Comments noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of
the mitigated negative declaration.
5
Comments
Home Depot has allowed Lowe's to ildvcrtise ilsclfus Lowe's Home
Improvement Warehouse IInel it has chosen to claim the title of world's largest I,-Iomc
Improvement Retailer, dropping: the older "Callfornia's Home Improvement Warehouse"
B-3 but it still uses a warehollse approach to its store design and with 30 tl'llck deliveries a
day clearly is lllore than a big box retail store. Cosleo on Naples and Bmudway that is
being sued along with the city (or deliveries utnight and a wall that is too low only has 8
or') trucks ddivcring each day. The lI1anuger ul tht: Big K~Murl 011 H claims 11 maximum
orolle truck Ii day delivers to bis store.
Customarily Home Depots mLlst do E1R~s. The)' had to in San Marcos,
[Escondida, El C~jon, Vista, and foJ' Dellnery Road store, Saturn store, and others in Sail
8-4 Diego. Thc.y also did for Rancho Del Rcy and OlayRanch stores in Cllllla Vistl:l. ^ctuully
it appears becHwic of mix-ups in numbers that they used some of the information in the
technical reports from other locutions. The sections that are not dealt with in the MND
and need to be dealt with in the ElR arc: Aesthetics, Coml111lllity Character, Public
Services, Land Use and Planning and Project AJiernalivcs, Most critically CEQUA
requires a reasonable range ofAlternmives in order to provide the public and the decision
makers with the means to compare the Proposed project with olher suitable options.
8-5 There clearly are alternalives that would significantly limit the negative impacts oflhis
building 1011 much more satisfactory degree tlum building two 12 foot walls, a 15 {oot
\Vall and a nine fOOl box around a generator while meeting the project objeclivcs equally
well.
In order to fully evaluate Ihe environmental dfects orthe proposed project,
CEQ/\. mandates that alterniltivcs to the proposed project he analyzed. Section 15126,6 of
the State CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of "a range of reasonable alternatives
to the project, or to Ihc locution orlbe project, which would fcusibJy f1ttain most orthe
busie objectives oflhe project hut would avoid DI' substantially lessen any of the
signillcllllt elTccts ol'the projcct" and the evaluation of the comparative merits of lhe
alternatives. The alternatives discussion is inlcnde~ to Hfocus 0111.1Jternatives to lhe
project 01' its location which are capable of avoiding or substantiully lessening any
significnnt effects of the project," even iflhest:: alternatives would impede to some degree
the allainll1cnt llfthe project objcctives. The way the I--Iomc Depot is planned 11 is not a
tenant improvement, since two subst,mtial buildings will be demolished and the entire
10,1 acres will be graded this project merits an EIR. Also since the city's recently
B-6
Response - B
B-3) Comments noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of
the mitigated negative declaration.
B-4) Comments noted. See responses noted in B-lo The types of
environmental documents prepared by other cities for other Home
Depot projects is not relevant to the site specific environmental
analysis performed for the Chula Vista Home Depot project on
Third Avenue. It should be noted that all of the Home Depot sites
mentioned in other cities that had ErRs prepared, involved
construction on undeveloped land. The Third Avenue Home Depot
site is fully developed with a 118,669 square-foot K -mmi and a
10,600 square-foot restaurant. All potential issue areas related to
the proposed project have'been thoroughly addressed in the MND
in accordance with CEQA. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the environmental document prepared for the
proposed proj ect.
B-5)
Comment noted. This comment states that project alternatives
should have been analyzed in the MND. CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6 requires that project alternatives be identified and
analyzed in environmental impact reports (ErRs). There is no
requirement for an analysis of project alternatives in an MND. As
stated in Response No. B-1, since there is no substantial evidence of
an environmental impact associated with the proj ect after
mitigation, an ErR is not required. It would, therefore, be
inappropriate to analyze project alternatives. All potential
environmental issue areas have been addressed consistent with
CEQAAppendix G.
B-6) Comments noted. See responses noted in B-5. Also, as discussed
further in B-18, existing/permitted uses on the site would generate
8,350 trips based upon the SANDAG trip generation table; the
Home Depot would generate 6,150 trips (2,200 net trip reduction).
The 6,150 trip figure is based upon a more conservative trip
generation coefficient (trip generation for an existing Home Depot)
than that provided in the SANDAGtable.
6
Comments
Response - B
8-8
adopted GPU fino significant llllmitigatble negative effects city wide to Air Quality,
Noise. Traffic, Aesthetics and Community Character (in the case of the ~oulhwcSi
without a specific plan with design guidelines LUI' 41. l3, .14, .15.) any project of this
magnitude will cOIllribute 10 this situation and needs an EIR to explore alternatives to
reduce impacts or to at the very least fu!ly disclose these additional impacts.
II remains to be seen if a project Sll{;h aSlhis will be compatible with a specific
plan for the Third Avenue section ofthc' Southwest Specific Plan since such a plUll has
not yet been adopted or even started.
The Noise Barrier flier for the proposed wall is designed for "Jndustriul Noise,"
which is WIHl{ the entire Noise Analysis deals wiLh, not commercial noise, which is
another reason why an EIR is needed. This is not a use within the CUfrent zone of
commcrcialJretnil. It hilS an element of that but it also by the nature orlhe way H1) does
business hns an clement ofindustrial as well. Industrial requires a minimul50 Ji.)ot hurler
from residential. The building would need to be moved to the enslcrn pan of the lot to
provide this buffer.
B-7)
Comments regarding questions of consistency with the cunent City
General Plan noted.
8-7
In summmy, these comments focus largely on the configuration and
design of the proposed project as regards building placement and
compatibility with the residential areas to the west.
While the subject site at the southeast comer of Moss St. and Third
Ave. is within the General Plan's South Third Ave. District (Figure
5-21, pg. LUT-141), it was not subject to any designation changes
through the General Plan update adopted in December 2005, and
remains designated as Commercial Retail and consistently zoned as
CC Central Commercial. . The proposed project is consistent with
the existing zoning and is subject to design review, as well as a CUP
for the outdoor storage component.
'"
ci, As indicated by several of the GP policies cited in the comments,
-.J the General Plan does anticipate a future specific plan and/or other
forms of rezoning (and the establishment of according design
guidelines) to occur in the area. Several of the GP policies cited
indicate that the prescribed future design emphases (building
placement, mixed use, etc) be taken up through these subsequent
specific plan/zoning efforts. While it is likely that these future
efforts will be focused largely within the Southwest Town Focus
Study Area to the south (Figure 5-21), they may also involve the '.,
subject site. However, until such time as those effort are
undertaken, projects will continue to be processed pursuant to
existing zoning in areas such as this, where no GP land use
designation changes were made and existing zoning is consistent
with the GP.
B-8) As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a noise study was
completed by a qualified professional. Existing Home Depots
were modeled and analyzed. The noise study indicated that the
noise from truck operations would be below city standards with the
proposed mitigation. No significant unmitigated noise impacts
were identified to occur after mitigation.
7
Comments
Aesthetics and Community CharadeI' jlre negatively impacted by the excessive
amounts of outdoor storage typically and chanlCleristically
tound around their buildings. The atmosphere is one of a
warehouse, and it docs not bother me when I go there
because l am coming to buy supplies fix a projcct,butncxt
to a residentialncighborhood and across the stl'celll"Olll a
hospital it is not atlmctive. There is generally a large
amount of dust around customer pick~llp canopy from
broken cement bags or just normal1eakage from cement
bags. There is also the issue of day laborers and unlicensed contractors who hang around
Home Depots seeking jobs. Even ut 7 AM in the morning there were five at the SatLlrn
store. I hav'.:
been there when
there were over
15. At the H
8-1
Street store at 2PM 011 a Sunday afternoon there were two groups or
more thun five men each. This is not at all appropriate near a
residential neighborhood or a commercial neighborhood for that
mutLer. I have seen them go into bushes to relieve lhemselves.
Human waste in Ihe lundscaping near residential could be considered II health hazard.
There needs to be a thorough dIsclIssion of these IsSllCS in un EI R and some kind of
Illilig~tion fbr them.
Public Services: QUI' police me chronically unable to meet their threshold roc Ilon~
emergency calls. The responses to calls tbr service in 2005 for the Home Depot off of H
Slreclllumbercd 126, while lhe Big K down the street had only 45. Clearly a Home
Depot makes 1:1 higger demund upon tbe police than a normal SlOre. Now the
neighborhood has something to do with these calls. The K~Mart on Third had 107 in
2U05. Using the equation 126/45 = X/I 07 one comet up with the expected llllmbcr or
responses to calls for service 01'300 for the new Home Depot an impact.
There is also lhe issue of Imhlic henllh and safe I)' impacts. HOME DEPOT
MUST MAKE STORES SAFER BY Jim Molis
Atlanta Business Chronicle - February 21. 2003 "This edilion of Atlanta Business
Chronicle carries a shocking report about dangers faced by cllstomers and
employees at Horne Depot stores. Our stories document more than a dozen
customer and worker deaths in Home Depot stores in recent years, plus a 45
percent jump in Occupational Safety & Health Administration violations by Home
Depot in 2002. ... But Steve Rasak. the Los Angeles attorney who represented
the family of a 79-year-old woman killed in 1999 by a falling 75-pound box at a
California Home Depot, believes the warehouse concept that has made Home
Depot a retail giant also makes its stores among the most dangerous.
Home Depot refuses to disclose how many customers are being injured in its
1.500- stores. and no law reauires disclosure. But the shoppina public has a riQht
to know the. number of customers who are being injured because, unlike
manufacturers and other industries tllat can be inherently dangerous to
employees, retailers invite the public into their workplaces."
http://www.bizjoumals.com/atianta/stories/2003/02/24/editoriaI1.html
8-11
Response - B
B-9) As stated on Page I of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
project site is currently developed with a 118,669 square-foot
Kmart Store. The existing structure would be replaced with a
129,043 square-foot Home Depot. Both businesses are considered
by the City of Chula Vista to be retail establishments pursuant to
Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code.
The Chula Vista Design Review Committee has reviewed
preliminary plans for the proposed project on two separate
occasions. The project design has been modified to reflect
comments made by Committee members. Specific changes to
project plans include the incorporation of horizontal and vertical
elements using trellises, color and fa<;ade articulation, as well as
landscaping treatment en1iancements along the site perimeter and
interior parkway. The truck route along the rear ofthe building has
been designed with a landscape buffer and noise wall/screen wall to
screen trucks/vehicles and unloading activities. Outdoor display
areas have been designed with paving patterns, canopies and
trellises. The Design Review Committee will address on-site
improvements and any aesthe.tic issues when the proposed project
is presented to them for decision at a later date.
The presence of day laborers is not considered to be an
envirorunental issue and would be addressed through Chapter 9.09
(Loitering) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
B-lO) As noted on Pages 21-23 of the Initial Study Checklist, adequate
police protection services and response times can continue to be
provided upon completion of the proposed project. The City's
performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met and
the proposed proj ect will not create a significant effect upon or
require the need for new or altered police protection services.
B-11) Comment noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of
the mitigated negative declaration.
8
Comments
B-12
Land USl~ nnd Plallllinl!: At every workshop held during Ihe, General Plan Update .
process we were shown pictures and told that Uig Box stores would not be allowed to
build their buildings on tbe back ofIhe lot with a sea of parking in the front. WulMar! and
Caseo on Broach""llY Lire bidden from view by a row of stores with their backs to
Broach-vay fucing tlleir pC:lrking lols. Why is Home Depot being allowed to build at the
back of its lot with u sea of pur king faeing Third'! Is it because it is being built in the
Southwest, and we are not considered important enough to deserve qualit)'
redevelopment? LUT38.12 Esmblish a design code thai reinforces the safelY apd serenity
of the area, and seeks to establish a coherent, lIcslbctic, internatiollul charncler to the
Southwest Planning Area. (This block WtlS not pUr! of the GIlU, bUI is bclwecll two
blocks that were.) How does this project support this gllidclinc'? In faCl it seems 10 violate
LUT 38.4: Encourage owners of existing commercial shopping centers that contain chain
grocery and drug stores to include ndditionaluses, SLlch us rcstaunmts, entertailll11ent.
~hildcure fncilities, public meeting rooms, recreation, cultural facilities, and public open
spaces, which enhance neighborhood aCLiviLY, Thisllomc Depot is removing a restaunllll
fj'Oll1 f\ retail center. If Home Depot is gelting any incentives frolll the city where arc the
public amenities promised. In fael what is the public benclil, ifnny, oflhis project? tl;UT
25.5) 'I'here is also the issue of LUT):IProft.'cl (1f(/aCtWI re.r/tkl/li"/IIt''..~7hborh(Jorfr 1;/'
(~f/tlb/iflfJ//J/ gflltlel1//e.J' Iltlll Ji.'a/e r/O/I'// rlel',?!opH/f/1I1 (II Me e((~t':i' qjlJ/ghe/'/iJ/eJ/si(F
mired 1I.1'(~ cO/J//IU'I'ClaldJlrI /J/'bulI n.~uilell//(/! IIl't.w.r (i e. Inll/.fll/rIIMlllrear). L UT5. 3
A'efjl/ke I!/(/I e(IIINI/e/'e/a! (/1/(/ iNml.f/ria/ r/el'e/oplllelll (/r'(;il(:ellllo 1'l.~r/a'(''IIIi(/1 o/'
etl/(ealiolla/ fl.l"t::r be (/(!t::'rjlltl!t."{F ,fcnw/(/(I {II/flbl(!/el'ed 10 11I//lIil!I~~e kr:hl. Ilr)iJc.~ g/t1rt; (/1/(/
OlD' o/h'r "dv(.'1:I'(, li11f/fle!.r //}Jol/the reri,h'Jllla/IIt'lghborhoot! or t'dlll'tllifJl/{tI/i/dlr?l~
I'laving the Home Depotatlhe buck of the IOl essentially in the same place as the old K-
Mart ducs not provide for a buffer or transitional area <1t all. LUT4.7/(eqmi-e /IUd
(J/{Ii!{Ior .r/o/,{///e {1If?(l.f or ,l'Ok(z~"e.I'(lldf be J'{'J'eellt?fl/jvOI /J/!rpllb/ic rlghl q/llr(l~ A
design like the H-Streel slore with a recessed mea 011 Third for ull the stomge, louding
docks, lumber offlOi:lding and pick-up would do this, but current design docs not. There
is no specific southwest Illan at this time, nor are there design guidelines LUT 41.13, .14.
.15 so Ihis would be a signiJieant negative impact OIf Community Character thai couid
only be mitigated by <l SOllthwestenl plan, This requires all EJR ifndoptiotl in spite of this
is conceived. The Current GP adopted on December 13, 2005 was 11dopteu with
llllmitigatable Community Character impacts, because these spednc plans do noLllOW
exist. This "muld require: (Ill EIR for any project of this llll:lgnitude.
Transllortatioll and Trame: The first error is 011 page 2 where tbe slore's hour~ me
listed as from 6AM to 9PM IVlondny through Saturday UJld 7A1Vlto 9Plv[ Sunday_ "I'Ll'
ilppJicalion and the MND state the hours will be 6AM to IOPM Monday 10 Suturda'y and
'lAM to lOPM on Sundays.
What is not stated 011 page 3 is lhat L Street is 11 designaled truck roule. Naples
and Moss arc: not. Frank M. needed to get a lawyer to have signs and a barrier placed
along Naples west of Broadway in order to prevent trucks from using tiltH street. My
neighbors got similar signs posted on Hilltop south ufo-Orange. The residents on Moss
have the right to expect that trucks will not lIse their residential street. especially .-;ince
RIl)"vicw l3chavioral Center is a hospitul. which is a sensitive receptor and needs ,I) he
protected from truck tranic. Nowhere in the tramc repOl1' is this hospital JTlcntjo!J~d. This
is H big failing ol'thc report.
B-13[
B-14
Response - B
B-12) Comments noted. See responses noted inB-7.
B-13) Conunen(noted. Text of hours of operation will be conected in the
traffic study. There is no change in the identified significant
impacts in the study or Mitigated Negative Declaration. No
additional impacts would occur as a result of the textual change.
B-14) Comments noted. In response to comments on the designated truck
route, in accordance with the California State Vehicle Code,
Section 35703, "No ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 35701
shall prohibit any commercial vehicles comingfrom an unrestricted
street having ingress and egress by direct route to and from a
restricted street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups
or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any
building or structure located on the restricted street or for the
purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona
fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building
or structure upon the restricted street for which a building permit
has previously been obtained. "
Pursuant to Section 35701 of the California Vehicle Code and the
City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department, truck access to
the site must be allowed off of Moss Street. Trucks would not,
however, be allowed to travel west of the project site on Moss
Street.
9
Comments
Pflge 4 stutes thut there me no proposed cumulative projects inlhe are,}. Thi~ is
<lIst) false. Creekside Vistas was approved by the eYRe this l110nth 10 stun construdioll
on 167 IWllIes lllld reL,dlless than a block "wuy near the corner of L nnd Third. This will
3-15 add over l.l l./){)OADT to the roads in the area. Since iris stated {hilt traft1c is cxpccu~d to
come hom nVl~ miles around the store it is puzzling 1hal page 4 only lists 7 intersections.
There is no mention of (~5 01' L Street presumably the 30 trucks a day making deliveries
arc going to use this Jl'cewuy. The BayJi'oJll Muster Plan will add cumulative cflcc(s to
['.hC proposed pl'(~jcct as well. FigUl'c 4.2~5 traffic Wi.Jl effccllhis project 1I.11d the added
truck Hnd customer tl'l1fl:ic wiH add to the congestion. TABLE 4.2.13 PHASE I CONDITIONS
3-16 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE shows that IRS will be most Iv F once Phase I is
iJl1plmnented. Phase 1 und this projected opening 01'2010 correspond ~ith each olher.
This project certainly willlldd a cUJIlulative effect to the ullmitigatablc negative impacts
projected if the Dayfront Master Plan as pl'Oposed is adopted. This should be considered
[in Ihlj ,l11l\lysig as well as Creekside Vistas and the infiU projects along Moss. Page 9 has a
faulty unalysis. The actually trame count <lIthe H Street store was done in the middle of
the "veek. This store is almost totally u store UliUzcd by homcmvncrs who mostly visit it
3-17 on theweekellds. ALso because it is a smaller store without a cllstolllcrpickllp can(\~)y it
b Ilol a favored store tor the pickup of cemenl and other bulky items. This store has a
lower trame count than is Ilormallor a Home Depot. If aCHlal counts are lo he used there
""
I
c:n
o
Response - B
B-15) In response to comments regarding analysis of cumulative projects,
as stated on Page 11 of the Traffic Impact Study by Linscott, Law,
and Greenspan.dated April 19, 2006 a growth factor of 1.5% was
added to traffic volumes to account for unforeseen projects. As can
be seen in Table 8-1 of the traffic study, all intersections are
calculated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better and in fact all
intersections are at least 9 additional seconds of delay from
degrading to LOS E. These 9 seconds of delay correspond to
approximately 10% of general cumulative growth. Therefore, even
if a growth factor of I 0% had been utilized (which would more than
cover the traffic generated by specific cumulative projects), no
significant impacts would have occurred.
B-16 Comments noted. The project site is located outside of the study
area ofthe Bayfront Master Plan Traffic Study since minimal trips
from the Bayfront project were projected (by that traffic study) to
pass by the site.
Please see Response No. B-15. Additionally, in response to the
comment regarding freeway impacts, the San Diego Traffic
Engineers' Council guidelines for traffic studies in the San Diego
region (dated 3/2/2000) requires the analysis of mainline freeways
if a project adds over 50 peak hour trips to a freeway segment. The
project's truck traffic (30 per day max) plus the regional patronage
and employee traffic was calculated to add less than half of this
amount to 1-5. Therefore, an analysis of! -5 was not wa11'anted.
B-1? Refer to Response No. B-15. In order to obtain a worst-case
analysis, weekday peak hour traffic impacts were analyzed in the
traffic study. Weekday peale hour traffic volumes on sU11'0lmding
streets are much higher than weekend traffic volumes.
10
Comments
B-18
must bl: nil uverage ora number ofslOres. The normal figure llsed ill EIR's for Home
Depots is 60/KSF. This is what was lIsed in Carlsbud, Escondida, EI Cujon, Vista, und
Sun Mmcos. It is based upon un actual count lor another El Cajon Horne Depot.
(Reference respective EIR's) Tbis is the figure that should be lIsed. for this store. [fthis
figure is lIsed we gel a more valid trallic count of7,788. Subtracting K~Mart this comes
to em increase of2,918. This is the Jigure that should !ulve been used in the traffic
analysis.. The analysis or the K~Mart traffic is not in Appendix D tiS ,the study stale:; it
should be.
Page 14 10.5 is totally ridiculous. The CIHlJll Yi!>la Buffet was not in operation for
almost the entire Yt'm 2005. It never was a very prosperous restaurant. II got a fair
UIl10Ulll offaot traffic and some of K-Marl's traffic also went to the Buffet. It should not
be included at ull in the alU\lysis, but ifit is to be included there is no way that 3,480 ADT
should/could possibly be attributed to it!!! Where in the world did the tigure of8,3~O
come from? The study measured K-Mart as 4,870. The normal SANDAG chart figllre for
a restaurant with quick turnover is 1,000 per acre, which would be 1,000, (The 1993
application for explulsion shows K~MHrt's portion of the lot to be 10.1. 11.1-10.1 leaves I
ucre for the rc~taul'anL) This is too high for this restaurant. The very prosperous Jimmy's
down the street count their daily trips in the hundreds. Again this restaurant WlIS not open
in 2005 and therefore did not contribute to the traffic at all and the proper figure to use
for the Home Depot is at lea.st 7,788 minu!i 4,870, even minus 1,000 ('which is imaginary
((Jr a restaurant that WlIS not open and therefore had no impact) equals 1,918 extra (rame
lrins J,!;cnerated by Home Depot, which is an underestimation. This traffic study necds to
b~ redone usiJlg Ihe correct figures ilnd not including the restaurant that has not been in
operation for almost two years. The Home Depot clearly will result in an increase in
ImrnC nol a decrease!
Another issue not addressed is the GP. which (bund T^IlLE5,1O~54
FllEEWA Y SI<:GMENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT ClHClILATION 1i\'lPACTS
l'rclcl'J'cd Si:,:CllUl'j\l
StJ'l'el Jlwm To ExiJ;ling Phlll I 23
1-5 SR-54 E Street C F I; F I;
1-5 E Street II Sln:el D Ii' F F F
1-5 Il $treet J Street D F f F f
1-5 J Sln:cl L Street D F F F II'
1-5 L Slreet Palomar Sll'ccl D F rt F F Jlud Third Avenue bt:lween L Street and Palomar
\VIIS thund to be one of the road segments that would have II significant lmmitigalablc
negative impact on tmffic circulation in the GP update. This project would add to the
situation over 2,000 additional trips, which CllIlnol be mitigated.
8-19
Response - B
B-18 In order to obtain a trip generation rate based upon an actual Home
Depot operation, traffic counts were conducted at the existing
Home Depot store located on East H Street in Rancho Del Rey. A
trip generation rate of 46.7 trips per thousand square-feet of store
area was derived based upon field data. This trip generation
number was then applied to the proposed Home Depot store on 3cd
Avenue. The trip generation rate is more conservative than the lTip
generation rate noted in the SANDAG trip generation table which
has a trip generation rate for a home improvement super store of 40
trips per thousand square-feet of floor area.
Permitted and constructeq uses on the site as it presently exists,
would result in 8,350 trips. The 8,350ADTcomes from the 118,000
square-foot K Mart at 60 ADT/IOOO s.f. and 10,600 s.f. of
restaurant at 120 ADT/ 1000 s.f. These trip generation coefficients
are based upon the SANDAG trip generation table. The traffic
generation numbers noted on Page 14 of the traffic study were
provided for comparative purposes. The traffic calculations for the
site used to determine traffic impacts were based upon the actual
operation of the K Mart store. Trips associated with the closed
restaurant were not figured into the trip generation rate for the
project. Based upon the actual use the site at the time of the traffic
study (Page 9), a net increase ofl,150 lTips was determined to result
from the project.
B-19) The project is consistent with the land use assumptions of the City
General Plan Update and would not result in any new impacts
beyond those identified in the GPU EIR. Please refer to B-18.
II
Comments
I-fyllrolol!v and Water Oultlitv The Hnalysis in the MND is perfullctory ond inadequate.
The new Storm Waler permit requires parking lots to be biol1lters. There is nothing now
in the landscape plans indicating that this will happen. The slatcmctlllhal the "post':'
dcvelopmcnl pCl'lk How rate does not exceed the pre-development 11ows" is inadequate.
8-20 The southwest has numerous drainage problems and maintaining the slalUs quo is not
salisHlctory. There has to be an improvement in the drainage as a result ofthi9 project.
r'i1ters lInd bioswalcs need to be shown on a drainage plan. Simply staling thai the project
will meet the MUllicip,tlpcrl1lit is not adcquute. There should be a drninagc plan provided
that demonstrates this.
[ Noise The noise sources have been listed <lnd the top of page S lists 9 Jiffercnt sowees fit
the back adjoining Ihe residential uses. A significant one has been left OlIL Employees of
the K-Mart made the lives oFrhc residents miserable by talking loudly llnd playing music
8-21 while they worked nights stocking the store. This is another potential noise source. aile
or the code violations the I-I street store received WllS for cleaning the pm'king lot in the
llliddle of the night. This is a monthly task and the residents next to the pnrking Jot olIB
[ nnd it very annoying. There is an error on page 8 oflhe MND. The location of the
8-22 loading dock iSlhc southwest corner not the southeast corner us lhe MND states. If
indeed no lumber 01' other materiuls will be stored outdoors in the alley this will be the
only one of the 15,000 stores where this happens.
'"
I
m
'"
Response - B
B-20) As noted on Page 7 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a
Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Study was submitted for
the proposed project and found to be acceptable by the City of
Chula Vista Engineering Department. As stated on Page 7 of the
MND, the applicant will be required to comply with the City of
Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Manual and implement
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of the
storm water systems during and after construction. The applicant
will also be required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Permit
No. 2001-01 and other permit requirements, identifY storm water
pollutants of concern, and submit a water quality technical report
with the submittal of final grading/improvement plans. These
measure have been incorporated into the MND. The existing site
was developed several decades ago, and does not have state of the
art BMP measures in place.
B-2l) This comment states that store employees ofK-Mart made a great
deal of noise at night by talking loudly and playing music, and that
parking lot cleaning at night created a noise disturbance. The noise
study analyzed the noise associated with the operation of the
proposed Home Depot, and found that noise associated with store
operation is environmental noise and can be mitigated to less than
significant level. Pursuant to the City of Chula Vista Noise
Ordinance 19.62 (CVMC), loud voices/music is nuisance noise and
would be subject to enforcement action by the City of Chula Vista
Police Department. Parking lot cleaning will be limited to store
operation hours.
B-22) Comment noted. The Mitigated Negative Declaration will be
corrected to state that the loading dock would be located at the
southwest corner of the proposed building. This is a typographical
error and does not affect the environmental analysis. The project
was analyzed with the loading dock in the correct location at the
southwest corner of the building. No new impacts would result
from this minor modification to the enviromuental document and
no additional mitigated measures are required.
12
Comments
B23[
B-,
Actually 1 don't think they coulJ do
bllsiness thjs way, which is ,....,hy the building needs to be placed in n diflcrent pmt of the
lot. fl is highly doubtfullhM [\'lIck idling can be kept to 5 minutes without the presence of
a policeman writing tickets. When it is wmm or hotthc engine needs to be running ft)r the
heaLer or nil' conditioner to v'lork. Also it is very hard on the engine of large trLlcks to be
shutting off the engine all the time.
There does not appear La be any study aftlle cumulative effects orall these noise
sources on the occasions when they would "ill huppen al once. It would seems thai. if
walls ns high as J 5 feet need La be buill this simply is nollhe right location for the
building. 7 AM to 10 PM is a ridiculolls noise ordinance. These people have small
children \vho need to be in bed well before 10 PM. People who have to be at work at 5 or
6 also need to be in bed before 10 PM.
There is ~'\Iso a great deal of information about the harmful psychological and
physical e1Tects of low level noise on sensitive receptors. "Even low-level ofliccnoise
call illCl'eil~e hCllllh risks ilml lower la~k lllullvi\liull lhr workers, (:ornelll'cscllrchers tilld"
b!!O.JL'.'l::~~.}YJ.l9Yif.!.!Ul~,U,:411Jrc lellscsiJili III I inn i sv.o tliccs.ssl.hlllll.
N
I
'"
c.>
Events that disturb and harm our physical, emotional, and mental health are
called stressors. Stressors can lead to the body Initiating the fight-or-flight
adrenaline response. The body gels ready to fight a stressor, or flee a stresSOL
Boom cars, with their l1igh-intensity/low-frequency sounds and infrasound, are a
known stressor that can lead 10 specific, negative events in the body....
Dr. LIl\her Terry, a fi)rmel' U.S. Surgeon General, noted that "cxcessivc nuise exposure during
pregnanc)' can intluence embryo develojllllcut."
8-25
"Growing evidence soggests a link belween noise and c3rdlo\l3scular problems, There is also e\lidem:e suggesting
1I1alnoisemayberel<lledtobirlhdefeclsandlowblrth-weightbabies."
"The U.6. sludy in Los Angeles found lhal, in addilion to greater lncidencll of low birth weights, Ihllre wal; also a
grealerincidenceofbirthdefeclssochascleftsoflhellporpalate,andspinalmalformalions."
(Source: Till! En\lironmental Proteclion Agency's NOISE EFFECTS H~NDBOOK)
Even chronic, low-Icl'cllrumc nui:;c ul 50 - 60 dB cun adversely afli:c{ ~hildren. It cUn
cause i\ rise in blood pres~ur<" hean rate, Dud stress hOrmOlll's. Ill. uddili(lll, it also reduecs
taskmoliY<llionillld learning.
Elevuliolls ofsln:ss honnon<:s ure linked 10 Ihe adult iJlnmscs of"high blood prCSSlll'e.
elevHlcd lipids and cholcs\<:rol. hcart dbCilse ami II reduction ill the body's supply of
disease-lighling lmlllun<: cells." (Source: hllp:/Jw\\'w.ncwscicntist.com/ncw!>l - Ilhaca.
NY,5122J2UUl
Bursts {lfNbisc: "On<: bllrstoJ'lloisc. as 1'-0111 a pClssing trllck, b kmlWlllo lIlLcr
endocrine, ncurolugicnl, nnd canHovascuhlr funclions ill mall}' indiviJuals; prulongcd or
frequcnt exposure to sllch noise lends to muke the physiolugicll! dblurlliluces chronic. In
nddilioll. llobe-induced stress creates severe tension in dnily living llnd cOlllribulcs w
menial illness." (Source: NOISE POLLUTION, Electric Libmry prcscllIS
Encyclopedia.com) "Rcselln:h shuw:; thul InknniUenl and impulsive noise is more
t1hlurbillg limn con\inuolls noise." (Source: League for the Hard ofllc<lring's NOISE &
IIEAL.HI fACT SHEET)
lIospitalnoisc IUIs been shown III slow healing." (Sourcc: THE SOUND AND TilE
FURIOUS, by Corinne f\slurillS)
'j
'J~
' '
c~r~
N"i:;~ ,"'UI'CC~ Irollltow-frc'IIlw('y e(JlllpnllcnIS. like boum c~rs.. Jcsen'c spedal c"ll.i,Jcr~[i'''l.
"Di'lUl'b~llCCS mur llccur ncn 111l'Ugh [he ""lilt! prc,sufc IeI'd duri.,!: c.\p(J'II"~ is hd"", JO <ll.l,\.
" I..,w-Jrc,\"ener ,I<\;'C "ill pcnclmlc ,,"uti, umll>mdcrs IlHjfC fcudil)' Ih~1l high Irc'lLlcncy !loise. is,,,,,'"''-
GUllW.l.lNES FOil COl-U"llJNITY NOISE, ADVI'(lSE IIEAI."I'JI EFFECTS OF NOISE)
B-23)
B-24)
B-25)
Response - B
Comments noted. According to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, steady operation from idling diesel trucks awaiting
access to the store will be minimized because truck idling is subject
to a five-minute limitation in accordance with State Law. Both the
City Code Enforcement Officer and Highway Patrol have authority
to enforce this measure.
As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the
Chula Vista Municipal Code the sensitive periods of the day are
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday tllTough Friday and
between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. The noise
analysis was based upon existing Home Depot operations. All
noise impacts associated with store operation were considered and
appropriate mitigation nleasures were developed. The sound
attenuation wall proposed for the western perimeter of the site
would mitigate noise impacts to a level that is consistent with City
standards and less than significant.
Comments noted. The comments db not address the adequacy of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
13
Comments
This is only n small sampling of the negative health effects that the people in the
condominiull1S and apartments have endured for the years K-Mart was behind them. The
patients at Bayvjew already have psychological problen1s. They do not need to be
exposed to the risks associated with noise levels in the 50db range from 7 AM to 10 Pfod
daily. The single -ti.lInily home across the street is to be replaced with 15 condominiums,
c>:posing more children, pregnant women and average people to stressjusl hecallse I-lol11c
Depot is not being made by the city to do what common sense says is most 111gicalt
relocate their building to keep all trucks and forklifts away from the hospital and
residences. It is the job of the city to protect the residents not to avoid inconveniencing
the largest !'cluil store in the world.
luLInt.uu!lI.a.lJ.:mJIl,.!iQ1iJJ(/JH.I)i.il:Jl,;rt!Js .... (IOCllment Is liSl;hll to per$Dl"lS Inll!re~teu In nndlog Dut mOle about what NolJie PollulJonls <lnd
what Its eff~l;ts ,,'e, as w~1I ~s how th.\)' fIlil)' .ilOCUliltl!!Y meaSllle lhe amount 01 nDlse In tlltlir onvIlOllfTu:lfl\." Alttde Online Source; lM~e
1~"l!utl.~nXleilljJl.!l.llil.lI1&
-25
TIi~ 'Iuno r~JI~Illro,n diu ConI'" I.luf..n, IIl1a<l AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY FOR n!E UNITED 51....lES. ,",(~d U'ol fill... ," ......"'"..... "uni."" l<I1" c>:"'~'l.1~llaboullh...
n"jghb<"h"c~lo. Iii. ",." Ula ","ill ,~".o" Jo' w.mlirlg lo "lOV~ l~ ~n"lh"I""'II"n NOJ..Is.... l,.."t ..Clnud 61,,10:1 in ""'10' u s.. .'1... i" Ill. l;o.115 ,'ura Al,IOl1lOb,la. "'. lha
I~[llul.,,~rcaof".".
Nq,lii.e.LA.l,h:iillI11.'.U1!.lI!:lIL. Tills 197& dowment .... IS u somewhil[ dated hut ~till very heljlful Ef'A docu'l1enl ..bout noise ilnd heilllh.~ Article
Online SouJce: !:[QI;;I':J~pIJlJlJon.Duml[\fJjloUJie
U"inlom,prod ,loop t. 1'."0,,", 10 0. 0 p""O""I.U. IQfgfl\ldpf1y'IOI~I(:"1 ~n'l "","!il1 Ju"r.llo'~ng oJ hullhy plIf$OIl' \1\01101"$ $1.01' oli.l"rbano:a If. ",,".olcJoa 10 bO . m'JOr olfoct
~1.l\~lJcn"'.<or.I.1 "oil<>, d<llo On lh. eJle... of en"~""'l\l<Il ".1,. "'1 '1.01' Of. .fJ1il~.j. fhO""1 In.o.,Gh a" .1."1' di'lu"'o".o 1>.0,1><1." corl<l"cltldln, ...,oll ""i... r.Ull ualflc
flU ..~.....y no'lo, fO'OXllmjlln. 'oad Vall.. no>.. in OX""" .13U dO alll"'b.lI'''P. TI,. p'ul>llWil, of b~"'11 ........k..nod ~''''j).... "IU, UIQ "",.-bel QJ n"i.. o.""t. por nigJ,l
l\j'"')t'."kg""lndn.ll.i'lllW.nall.o~"..di""45de.hD"IIll;oli,,,ilod;forun.iti'i.",di.iduol',Q(lovon~...~rkl'ali'plor."ad
'her luCl." U'.\mllu.nr;.a U,. problemaf njilh~lin... 1"';'0 knd"ao il. oow"aMO ill lu,a.IlI,.1 a'a" ...111. low b.e~&'QIJ<'Id M"~ 10...11. ~<llribII\al",n. of M'-''' "'a ',;br.lion ,~d,
U Ih"l p,oduced by Ira,no and ho.~yduly v"tu""'o. ,,,.1'0"11:0' y,llIllow-Jro<luon.'Y .0"1l0IlMli I/,I\i<ll .fa "",,," di,!ulb...g. a.on "I V~f)ll<wl....nd pc...ure Io\'\lll. TI'... 10......
ruqL:on<;y ca",'o,,""11 r"ve" 5<{Inif'~.ntl'"lrimenlaJ olfer.! ~n lio..llh
nlal r,ullh" d"rlIl~d U ~'e abun.~ olj'donlir,"~lo p'yctual,,< di..",d"... ao<:ordina lown."l norm.. En\l;/'l)l"fflOllliilllOlla il ""I bl=~a....a to bu 0 <""'c cI '"",,liII ~ln",... />I" ~
..""",dl".if..liI~(.I."nain''''01If.,.lholkl''''h>~."I<rlln.,"lmenllllllilo'd''5,1h.l.dva"""eWacI5(;le",,'rolll11ental_lal/J1rnetllelhullhu>c!udeiholo!le\MJlgClllill"llol
.OllIPi"lnl", aoldol)'. on..lioH,,1 WC"" na;vou. complaln(~. n~".n. h~.o;toctle. '"","Wily, '-'lj"'l"n(.\i"oneu. ..~....r .-.",ul_""". oI,001l''o.. mood. 1I",0loa., .."",,,"I CIlnJIr.n..
-Ii a. (l,UIO'''. h)'l!e<i-a, nnd p.y0l10i... Por~labo" $l...'h~ h~va I'.Jl.Y,;IU15Il.<I"""'llon51>$l>W." n"I.. a>qllJlillfo aoll "..mol hoalUl indiclllgll; such a< r.lng 01 ....a.b.ing.
"'l'lom Jl(Om.a, ~'fl oll"yd>"aCljv-lI ~fUjj' and .j.a~i"\Il1i1i5. .",j mrmlol "",pllol .Jo.....lI1l"iilu. Tl;ort mIl.~ bfl greal d~lfl"'''''''''' ihc ~bifi\y oJ ~;'."l P'!P"l;rliQr" \o""'P<'
, ,,,,,1'0 pol..lioo; r.,ulicula'ly vuinc>oblolllOllps m.y ~du<le. -el:lldro". "'. ok/crtl'.",,~ IhOu,.....~ p.lenisl'''\Ia..e..., u~c>.l~ dopru.i",,:
:-26
11 tp:1 !\VWW .nonoisc.orgll i brary/whonoisc/whoresponse.h tm
All of this indicates that the city's noise standards arc not stringent enough to
protect tbe health of sensitive receptors. On page 3 the noise analysis only deals with the
adjacent scnsiti ve receptors to the west. It totally ignores the residents to the north and the
patients at Bayvicw to the North. Considering the zoning of the property ~lS retail
commercial the dropping ofllllllber and the fi'equent operation offorklifts should be
considered a nuisance noise not an environmental noise. The excessive number of trucks-
30 a duy is also \vay out of line with any other commerCial use in the city. This is more in
line with light industrialllses sllch as towing services, garages, etc. The noisc report
ignores tbe differcnce in elevation between the K-Mart pl'Opclty and the residences. The
added height of the land on which the condominiums sit, as well as the lack of required
setback from the property line made the 6 foot sound wall useless. The page litled Noise
Impact and Mitigation has a table dealing with dBA at 50 feet. Even with added setback
HD proposes of 15 Icet th)m its prope11y Iioe the condos are only 20 feet till III the new
sound \vall \vherc the lumbcr pallets are to be dropped, This 'would mean that the sound
\vould be greater than what appears in the table. Wouldn't there be a cUll1ula:.ive noise
effect with lhe unloading noise mul the traffic noise that would exceed the 55 dB standard
for the single-l111Ilily homes? Figure 3A shows that the noise for at least. 4 of the
condominiums cxceeds 60 dB and all of the condos and the apartments are tiubjected 10
50 dB, Figure 313 shows thaI the condos are still subjected to higher tban 50 dB al tbe
current \\'all , The reduction to 50dB at t 5 feet high is quite a distance wesl of some ortlle
condos. Since sOllnd travelllpWal'd the height difference would seem to reduce the
protection ror the condos rather than enhance it as suggested. The lile for the condoMND
Response - B
B-26) Comments noted, The noise study considered noise impacts,
including truck unloading activities and on-road traffic impacts, to
all sensitive receptors (including residents to the north/Moss Street)
and found that all noise impacts can be mitigated to a level ofless
than significant. The noise study was prepared by a qualified
professional and found by the City of Chula Vista to meet
applicable standards (City Noise Ordinance) for the preparation of
noise impact studies.
14
C.\pl'C!\~CS lid:> opinion scvt:nd limes. The JilTcrclll:1:: betwcell 59 dB illld ()()Jll i~ oul
disccllIllbk by Ih.:: human cur ,ll11JlICiUlIlly I d~)Ubllhat llHlSllllClIsurCllIcnt devices arc
U";ClInllC 10 within iL Ii"action 01',; dccihd. Thi.~ 15-lbol wall docs llo!mitigllll; tht: SbUlld
sullicicntly below the 6U dB slnndurd tu be effective. The report Ud,]lOWlcdgcs Oil the
pngc titled UnlomJing Noise Miligatlull Ihat there is" possibility of "multiple rcllccllolls
betweenlhc SOllUd-\\'lllllllld the Home Depot rcul" building wllllthn( would JI1l1gnify the
Jll'ojcclcd noise kvcb," This would magnil)' lhe. sound in the "scmi-HlIllu::J crcillL'J
between the 15 foot WIlli ;Iud 34 roollull:k wall of the buikling. Ihb seems 10 be a
possible prubklll, but the boltorn 1i1ll~ is thai 5lJdB is not sulllclcntly below the 6()(!B
standard 10 off~r all)' ilssurance Ihat lhe standard will nnt be exceed alleast parI orthc
lime.
The I-IV AC unils iU'C extremely nois}' nt 86dB. This is loud enough to causc
hCllring loss for thc people who must work in close pro.\illliL}' 10 thcm. Thllllellves lhe
residents 10 deal with 5 I dB IlfcontinLlous lIoise ti'om these coolers, which has not been
c:dCllklled ilS cumulative. While there is mention orihe impossibility of 11 of them
running at night together. Ihis would become a probabilily during the day time when the
IlnL~c sHmdunl would be surpussed. Nothillg in this repmt dculs with the cUlllulative etrccl
of all these Iluises.ln isolation tlll:y may barel}' meet the slandard but it is so close to lhe
st,mdunlthnl cumulativc]}' thcy have 10 cxceed iL Why lIluSt HOlllc Dcpot use its ~peakcr
system ,1t illl? 1\,]05t employees cllrry hand held wal~ic lalkies or cell phones and U3~ thcm
10 COll11l1\lnlcllle with onc another or the)' lire stnLlegieally placed so they can
comlllunicate in Ihis way inside. The same devices can be used ouLside. 'Illere is 1IU
reason tu (llkm, speaker use at aiL There areal 1ensl9 sources of noise Lhat life dell!:, with
illth.:: rear oflhe building. One of which is mitigated tu 59dll. CUlTIUlaliwly this will be
all inlolerable situation for the dosesl residents. The building simply must be moved
llwayfrollllhehomes.
I-leu...)' Trucks-Home Depolllnd Lucky's page admits lhatthe noise (rolllthc
Home Dcpot trucks is subSlallliillly loudw than those from Lucky's (.. typic..1
commerdaluscr). Home Depot Fork Lift page is claiming their lorkliils only
muke II maxImum 007 dB al 30 feet. This contradicts lhe noise report inlhe
MND for Ihe Moss Villas thai measured Oil puge three till.: lloiseli"l1m il
rorklift beeper ~1 85d13 at 50 fL::ct. II is d(Jublfullhal evclllhc 15-foot wall
thut is 30 leel uway will be able 10 rniligilte lhllt iJdcqu~tel}'. The t(n-klltls arc
the most consistcntlluisllllce lloise al a Home Depot. At Oentlcry al 71\1\1
when unlOilding 1I1ruck all sidlorbuilding facing condos the bu<.:kl:p heeper
WHS disconnected. This would ccmlikc a reasonable requirement.
Table 4 shnuld be lidding all these noises logclher rather lhan dealing with
Ihem separmely. because lhey will be occurring simulllllleously. also again
50 feel is the shortesl distance whellthe condolllilliums arc aClu<Llly 20 feci
way li'om the lIew \~all and the trucks and forklifts are not going to hep 30
ct away trom thlll wall illulllimes.
The Noise Darrier mer is fm Industrial Noise, which is whatlhl.':
Iltire Noise Anulysis deals with, not commerciallloisc, which is why 'an UR
, needed. This is not II use withillthc current 1.Olle. "ASt LSEW~II Sy.I~ll\S
.he ASI LSE Wal] Syslcm hns been II provcn SHecess in lhe noise ahatclllcllt
nduslry. These noise bilrrier Willis have bcen used on many inlers\Ilk
highways. but also lmve industrial uppliciltions uround gas compressor Slillions, ekctric
transformers, cooling lowers, chillcrs. compressors and more."
!l!.W:Jh\'\\iW ..lCl.lusricfllsollltions.comJllruduetsfwllIU.B!lemsf!luhlcr....Jl.!/e .f..I..i-tJ). Jtf'dkJ//}J C!/iltep/'op().r(~d
/;iIJlinJI///Jell!tI/ 1:Ynl/e/ll (l..-klh~Kr"~r l/olre. Thai J,t!diO/l recoK'II::e.J' Iha! Itlll.1 fI,re.I' M(t/
gellt:'rtlle .f1g/!(liciWI /Ioire sholl;'loe .repmtller/./ir)//I IMe.r /11(// are .J!tl/1/c!llar(F.J'(!fl.fI;ive!o
11O/I"t'. (P 5!Jtf) JiilCt! lIIil' lend (j{/II(}"(J!J'ir if li!ft''{Ljible a/lne tJellera/ Plall sl{fg(.~ dti"(:cl
(me! (,lIl/lIIlaliFt! liJlfkLCl.r n.!!ltl/il.fJj:lli/iamt flllal/o/ /lIi/~r(Jled ,The flr/Op//Oll <<///;(;'
Pn/d'l'l-erl Plo/! or d/~J.' (I/Ihe .u'c'l/{I/i'O..l' /;(IJ't';/;e ,f{/me i(/fi'{''/.f .j'f;J{:e 11Ir::J' ore ,he same {II
llie gel/enl/ plrm k'J'd (!!l'llla(F.fiJ: "P .f.P6This separation is not occurring so we mllst
lilld a sjgnificant llnmitigat~lble impact in this case.
r Ail'OulIlity;
The Ail' Quality Impact Anuly.sis is vt':ry thin and inadequate. It llnr-ortllllilt~l)'
used the erroneous traffic data to conclude that there would be no incrense ove!' the
B~32 existing co.n~i.tions. This in itself-is not adcqua.te tor ng~ill our ~le\\: ?!) was found t.o
G1USC unmtugatable mJverse cllv]]'onmcntal effects to AIr Qmdll)', I hIS report
acknowledges non-compliance and reports 3 areas where state standards are c.xcccdcd.
Response - B
B-30) Comments noted. Please see responses notedinB-18 and B-21.
B- 31) This comment notes that significant unmitigated noise impacts
were found along circulation roadways in the General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report because site specific analyses was
not feasible at the General Plan level. A site-specific noise analysis
was conducted for the proposed project and the finding was made
that all noise impacts associated with the Home Depot project can
be mitigated to a less than significant level. As noted in B-18,
existing/permitted uses on the site would generate 8,350 trips, and
the Home Depot would result in 6,150 trips. This reduction in
traffic intensity would result in a net reduction in road noise as
modeled in the General Pla'n Update ErR.
B-32) As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, an air quality
impact analysis was prepared to evaluate potential air quality
impacts created by the proposed project. The air quality impact
analysis used the traffic data developed in the traffic study prepared
by LLG, consistent with the CEQA criteria, regional air quality and
City threshold standards. As noted in B- 18, existing/permitted uses
on the site would generate 8,350 trips, and the Home Depot would
result in 6,150trips.
The report-identified impacts related to short-term
construction/demolition, construction vehicle trips, dust, exhaust
and other air pollutants related to construction, business operations,
existing traffic and customer traffic.
While the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is considered a
nonattainment area for the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and the
CAAQS forPMIO and PM2.5 as stated in the comment, the City of
Chula Vista has established thresholds by which a project's
contribution to the emissions in the air basin must be evaluated to
determine significance of impact. The standards used by the City
of Chula Vista are based on 'the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's significance thresholds, which apply to the
16
Comments
Response - B
.; The j(lIllJ/e,!fo Ai;oIla.l"/if i1' /IOI/-d/({Jilll/'ell~/iJ/:li'(kl(;(/ tt/Jd,f/a(e tJ..':o//t::'
,fllm/kln/l,; ,fir/Ie FtJ:l/thff/f!.I'/afe .!}/f.U.f/(l/k/a/"rlJ: .411,ilL'rt!tl.fe 1/II'.IIi- CllliJ:I'IOfl.I' IIVl/ld /N!
h)((g/J(I-'jlI"(Jjk//I/tma/lo (/1/ ,i/C'rt.'tf,f(! i/l /,ojYlI/(J/iOrl. II'IIII{;' COtJlIIlf:nia/ a//(!,iN/II.IYIF(j/
,!'OI'I'Ct:',f' 1I'0#/d (.'(I111110llle /() Ine.re t(lllil:.r/()//,I; j)rop()/1if//kJ! lik'/"(.'aJ'C ,il /'l?sidcFlli"llfllif.r
(,{I/IYell'e (1.1> (1 gellenJlti/(/icfI(Or qjihf! PO/t'IJlif.lI./ilrpOjJllla/iol/,3rrowi/, (lllt/ reklledilii'
tJlllllt().' t!j/i':t:L.1: /lecl./lIse foe (IiI' ba.nil if' IIOlltlllll1iJII1t?I1I'/OI' o.?{)IIt~ PA/Lf, m/ff FAf/il, IJ,:e
pOff:'Jllb/ ,iknmJ,Y i/ll'erirlt!/J/iaj 1/11I1.1- allflllle iI(1ij...,iie.f m:rociflln/ J/'Iih popu/aJIEJ/J
grout;', enw a,1" lIIillgated/illlte CellNal Pklll {pt/flte 'lilt! os ()Iltt'lwil'{! I/Jlligale,/i!v!/;e
(/(1/ IiI 11.1' CO.; /?nutcllollPhll1 (HIt! u/ml'ln,AfaIJt7,sTel/'lellf ProglWIf. I't'j/I'(!..fetll.j' t7
Cllmllktll,.,e(F con.rirlerable '//Id.J'/lt,,!//cUlII ai/' 'llllllilY lil1pilCL A/il!Jwli/N/ 11/(:,{l.fI(l't}'.f 11-1
II 'O/IIt/ nxlJlc-'t! li/i;n~/IIt"/II{l/ cLIIl//llalil'e lillpi/('/..r (l.I:r(Jc/al(.Y/lI'iflt Me m/opfioIIW'llte
Pre/t.'1n:l/ .Pltm or '.1111" 0(';/1(;' See/If/IICAf, twIll ]l'()/llrlllol l't'm{('C' In(l ClI/"NI"liJ~ illlpih'lIO
mi: !j1lt/h(F n~J'f)f/n'(;~J: 1(; 1'/:."/01/.''' /ew! q/.1'I...f:I1(1i'CilIICe. (Page 595) .1.1' .I'll(.'/;, I,)/N;'I'(,{!/'Jllll/
liltpl'OI'MI{r'/ll.r /i'Dlllt! Fer/lice lil/pllct.r /Wllj{)f 10 (/ lel'(l/ Ie.l:r tllLlIl.f~!:lIil/CIlII! 111en,iu/'e,
,rigl/(ji(.'tll/l 1I1//1/l111//iligllletl C/lI//lfII7//J-e Irqjj/c lil/pact.!' IIl'e /lofed/ol' lite ,fired IJefJJ'()rA:"
II' Lh~ Ocneral Plun EIR Ilcknowledged that air qllality is an Adverse Unmitigatable
Ncg;.ltive effect of growth, then II would scem that no project CUll fully mi{igalc Ii,H' (lis
negiltiYe effect until such time as region wide changes arc made.
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bemardino, and
Riverside Counties). The South Coast Air Basin standards are far
more stringent than the San Diego County's Air Pollution Control
District standards because the South Coast Air Basin is considered a
severe nonattainment area for the NAAQS for ozone (while the San
Diego Air Basin is considered a basic nonattainment area, with far
fewer exceedances of the standard), and the threshold at which a
source is considered "major" (i.e., anticipated to have a significant
impact on the ambient air quality) is much lower. Furthermore, use
of emission standards to assess potential significance of impacts on
a nonattainment air basin is standard practice under CEQA, and has
also been used to evaluate stationary sources under the New Source
Review requirements established by the U.S. EPA and the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District. Under the New Source
Review requirements, emission thresholds are established below
which a source is not considered significant and is therefore not
required to provide further analysis or offset emissions. It should
also be noted that the emissions presented in the Air Quality
Technical Report do not provide net emission estimates and
therefore do not subtract out existing emissions associated with
traffic traveling to/from the K -Mart and restaurant that have been
operating on the site. Both construction and operational air impacts
were analyzed and were determined to be less than significant.
Emissions from construction are a ShOli term and temporary, and
thus would not result in significant impact on the cumulative
'"
I
a>
......
17
Comments
Response - B
ambient air quality impact.
8-33
Tbb project results in emissions from demolition, construction and duy to day
operation tbat would contribute substantially 10 illl existing air quality violation, result in
cUlllulatively considerable net increase ofPMIO. OJ. und NO" and YOCs, and expose
sensilive receptors (hospital pUlienls and childj'cn in residences) 10 substantial pollmant
concentrations. The report shopped around using a variety of diffcl'Cllt emissions
standards and picked and choose the ones that would make this project look best. This is
not only a questionable pructice, but an unacceptable one. The entire report should have
stuck with URBEMIS2002 model. It seems parr afthis rcpOll \\'~iS copied from sOllie
other report since lhey are talking about grading 17 acres and this is only 11.1 acres.
l:::still1utes lIn: not adequatcwhcn dealing with residents' health. There has to be
continuous monitoring Oflhc site during demolition <.lud extra steps have to be taken to
conl,-lin all or virtually all of the dust on site. There is all error in the mitigation
monitoring "cJlOI'! where it says the area will he wet down twice:t Jay, The Air
Quality report says .1 minimum of 3Xs per tllIY is nceded to reduce dust b')l 51%, I
wOLlld say II greater reduction than that is required so perhaps 4 or 5 times a day should
bt;: required, considering the condos ure only 5 Feet Ji'om the properly line and tbcre.k a
hospitul across the street. Table 5 shows that NOxtotals will be as high as 97.17. 96.7.1,
95.94,81.33, since the significance criteria is 100 I think this has to be Found to be close
enough to require fLuther precautions. Ptvlw is also very high nt'73.48 and 73.45. Further
precautions need to be taken becuuse of the sensitivity orlhe receptors very Ileal' by.
B-33) The air quality impact analysis utilized the appropriate emission
standards for the various types of emissions in accordance with
Lead Agency direction and SCAQMD standards for CEQAreview.
As discussed above, these standards are conservative in that they
are based on standards for an air basin that has more air pollutant
issues and thus more stringent standards than those established for
the San Diego Air Basin. Accordingly, these standards provide a
measure of conservatism in the evaluation of significance of
impacts. The project does provide estimates of emissions from
construction, evaluating heavy equipment emissions, fugitive dust,
worker conunute, and truck traffic emissions. The emission
estimates are based on the latest infonnation from the California Air
Resources Board's OFFROAD model, which is more recent than
the URBEMIS 2002 model. There is not a requirement to only use
the URBEMIS2002 model in evaluating air quality impacts.
N
I
m
00
The reference to 17.7 acres has been corrected to reflect the actual
11.14 acres of the site. This resulted in 40 percent ofthe site being
graded on a single day. The uncontrolled emissions from grading
remains at 44.30 lbs./day as noted in the study and no new impacts
have been created or new mitigation measures required.
The mitigation monitoring report has been corrected to reflect
watering a minimum on times a day as reflected in the calculations
in the Appendix of the Air Quality Report. The mitigation
requirement states that it should occur at a minimum and that based
on the situation more may be necessary based on observation
monitoring.
The comment regarding what the necessary margin below the
established threshold for NOx is noted. See responses noted in B-
29. In addition, the conclusion of the report is that the NOx
emissions associated with project construction are below these
18
Comments
Page 14uscs the erroneous trame ADT's to make a false asslImption that
operational impacts will not calise a negative impncL This page also llsed the
URBEMlS2002 model but npparclHly used it for "retail and restuurant uses," which is
incorrect (page 14 paragraph 2). They used the wrong assumption for tran'ic lIll1ke LID due
to this error. They need \0 include the actual number of trucks 30 per day belonging to
11D plus the number of large contractor trucks lil a typical HD, plus a higher percentugc
of medium sized trllcks by cllstomers "vim Hre picking up large building supplies. I do not
believe one cun assume a phase out of higher polluting vchicles. CEQUA requires a
B~34 reliance upon existing conditions, not guesses lor making detenninmions orsignincullc~.
The worse case scenario for present day vehicles needs to be used. not some fi.mtusy of II
possible future. Estimates need not be used. The emissions for u Home Depot of the same
size as the proposed one should be used, Table 6 is extremely low for l:\ f(lCiliry of [his
size and not valid. Page 15 ug.ain is saying net \'ehi~le trips would decrease. This is not
correct. Also in E1 Cajon it was found that CO emissions would be 1,000 pOllnds per day.
There has to be an error in [be calculations and/or ussllmptions here, This needs to be
redone using 60KSF for the store and factoring in the achmlllumbcr of delivery trucks.
Also the model for a rctaHfwarehollse store has to be used not relail and reslnunull as
slated in the lext.
'"
I
'"
CO
Response - B
significance thresholds and there is no significant impact.
B-34) The statement regarding a mix of retail and restaurant uses was a
typographical enor and has been corrected in the air quality report.
The conection does not affect the number or type of trips generated
or the emission estimates in the air quality analysis as that is based
on data from the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Detailed analysis of the impacts of trucks both during construction
and during operation was performed. The number of estimated
construction trucks is identified on page 18 of the air quality report.
The number of operational trucks is addressed on page 19 of the air
quality repOli. ThiIiy operational trucks is the maximum in a day
with an average of115 truc)cs per week.
The analysis was conducted based on emission factors generated by
the ARB's approved EMFAC2002 model. The EMFAC2002model
is the model that is required for use by the ARB for estimating
emissions from motor vehicles. That model provides emissions for
the mix of vehicles that is on the road during specific years
evaluated. The calculations in the EMFAC2002 model
demonstrate that emissions decrease in the fl1ture due to improved
emission standards and phase-out of older vehicles is based on
guidelines that are approved by the ARB and is not an assumption
used for this study alone. It should be noted that the emissions
presented in Table 6 are based on the year 2008 and do not take into
account future years with improved emission standards and phase-
out of higher polluting vehicles after the year 2008. Thus the
19
Comments
Response - B
TubJc 7 iSl.:fl"oncous and ignores the data HvuilabJe on these intersections in the
GP I::IR thut shows (\ plus growth degrad~ltion to lllliH;Cepti.lble levels. Page 19 uses a
lllllnber oftl'ucks lhat is too low. Home Deuot ~Idmits to 30 ocr rillY and 4 or 5 011 the
wL'ch:cnds. This comes to ISH trucks !lei" week. 1I0t 115 us this entire BRA is l:lllSI,.'d
llIHIIl!! This makes this analysis invulid.lt needs to be redone using the correct dat3. It
also ignores. (hut L Street and Third are called Olll in the General plan as Streets that will
calise problems inlhis area.
analysis is more conservative and a worse case scenario.
B-35) Comment noted. Please refer to response B-31. Detailed analysis
of the impacts of trucks both during construction and during
operation was performed.
nBU:I1i~
j, \'U.U,E DAIl. \' nl1i"IO~S TO nlE UN DIleo AIR B.Ur.'(
RtSVUi:;'Q fRO.u el>lLDOIJT or tHIADOPTtD C!NEIlAL J'L..I..H
{p,u~lptrdlYI
As shown in the URBEMIS2002 model outputs contained in the
appendix ofthe Air Quality teclmical report, the model was run for
both summer and winter emissions. For conservative purposes, the
higher of the two values was presented, as noted in Table 6,
Operational Emissions. Splitting out emissions between the two
seasons would result in lower estimates overall of emissions on a
lbs./day basis. Thus, the analysis presents a worst-case emissions
estimate scenario.
8-35
SlllW\l;P~;I.lttn::
,Sli"""O[
(0
ro~
RO{;
~o,,'
PM;,
njiUllI{~~riQQ A~oplfJG.uIUIPlln (lIJIlI'
(\!XlS) n0301
M~~OI AnI l-f~~nt ,\"a 1>t(>bjle An'
S~I(li SO,U1:I1 TC!lJI' S~Wtli ~\JrU' IOIJl' Slm/tU SOURII TCIJ1'
JiM I'] LC-J9 21HI~ lQ),US ,,, IOUU (I7HHl (116) (17Ui/;J
~S.~).l I,m ~H17 I.m l.m [D,UG (lP.Ol"'l . (I~,al :'
i(j}~i 3.'71 RlH DlI H~6 n.m (l~JO~) !.lIS [lUPlj
JH " "I leI) 10 110 " '" "
lH1! . H,!,S i~jH , H.H? lun 11. !un
\fltlU
co Nij'jI U16 m.m lO~J)O 10,615 nUllO (lnl.1lll) Hiif (191.JJ1)
NOx 4HH 1.204 4liH 1l.458 l.m 1.'.~91 (1P,~O) " OHII)
ROG lH}i 10.739 B.1!] 9.-151 H.ll4 HJ9,S (tUH) 1375 {lU1i} B-36)
so,,' HI 12 l~J lP5 10 III II . "
iI!>l., 11.8n IG1) H.~J'i n.1-I4 LH!1 lH-H ~Ull HO 1~.~~
'T.!.ll;u,-,y;ijiitl'.;".I<\Ut;Q~iaJ
'!mllliol:\ tdnj\.lIldbf UPJlE.\USl-)O~ lfl! f~r 'i0,
Comments noted. For clarification, emission factors, basin-wide
emissions budgets, and emission estimates are each different
components for analysis. The URBEMIS2002 model must be run
correctly to obtain correct emissions, and must be run for a specific
type ofland use and a specific year of operation. The U.S. EPA's
AP-42 document provides emission factors, which are presented in
terms oflbs/hp-hr, not lbs/hr (pounds/horsepower-hour). The U.S.
EPA's AP-42 document provides emission factors and must be used
correctly to obtain correct emission calculations. The tables
contained in the appendix to the Air Quality technical report
provide emission calculations that have been done based on
regulatOlY guidance.
""
I
......
C>
This table is fi'ollllhe General Plan EIR. I am wondering \'llly the data in this Ail' Report
does outtake into account summer and winter temperatures, since this is n raelor as the
table above shows. Also why arc cUlllulative etlccts ignored'!
I admit that J just downloaded the URMEI31S2002 model and I dun't have a
thorough grnsp of it, but it does say that in the SDAIl the slim of area and operational
truck CO emissions is 15.76 IbsJday umnitigutcd, lnultiplied by 30 Irucks that comes to
472.8 for just vehicular cmissionsjust counting the truck.s. I do not understand I1mv the
consu[t,mt gOI the I1gures in THblc 6. The text also says that Table 6 is supposed 10 show
Ills/day and Lons/yea/', but jt does ~ot. Likewise the NOx they give is 1.49, multiplied by
30 equal 44.7 just for the 30 trucks. Where exactly do your figures come l1'om'1 Also fix
Lhe emergency generator, looking at Section3.3 in the new EPA AP~42 the figures that I
see for lbs/hr fix an emergel1cy gcncrutor using diesel fuel are CO 6.68, NOx .031, SOx
2.05, PMIO 2.20. Even tJlviding by 4 f'or 15 minutes I don't get YOllr ligures.
8-36
20
Comments
18_3{
Tile suggested stundmd mitigations at the URMEBIS202 site were Energy
Efllciency 201J!o oyer Title 24 and 20% of all landscaping equipment.ill.!! be electrical
[1o\Vcl'l~(L Also the 3X's per day site watering is considered the minimum for dust control.
Willlhis be monitored to make sure it is done?
In summary there arc difficultie.s \",,1l11 the reports that need to be resolved, but in
tbe context of the the General Pllln ElR conclusions of lI11rnitigatable negative
environmental effects, the hlstorJca] trentment of Home Depots. the need for an
alternatives annlysis because ortbe difnclllty of mitigating effeds even with faulty datu
Ilsed, ~ind the extensive chunges proposed for the site an EIR should be required for this
project I SUblllillhis request with the support of the around 200 people who have signed
the petition sa far asking l!lolll-Iame Depot be required to place their building on another
port orthe lot fal' away from residences and no trucks be allowed on Moss StreeL
The simplest alternntive would be to use the plans for !he H Street store, slightly
enlarging inlerior areas. Provide a 4-foot de~p depression along Third screened wilh
extensive landscaping and it security fence. Truck entrance/exit driveways could be
drivewuys 1 and 2. Customer traffic could enter along driveway three and existing Moss
driveways. At Rancho Del Rey Slore alllf'llCks and clI!ilomers enter on Plaza Drive.
upparcntly \vithout ~l problem. The dccorulive treatments ORe has asked liD to make on
[he back ofille buildiJlg would muke an auractive building for Third. All their mess,
lumber drop ofrand loading docks would be in the depression and behind the building,
but not visible from Third due to difference in ekvatioll. Employee parking could be put
there to ifl-ID so chose. TIle building ilsclfwould block virtually all noise from lhe
residences.
8-38
8-39
~
Sincerely,
Theresa Acerro
3730 Festival COllrt
Chula Vista 91911
rvtuin Store
Garden
Lumbl.:forl
loading
b
.
c.
,.
"'
r~
!:l g
l>~
g p:>
.0
5
~
Halley's
nrh.~\\.ll)" 1 [ .andscapi.lu:- LJril'ilW(I)' 2
DriVC\\'ilj-3 'I
Third Ave.
Response - B
B-37) Comments noted. As part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) is included
and the City Mitigation Monitor oversees the application of the
MMRP.
B- 38) Comments noted. See responses noted in B-1.
In addition, the City has received no written documentation of
signed petition during the 3D-day public review period for the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The submittal of a petition would
not constitute substantial evidence of an envirorunental impact
pursuant to Response B-1 \lbove.
B-39) Comments noted.
2]
~I
!
'"
-
=
"
8
8
c
u
N
N
~
-0
o
a !::
~o
c'':::
.- ~
~ >
. u
0-
...J u
o
. ;;
2 ::j
.~
!~~
a ... ~
Z..g~
..:!a
~-
:~~
> .
. .
~ ~
g E
~-o~
2=~
~~
~]
~ 0
o ~
o .
~ -
gE
~ ~
%"05
.
u 0
~-
';:;;!.l.
~~
~~
o 3
~...J
2-72
Comments
Response - C
Environmental Health Coaliti9n
;,'" ", ';".Ii !l,A \;,I:GiI..O If, fl e:'~ A L U 0 ;A 11'8 I E'/N'II '~, '.';, ,,I
Environmental Health Coalition
(Comment letter via e-mail - dated December 13,2006)
401 Mill! Clf Cars Way, Slllte:310" National City, CA OlllliO. (519) 47/,-0220. fAX, (619) 474.H10
eh[@~n\tlrDnm~n t~lJi ea lth,llrg . wlVw,envlrlln mCHltalhealth.lIrg
"I!a"".
C-l) As stated on Page 3 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, an air
quality study was prepared to identify and evaluate potential
project related air quality and health risk impacts,
Oel;eIl1l>er 13, 2006
The Air Quality analysis included a grid of receptors outside of the
facility boundary within the HARP toxics modeling analysis rather
than specific receptors. The grid of receptors does include
receptors located at the high-density multi-family housing within
150 feet of the proposed project, and represents all locations
(residential, occupational, and sensitive) outside the facility
boundary. The analysis' was based on a residential exposure
scenario, assuming exposure for a 70-year period, and addressing
TACs from diesel trucks and the emergency generator to be located
at the site. The analysis demonstrated that the impacts on all
receptors, including the residences, were not significant.
NJllri;IMucft
City of Chuhl. Vista
PJallninguud nuildiug Department
2764111 AVe.
Chuhl Vista, CA 91910
RF.: Enviroumental Health Coalition Comments 011 Mitigated Negutive ncclilnltlon
t'-.) for Proposed Home Deput onComer of IVlo5s nnd 3rd
I
-J Deud\'ls.1VJuett:
<.oJ
Air Oualltv
The applicant has agreed to limit emissions from diesel trucks
through restricting idling times to 5 minutes or less as a mitigation
measure to reduce emissions from trucks. This is also a
requirement of state law.
EuvirolHnentalHealth COtlHtion(EHC) j::;submitting tlle follQwingcQmmenls ill respunse
tile IvtND forllle proposed Home Depl1t on the Comer 01'3,,1 (md Moss, Mted.as proiect"#
lS-()6-0D7. .
TlreAir QuulilyStudy for the proposed proje~tnott;:s that "sellsitivercceptoh;"are
"eousidered to be schools, hospitals, dayclln; cen!ers, or qll1cr fucililiys thal'may house
illdh'iduals with health conditions Ihat would be adversely impacted by changes in air
qualily." The Air QualitY-E:;tudy negleclSlqexpUcitly identifyholllcsas illc\uded ill l(lis
calegory. Hc]'wever, the California Air 'Resources Board (CARB) recently released:l
document called the "[and'Use and Air Qualit}' Hundbook" which specifically notes
l'esidemialland uses as "sensitive land uses," Of course, c):li ldreu are amongst the !lHLl
~ensilJve receptors, and homes "hOll-tie" children. The increased hospitalizlltion rate ir,llhe
rcgiOll'due to asthma [urlher 5ubstmtiaIes tbe I\eed 1,0 com;i!-ler homes in this category.
C-1
This is a purticularlyperrincnt omission in the Air Qualily Study given IhM there
is high dCllsitymulll-family housin~ within 150 feet of the proposed project White lhe
[lAND nOles multipk lllcaS[jres to mitigate air quality <lssociated with cOllslmctiull
impacts, there me no measurC$l\Oledto mitigate ongojngimpacts associated with Toxie
Air COlluuninonts(TACs) re[0-0./;ed by oargo handling eqlliprilent, delivery [mel,s, nlll!
other vehjcles. The CARB "L.<tnd lJ~e and Air OUlllitv Hllndbook" reacts to several
studi.es .c.onducted which SllOW significant Ildversehclll1h impacts associated with
rro~unlty to distribution \\'arehollses and high traffic roadways. Spedt1c.:ally, the
parilcllh.lte mnrter released from diesel powered vehicles has been iclellti fled to be tile
cause at 70% of caucers caused by environmental factors. These studies note [hal: the
lllost l:ilWere impacts occur within 350 feet of [he emission source.
23
Comments
IC-2 [
Tn light of these sdentifie findings, EHC believes that: 1. A full or focused ElR
should be 70llducted which includes an-analysis (lfthe impacts ofveh,icle emis..':;ions.ol1
nearby res.l~Cl1ts, .md 2. The proposed project should he fe-designed to adequately buffer
these sensltlvc land uses from adverse health impacts associaled witb TACs. .
N
I
-J
..,.
Response - C
C-2) Pursuant to CEQAGuidelines Section 15070:
A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light
of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a
substantial effect on the environment, or
b)
The initial study identifiedpotentia/ly significant effects, but:
1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or
agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated
negative declaration and initial study are released for
public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the ejJects
to a point where clearly nO significant effects would OCCW;
and
2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole
record before the agency, that the project as revised may
have a significant effect on the environment.
Substantial evidence has been included and relied upon in the initial
study that demonstrates that the project as mitigated will not have a
substantial impact upon the environment. Therefore, a mitigated
declaration has been prepared.
Teclmical studies have been prepared by qualified experts that
show all impacts associated with the project for such issue areas as
noise, air quality, drainage, water quality, and traffic are mitigated
to a level ofless than significant. Public Resources Code section
21080 (e) states that "...substantial evidence includes fact, a
reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion
supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument,
!>peculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative. "No substantial
evidence of a potentially significant environmental impact
associated with the project has been submitted. Public Resources
Code Section 21 080.2( c) states that public comments that are not
24
Comments
LHUd Ilsc alld Plnnninl.!
Key planning dOCtiIuents ill Chllla Vi.sta note that big box relail/warehollses
should l11i.tkc an dIaft to [ocate parking behind the facility, 11,) be shielded from view of
JIHlill urterhtl routes, such as Third Avenue. The Home Depot. as itis cUlTcnUy proposed,
is ill violation of thi:-i principle, A revisi011 to the de:5ign of Home Dljput that' moves the
Slructure enstward would not only achieve Ihis objective, but also diminish -the health
impacts Df T ACs as.'lociated with equipment operation and delivery trucks, as well at'; the
slgniticant noise impacts noted in t]le MND.
C-3
In the ChuJa Vista General Phm, LUT Objective 35 notes that stable residential
Jl~,,;ighborhol)ds shaH be protected flOm adverse land use impacts. The ,Home Depo1 is
directly proximute to core multi~family residential dcvclopmeull.lreas. III keeping \'}ilh
the Cieneral }l1ULl, the p.ropnsed project should be designed to heed this principle, ul:d
I mitigate lhe. air, noise, aesthetic, and other concomitant impacts associated with lhi~
~ incompa.tible mixed use. Similarly, LUT 4.7 notes that targeted commercial development
shull be compatible witha4iacent land uses. '[be proposed project, as designed, cauLlOt
be consh'ucd to be compalible with the adjacent residential uses, A re~de.sign oJ:' tilt; site
which further buffers the residential uses from the most concentrated emission oftoxics
land OTher impacts is necessary to improve compatihililY
I
C-3)
Response - C
based upon a specific factual foundation (expert opinion) do not
constitute substantial evidence of an environmental impact. Since
all potentially significant impacts have been mitigated, project
modifications have not been required.
As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project is
located within the CCP (Central ConunerciallPrecise Plan) Zone
and CR (Retail Commercial) General Plan land use designations.
According to the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 19.36.020, the
proposed use is a permitted retail land use, and Sections 19.36.070
and Sections 19.58.370 require a Conditional Use Pemlit for
outside sales and display both temporary and permanent to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The sun-ounding residential land uses to the west and north are
multi-family residential, within the R3 Zone. The project as
designed proposes adequate screening and buffers to minimize
light, noise, glare, and other adverse impacts upon the residential
neighborhood. The mitigation measmes and project design have
been calculated to adequately buffer potential air, aesthetics, noise
and health risk impacts in accordance with the City Municipal Code
and threshold standards.
25
Comments
Aesthetics
C-4
The. MND notes that the propo!;ed project will include the demolition 01'<1
restaunmt to be .replfJced by additional parking spaces tor the Home Depot. Whi Ie there
may be different perspectiveg on whether a restaurant or parking lot is more aesthcticalh
pleasing, it is illdisputablelhat thi.s is a significaut impact, and needs to be nuthcr "
ull~lyze~ in a focused or full ElR. AddiriOllUlly, tbe sWToundings ora Home Depot ;:,re
1I1l1'll.le In the sense that most I-IomeDepots include largeolltdoor storage areas wiler..;
~,rodu~ts fire stored in public view. Many people peI'ceive this as one giant messy gtL.agc.
J here IS not. proposed mitigation for this significant aesthetic impact proposed iUlhe
MND
Adenuacv of MND
C-5 I
EHe bpIieves that a mitigated negative declaration is an imlppropri.lte level of
review under CEQA Jor the proposed project. The scope and intensity of this project
warrants a fuB or focused environmental impact reporL A big box retaiJ/warellGWie
facilityoflhis nature will have significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
Indeed, our UJlderstallding is that most I-lame Depots that have been built in San Die-go
County have included afuU ErR. V.,Thy is it that this Home Depot project only warmnt:-;
3n J:vlND, while others have required a full EIR? EHC has not identified [lny justification
! 1-0r exemption from a full or focused ElR for/his specific proposed project.
EHC understands thalllQ EIR was done on the vacated K,.mart that currently
occupies t.he site. If this is the casc, then a full or focused EIR is llecessary before
another retail/warehouse: shop of fI similar size is Constructed. In any case, the ll<lture of
operations of a Home Depot is very different and needs to be analyzed in more d'cptl.L A
full Of focused EIR would require an <malysis ofv)able alternatives to the Home Depot
project, and could include a closer look at other design options on the current site which
would /July miligu1c. th~ mo::;t 5t:vere impacts ofihis project. EHC believes that lhe
decision to analyze this proposed project with an MND not Duly precludes substntial
analysis of these altematives, but is also a viol~tion of CEQA.
Thank you again for the oppornmity to comment on the environmental revie\v of this
proposed project. Please teel fTee to call with any questions Of comments at
619.tl74.0220 x 120.
C-4)
Response -C
The Chula Vista Design Review Committee has reviewed
preliminmy plans for the proposed project on two separate
occasions. The project design has been modified to reflect aesthetic
comments made by Committee members. Specific changes to
proj ect plans include the incorporation of horizontal and vertical
elements using trellises, color and fayade articulation, as well as
Imldscaping treatment enhancements along the site perimeter and
interior parkway. The truck route along the rear of the building has
been designed with a landscape buffer and noise wall/screen wall to
screen trucks/vehicles and unloading activities. Outdoor display
areas have been designed with paving patterns, canopies and
trellises. The Design Review Committee will address on-site
improvements and any aesthetic issues for consistency with the
City of Chula Vista Design Review and Landscape Guidelines,
when the proposed project is presented to them for decision at a
later date.
The project would substantially improve the existing site with new
structures, landscaping aud hardscaping. The outdated and
dilapidated restaurant building would be removed. The applicant
will be required to comply with the Municipal Code concerning
outdoor storage and other local or regional standards and
regulations to be enforced by the appropriate regulatory agencies
including the City's code enforcement section.
C-5)
This comment states that an EIR should have been prepared for the
project and not a mitigated negative declaration. Please refer to C-
2.
Additionally, the comment states that analysis of viable alternatives to
the project and alternate design options alternatives should have been
analyzed in the MND. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that
project alternatives be identified and analyzed in environmental impact
reports (EIRs). There is no requirement for an analysis ofproject
alternatives in an MND. As stated in Response No. C-2, since there is
no substantial evidence of an envirorunental impact associated with the
project after mitigation, an EIR is not required. It would, therefore, be
inappropriate to analyze project alternatives.
26
Comments
----Original Message---
From: THERESA ACERRO (mailto:thacerra@yahoQ,com]
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 6:56 PM
To; Marla Muett; Steve Power; Jim Sandoval
Cc: Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann; Rudy Ramlrel; Jeny Rlrldone
Subject: Home Depot must be moved as far away from residential as possIble
This is nn additional COIlllllent on the MND for Home Depot, This is very gootllldvicc, since sc\'crnl uther
shes have information llbout horrible fires and spills ucurring Ilt Home Depots. This is another excellent
rcnson 10 move the stofe far IHvay froUl rcsidentilll. Why WIlS the lU.led for nlIltzardous ffilltcriuls
ManagelUent I'lnn not Ibtcd ill the MNU'!
0-1
Whllt YUIl ClIlI do: To review records 011 haZllrdoLlS spills, go 10 www.r1k.nel. The next lime Home Deplt
kllOL:ks OlJ your l\cighborhood's door, usk IUCllI lire omdals to gel a cumpl1Hc inventory ortbe hm:arllous
mnlcrinls stored inside the store, alld iI print out of any incidcllls nlltiunwlde atlhtl slOrc that involved the release
o/'lO:\k Jlllltednls. Be sure your local fire chief has asked for cupies urlhe Nationll] Fire l'rcvelllion As!\odlltiun
tNFI'A) repol'ls Dllthc [-hunc Depotlhes ill Tempe, AZ, IInd Quincy. MA. Ask the company to provide II report
of the glll'den center Hre lit Sigmll Hill, CA LocHI homeowners }U\.ve II right to know the risks involved in living
near a wan:hollSc Jilll of ehemlcak solvents. paints and pesticides. Welcome to Jl01l1c D.::potl
!1l!n.;fI.W\1'lY,~!lril.l~J~Jm,'i!g,:1,!:.Qll~.e.J1IslJ,J1lI]l'Jrcndston'=4(!j
Do You Yahoo!'!
Tired ofspam? YahoolMllil has the hesl Splilll protection around
hnp:f!JlllliLphoo.eolll
""
I
......
......
D-I)
Response - D
Theresa Acero
(Comment via e-mail - dated December 24, 2006)
Comments noted. The comment does not address the adequacy of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The applicant as conditioned will be required to comply with
hazards/hazardous materials storage and usage regional standards
and regulations to be enforced by the appropriate regulatory
agencies as well as the State of Califomia, County of San Diego
Department of Environmental Health Services and the City's Fire
Department.
27
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
HOME DEPOT - 18-06-007
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed ShinnlLynndale Place Tentative Parcel Map project. The
proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial StudyfMitigated Negative Declaration prepared
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA
Guidelines (IS-06-007) The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate
mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this proj ect ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Air Quality
2. Geology/Soils
3. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
4. Hydrology and Water Quality
5. Noise
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with
the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-06-007 to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
. Declaration IS-06-007, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if
the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified,
along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date of inspection is provided in the last column.
J:\Planning\MARlA.\Initial Study\Home Depot\IS-06-0071v1MRPtext.doc
2-78
Home Depot (18-06-007) (10/30/06)
Mitlaation Monitorina and Reoortina Proaram
Table 1
.. . ~rr"lGATI6NIVI9NITOR1NGAN6~Ef'dRTfN&\e~p-&~AM( .... .' " .
Mitigation Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Responsible Completed Comments
Measure No. Verification Verification Party Initials Date
61RQUALlTY ...... ...... . Pre pufing Post, ............ " . '. ..'
, '.. . T.M' Coifst Canst CO'sl . ., '.' . .
1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanU City
shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as Inspection Engineering
details, notes, Of as otherwise appropriate: DepartmenUCity
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple Planning and Building
construction equipment units. Department
. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered
equipment.
. Use injection-timing retard for diesel~powered
equipment.
. Water the construction area twi6e minimum three
'" times daily to minimize fugitive dust.
I
...... . Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to
CD minimize fugitive dust.
. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to
minimize dust.
. Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary
generators during building, if availablel
. Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal
travel path within a construction site prior to public
road entry.
. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior
to vehicle entry on public roads.
. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public
streets within 30 minutes of occurrence.
. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of
each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved
surfaces has occurred.
. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent
washout of silty material onto public roads.
. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of
freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling.
. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved
surfaces jf winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Page - 1
I"
Home Depot IIS-06-007) (10/30106)
Mitioatlon Monitorina and Reoortina Proaram
Table 1
2. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant Applicant/City
shall provide the signature of the geotechnical engineers Planning and Building
as evidence to the City Engineer that all the Department/City
recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation, dated August 4, 2005 have been Department
incor orated into the lans.
3. Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, the Plan Check/Site X X X Applicant/City
applicant shall submit a final soils report for review and Inspection Planning and Building
approval to the satisfaction oftha City Engineer. Department/City
Engineering
De artment
4. Prior to any demolition activitles, a Ijcensed and Plan Check/Site X X ApplicanUCity
registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall Inspection Planning and Building
perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in DepartmenUCity
accordance with all applicable local, state and federal Engineering
laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Department
Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for
Demolition and Renovation.
I 5. If during demolition and renovation activities potentially Plan Check/Site X X X X ApplicanUCity
(Xl Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are observed Inspection Planning and Building
0 within the inaccessible areas such as interior walls, DepartmenUCity
additional samplings and analysis prior to the removal of Engineering
such materials shall be required. Abatement shall be Department
performed in accordance with standards and regulations
noted in mitigation measure no. 4. In the event
suspected ACMs concerns are encountJred, a qualified
professional will be retained to assess the areas of
concern. That may include the preparation and submittal
of a written analysis identifying any new
hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate
measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for
review.
6. Prior to the removal of any electrical transformers for site Plan Check/Site X X X X ApplicanUCily
demolition, the transformers will be inspected. If the Inspection Planning and Building
transformers are not labeled as PCB-free, they will be DepartmenUCity
presumed to contain PCBs and they will be disposted of Engineering
in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Department
In the event potential environmental concerns regarding
PCBs are suspected or encountered a qualified
professional will be required to assess the areas of
concern. That may include the preparation and submittal
of a written analysis identifying any new
hazards/hazardous material impacts with appropriate
measures to the Environmental Review Coordinator for
review.
Page - 2
Home Depot (lS-06-007) (10/30/06)
7.
Prior to the removal of fluorescent light ballasts located
within the proposed buildings or portion thereof for
demolition, the ballasts will be inspected. If the ballasts
are not labeled as PCB-free, they will be presumed to
contain PCBs and they will be disposed of in compliance
with applicable standards and regulations. In the event
potential environmental concerns regarding PCBs are
suspected or encountered, a qualified professional will be
required to assess the areas of concern. That may
include the preparation and submittal of a written analysis
identifying any new hazards/hazardous material impacts
with appropriate measures to the Environmental Review
Coordinator for review.
During the demolition and grading activities for the
proposed project, the area of the former hydraulic lifts and
wheel alignment shall be monitored. In the event
additional auto repair work area features are discovered
or suspicious environmental concerns are encountered, a
qualified professional will be required to assess the areas
of concern. That may include the preparation and
submittal of a written analysis Identifying any new
environmental concerns with appropriate measures to the
Environmental Review Coordinator for review.
8.
9.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage
study shall be required in conjunction with the preparation
of the final grading plans and must demonstrate that the
post-development peak flow rate does 'nqt exceed the
pre-development flows. The City Engineer shall verify
that the final grading plans comply with the provisions of
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to
construction-related water quality best management
practices (BMPs). If one or more of the approved post-
construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-
construction BMP plan shall be prepared to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the
commencement of construction. Compliance with said
plan shall become a permanent requirement of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Plan Check/Site
Inspection
Plan Check/Site
Inspection
Plan Check/Site
Inspection
Table 1
x
x
x
Applicant/City
Planning and Building
DepartmenUCity
Engineering
Department
x
x
x
x
Applicant/City
Planning and Building
DepartmenUCity
Engineering
Department
x
x
Applicant/C~y
Planning and Building
DepartmenUCity
Engineering
Department
Page - 3
Mitiaation Monitorina and Reoortina Proqram
Home Depot (IS-06-007\ (10/30/06)
Mitioation Monitorino and Reoortino Prooram
Table 1
10.
Prior to the commencement of grading operation,
temporary desilUng and erosion control devices shall be
installed. Protective devices shall be provided at every
storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the
storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in
the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
Plan Check/Site
Inspection
x
x
x
ApplicanUCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenUCity
Engineering
Department
11. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista ApplicanUCity
Municipal Code, project-related construction activities Planning and Building
including demolition shall be prohibited between the OepartmenUCity
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday Engineering
and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Department
Sunda s.
12. A 6 to 15-foot high noise attenuation wall including Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity
screening wall shall be constructed along the western Inspection Planning and Building
property line in accordance with the noise study dated DepartmenUCity
'" October 13, 2006, and as depicted on the project Engineering
I development and grading plans to the satisfaction of the Department
00 City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
'"
13. A 12-foot high wing wall extension shall be added to the Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity
corner of the building extending for 75 feet in accordance Inspection Planning and Building
with the noise study dated October 13, 2006, and to the DepartmenUCity
satisfaction of the City Environmental Review Engineering
Coordinator. I Department
Page - 4
Home Depot 118-06-007) (10/30/06)
Mitiaation Monitorina and Reoortina Proaram
Table 1
14. Truck deliveries shall be restricted except between the Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Mondav throuQh Inspection Planning and Building
Fridavs and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 D.m. Saturdays and Department/City
Sundays in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Engineering
Ordinance (Section 19.68), Department
15. The loading dock shall contain a product feature Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCily
consisting of foam seal and enhanced bumpers on the Inspection Planning and Building
deck leveler to reduce dock mating and truck plate noise DepartmenUCity
impacts in accordance with the noise study dated October Engineering
13, 2006, and to the satisfaction of the City Environmental Department
Review Coordinator.
...,
I
00
c..:>
16. The lumber unloading area barrier shall be constructed of Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity
sound absorbent material or equipped with sound- Inspection Planning and Building
absorbent cladding to minimize multiple ~ound reflections DepartmenUCity
between the barrier wall and the rear of t e store building Engineering
in accordance with the noise study dated October 13, Department
2006.
17. All diesel delivery trucks shall turn off their engines during Plan Check/Sile X X X ApplicanUClly
unloading/loading activities at the Home Depot loading Inspection Planning and Building
docks and lumber offloading pad whenever possible. In DepartmenUCity
the event a delivery truck is not able to immediately enter Engineering
the loading docks or lumber off-loading area upon arrival, Department
the diesel truck Idling shall be restricted to a five-minute
limitation in accordance with State taw. Trucks will not be
permitted to idle along the rear of the store near
residential properties or park for extended periods of time
while wailing for the business to open.
Page - 5
Home Depot (lS-06-007) (10130106)
Mitiaation Monitorina and Reportina Proaram
Table 1
18. Minimum 9-foot high sound reduction wall surrounding Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity
the project emergency generator shall be constructed in Inspection Planning and Building
accordance with the nolse study dated October 13, 2006. DepartmenUCity
During emergency generator operations all sound Ehgineering
enclosure doors shall be kept closed. Prior to issuance of Department
building permits, the design shall be reviewed and
approved bv the Environmental Review Coordinator.
19. Outside operational activities located along the rear and Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity
sides of the building including docking/unloading/loading, Inspection Planning and Building
trash compactor, emergency generators, trash/recycled DepartmenUCity
cardboard pickups, and signaling systems shall be Engineering
restricted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Department
Monday to Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays
and Sundays in accordance with the City of Chula Vista
Noise Ordinance (Section 19.68).
.
20. All rooftop pumps, fans, and air conditioners shall include Plan Check/Site X X X ApplicanUCity
appropriate noise abatement and be screened by a Inspection. Planning and Building
minimum three-toot high rooftop parapet that blocks the DepartmenUCity
~ line-at-site view trom the backyards of the nearby Engineering
residential properties to the exposed root and mechanical Department
~ ventilation systems, consistent with the noise study dated
October 13, 2006.
l:\Planning\MARIA\Jnitial Study\Home Depot\IS-06-007MMRPtbl.doc
Page - 6
~\IZ:::-
---
~
~~
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CllYOF
CHUIA VISTA
1. Name of Proponent:
Home Depot
John Ziebarth
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
1020 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(949) 341-0750
4. Name of Proposal:
Home Depot
5. Date of Checklist:
October 30, 2006
6. Case No.:
IS-06-007
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: ' Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
1. AESTHETICS. Wodd the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 l1li
b) Substantially damage scemc resources, including, 0 0 0 IlIII
but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0 II1II
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
o
o
II
o
1
2-85
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Signifkant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a-b )The proposal includes a new retail building including garden center with site improvements,
walls, and landscaping in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and Design
Review Guidelines. The proposed landscape improvements, walls/fencing and onsite
improvements would improve the aesthetic quality of the partially active commercial site. The
project site contains no scenic vistas or views open to the public and, therefore, would not
damage any scenic resources, vegetation, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c) The proposal is an infill commercial development project. The proposed project will not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its adjacent
residential surroundings. The project site is planned for commercial development according to
the General Plan Land Use regulations.
d) The proposal includes replacement of lighting standards throughout the project site. Some of
these standards will be adjacent to the multifamily residential development along the west
possibly creating a new source of light or glare affecting nighttime views. However, the
proposal will be required to comply with the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting.
The project is designed to include lighting shielding to prevent glare spreading onto adjacent
properties at either the ground or second story residential buildings. The project will be required
to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code (CYMC). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no significant glare, or light
would affect daytime or nighttime views to the adjacent and surrounding residential
neighborhood area.
Mitil!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
II
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
o
o
o
Ii
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion ofFarrnland, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
lIiI
2
2-86
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
.Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a-c )Ihe project site has been previously developed with an eXlstlllg retail building, sit-down
restaurant and fast-food kiosk. The surrounding western and northern properties have been
partially developed with multifamily residential housing. These properties are consistent with
the Chula Vista General Plan and zoning designation, and contain no agricultural resources or
designated farmland. The proposal would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural
resources would be created as a result of the proposed project. .
MitilZation:
No mitigation measures are required.
III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
D
D
D
IIlIII
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute D D D 11I'I
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a curnulatively considerable net increase D II [] LJ
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
reglOn IS non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient aIr quality standard
(including releasing emISSIons, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant D- III D D
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
D
D
II
D
3
2-87
Issues:
Comments:
(a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti!!ation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant air quality impacts to a level of less than significance.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department ofFish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
4
2-88
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
11III
II
II
II
II
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
o
o
o
11III
Comments:
a) No endangered or sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing
are present within or immediately adjacent to the developed project area.
b) No locally riparian habitat or other natural sensitive communities are present within or
immediately adjacent to the developed project area.
c) No wetland habitat is present within or immediately adjacent to the developed project area.
d) No wildlife dispersal or migration corridors exist within or immediately adjacent to the developed
project area.
e) No impacts to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are anticipated with the
project development.
f) No impacts to regional habitat preservation planning efforts will be created, as the development
si"e is a designated development area 111 the adopced Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation
Program Subarea Plan.
Mitieation:
No mitigation measures are required.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
State CEQA Guidelines I) 15064.5?
o
o
o
II
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
o
o
o
iIII
5
2-89
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
to State CEQA Guideiines 9 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
o
o
o
III
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
o
o
o
II
Comments:
a) The proposal is a redevelopment infill project that does involve the demolition of one existing commercial
structure. Upon evaluation of the existing commercial structure and project site, it has been determined that
the subject building is not historically significant. The structure does not embody the distinctive
characteristics of any particular architectural style and/or is not a representative sample of the best of one
style of architecture. There is no evidence or record to indicate that the building or site meets any of the
criteria for consideration for the listing on the City of Chula Vista Historic Resource List. Therefore, the
project will not result in any impacts to a historical resource as defmed in Section 15064.5 is anticipated.
b) Due to previous site disturbance and minimal grading for the proposed project, the potential for significant
impacts or adverse changes to archaeological resources as defined in Section 15064.5 is not anticipated.
c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and relatively limited amount of additional grading
for the p;oposed project, no impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features are
anticipated.
d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project site.
Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
1.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
o
o
o
1I
6
2-90
Issues:
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a lmown fault?
11.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Ill.
Seismic-related
liquefaction?
including
ground
failure,
IV. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
III
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
II
o
II
o
No
Impact
II
II
II
o
o
o
II
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant geological impacts to a level ofless than significance.
7
2-91
Issues:
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the V1C1TIlty of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
8
2-92
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
11II
o
II
II
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
1m pact
o
III
o
o
o
o
III
o
No
Impact
o
o
o
o
II
11'I
o
II
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
a, b, c and d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E (HazardslHazardous Materials).
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport; therefore, the project' would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
adverse safety hazards.
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would
not expose people working in the project area to adverse safety hazards.
g) The project is designed to meet the City's emergency response plan, route access and emergency
evacuation requirements. The proposed fire improvements include an emergency turning radius and fIre
hydrants. No impairment or physical interference with the City's emergency response plan is anticipated.
h) The project is designed to meet the City's Fire Prevention building and fire service requirements. No
exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to wildfires is anticipated.
lVIiti!!ation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Hazards/Hazardous Materials impacts to a level ofless than significance.
vrn. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project
a) Result in an increase in po llutant discharges to
receiving waters (including impaired water bodies
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction, or violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
o
II
o
o
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
o
o
II
o
9
2-93
Issues:
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? Result in a potentially
significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a lOa-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
fluoding as a result of the failure ofa levee ordaro?
1) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storrnwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Comments:
(a-1) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
II
II
o
o
No
Impact
o
o
II
II
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant HydrologylWater Quality impacts to a level of!ess than significance.
10
2-94
Issues:
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
11
2-95
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
No
Impact
II
11II
III
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
1m pact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is surrounded with multi-family residential and nearby commercial land uses. The
proposed commercial redevelopment infill project would be consistent with the character of the immediate
surrounding residential and commercial areas and would not disrupt or divide an established community;
therefore, no significant land use impact would occur as a result of the project.
b) The project site is located within the CCP (Central CommerciaVPrecise Plan) Zoning and CR
(Commercial Retail) updated General Plan land use designation. The project has been found to be.
consistent with the all-respective zoning regulations, Genera! Plan guidelines and regulations, therefore; no
significant land use impacts are anticipated.
c) The project would not conflict with any applicable adopted environmental plans or policies. Furthermore,
the project would not encroach into or indirectly affect the MSCP Preserve area. The project site is
designated as development area in the MSCP Subarea Plan.
Mitillation:
No mitigation measures are required.
X. MlNERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
o
o
o
II
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
o
o
o
II
12
2-96
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) The project site has been previously disturbed with the existing commercial retail land uses. The proposed
project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the
residents of the State of California.
b) The State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral resource
protection. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Mitie:ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without t.l)e project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
13
2-97
D
D
D
II
D
D
l1li
D
D
D
D
III
D
D
l1li
D
D
D
D
IIiII
D
D
III
D
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
e-t) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, nor is it
located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project development would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation:
The mitigation measures contained.in Section F of the rvIitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Noise impacts to a level ofless than significance.
xn. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
o
o
o
II
b) Displace substant.ial nmnbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction. of replacement
housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
III
c) Displace substantial numbers
necessitating the construction of
housing elsewhere?
of people,
replacement
o
o
o
11III
14
2-98
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a-c) The proposed project involves demolition and replacement of the existing commercial retail and
restaurant businesses. The proposal does not involve residential housing and would not induce
population growth in the area or require substantial infrastructure improvements. No permanent
housing exists on the project site and no displacement of housing or people would occur as a result
of the proposal. Based on the size and nature of the proposal no impact to population or housing
would occur as a result of the project.
Mifu!:ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XIll. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any public services:
a. Fire protection? 0 0 III 0
b. Police protection? 0 0 III 0
c. Schools? 0 0 0 III
d. Parks? 0 0 0 II
e. Other public facilities? 0 0 0 III
15
2-99
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Commeuts:
a) Adequate fIre protection services and response times can continue to be provided to the site without an
increase of equipment or personnel. The applicant is required to comply with the Fire Deparlment policies
for new building construction and fITe prevention. The proposed project would not have a signifIcant effect
upon or result in a need for new or altered fITe protection services. The City performance objectives and
thresholds will continue to be met.
b) Adequate police protection services and response times can continue to be provided upon completion of
the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a signifIcant effect upon or result in a need for
substantial new or altered police protection services. The City performance objectives and thresholds will
continue to be met.
c) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, no signifIcant adverse impacts to
public schools would result. According to the Chula Vista School District letter, the applicant would be
required to pay the statutory building permit school fees for the non-residential construction/proposed
commercial buildings.
d) The proposed project would not induce population growth; therefore, the project would not have an impact
on or create a demand for neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities.
e) The proposed project would not have an impact on or result in a need for new or expanded govemmental
services and would be served by existing or planned public infrastructure.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XN. RECREATION. Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
D
D
D
III
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
D-
D
D
.
16
2-100
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur, as it is a
commercial infilIproject and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities.
b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project site is not
planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Therefore, the proposed project would
not have an adverse physical effect on the recreational environment.
Miti2;ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFF1C. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fann
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
17
2-101
o
o
II
o
o
o
o
l1li
o
o
o
II!II
o
o
III
o
o
o
II
o
Issues:
1) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments:
(a,b,d,e and f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
0 0 0 III
0 0 II1II 0
c) The proposal would not have any significant effect upon any air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
g) The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation
programs. The existing bus turnout, adjacent to the northerly driveway, has been redesigned in
accordance with City Transit and pub lie transportation system standards along this portion of Third
Avenue.
Miti!!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
18
2-102
o
o
o
il!Il
o
o
III
o
o
o
liII
o
Issues:
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
19
2-103
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
J\iIitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Tball
Significant
Impact
II1II
II1II
o
o
No
Impact
o
o
II1II
1111
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is located within an urbanized area of southwestern Chula Vista currently served by
necessary utilities and service systems. According to the Engineering Department, no exceedance of
wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed
project.
b) According to Sweetwater Authority correspondence dated November 22,2005, an existing 18-inch water
main is located on the east side of Third A venue, and a l2-inch water main located on the north side of
Moss Street. The Authority records indicate there are three existing domestic water services, three public
fire hydrants, and two private fire services to the project site. One of the public fire hydrants and fire
services is located on private property within the Authority easement.
The proposed improvements include the abandomnent of a fire hydrant and main within that easement. If
the owner provides to the Authority written authorization from the Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD)
that the hydrant can be abandoned, the Authority does not object to the abandomnent of this
hydrant/main. Additional proposed improvements include new fire hydrants, service lines, installation of
fire sprinkler riser room, knox box and check valves on any individual fire protection systems. The
authority requires any new water services installed serving the proposed project will require the
installation of backflow prevention assemblies including a Double Check Detector Check Backflow
Assembly on any new fire protection system. As the water facility improvements are designed in
accordance with water authority standards and conditioned to meet all water quality requirements, nO
significant impacts to utility service facility systems will occur as a result of the proposed project.
c) The proposed project is subject to the NFDES General Construction Permit requirements and shall obtain
permit coverage and develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the issuance of
grading permits. The project is required to implement Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of
storm drainage systems and comp.ly with the City's Storm Water Management Requirements. See
Mitigated Negative Decloration, Section E. Refer to tho Hydrology and Water Quality Section addressiI'g
existing and proposed storm water lacilities.
d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District. Pursuant to
correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced from the existing water
mains along Third A venue and Moss Street and the applicant will need to install a service main to service
this site. The applicant will be required to install expansions to existing water facilities in compliance
with the Sweetwater Authority standards as described in Section b above.
e) See XVI.a. and b.
f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste
needs ofthe region in accordance with State law.
g) The proposal would be conditioned to comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid
waste.
Mitil1ation: See Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality
Section. The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would
mitigate identified storm water/storm drainage and water quality impacts to a level of less than significance.
2-~4
Issues:
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A)~
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet
(GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30,
2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be
phased such that the City will not fall below the city-
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
B) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain
an average response time to all "Priority One"
emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes
or less.
C) Fire and Emergencv Medieal
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fITe
and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic
The Tbreshold Standards require that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized
intersections. Signalized intersections west ofI-805 are not
to operate at a LOS be]owtheir ]991 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday
peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps
are exempted from this Standard.
2 -21 0 5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
iIII
II
..
II
Issues:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
D D D III
E) Parks and Recreation Areas
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities/J,OOO population east ofl-80S.
F) Drainage
D
o
II
o
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows
and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City
Engineering Standards.
G) Sewer 0 0 11II 0
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards.
H) Water 0 0 II 0
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatrrynt, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and
construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula
Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
2-11}6
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would
result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon
completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a
need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Thresbold
standards would occur as a result pf the proposed proj eet.
c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
provided to the project site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project,
the project will contnonte to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased
demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact No adverse impact to the City's Fire
and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E; refer to the Transportation/Circulation Section addressing project
generated traffic conditions. Based upon the review of the proposed project design and traffic study no adverse
impacts to the City's Traffic Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
e) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a commercial infill project located
west ofI-80S and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. No adverse impacts to the City's
recreational threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
f) See Mitigation Declaration, Section E. Based upon the review of the project and preliminary hydrology study,
the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant issues regarding the proposed drainage
improvements of the project site. The proposed drain system includes improvements to existing drainage system,
ir....stallation of Dew storm drain, filtration and treatment units, brow ditch, a series of inlets and piping, private
catch basins, cuI verts and cleanouts. No adverse impacts to the City's drainage threshold standards will occur os a
result of the proposed project.
g) The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Cbula Vista wastewater services area. The existing area
sewer facility system includes sewer lines along Moss A venue and Third Street. There are currently 8" PVC
sewer mains along Moss Street and Third A venue. Sewer lateral extensions into the proposed project site are
proposed to service the various lots. The applicant shall be required to submit a final sewer plan to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant is required to grant an easement to the City of Chula Vista
wastewater services for the purpose of maintenance of the proposed sewer lines. No adverse impacts to the
City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
h) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District. Pursuant to correspondence
from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced from the existing water mains along Third A venue
and Moss Street in addition to proposed new service systems designed in accordance with Sweetwater Authority
standards and required City conditions of the project. No significant impacts to existing facility systems or the
City's water threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
2-11)17
Issues:
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incrementa! effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
II
D
D
III
D
D
D
D
II
a) The project site is currently developed and located in an established urbanized area within the designated
development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. No biological resource impacts or
potential historic resources associated with the proposed project have been identified.
b) The project site has been previously disturbed with similar commercial retail land use and site improvements.
As described in the Mitigated Negative Oeclaration, sigoificannlirect project impacts would be mitigated
to below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. When the proposed project is
considered in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future
projects, no cumulative considerable impacts have been identified and none are contemplated.
c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential impacts to humans, either directly or indirectly,
associated with the short-term air quality impacts, hydrology/water quality, hazard/hazardous materials,
and noise have been mitigated to lessen any substantial adverse impacts to a level ofless than significance.
IVTItigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significance.
2....2floa
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration
IS-06-007.
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the 1ine(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-06-007), and will implement same to the satisfaction of
the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign below prior to posting of this Mitigated
Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicatetheA.pplicant and/or Operator's desire that
the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and/or Operator shall apply for
an Environmental Impact Report.
I~o *y ~'6 . :If; ~---~d/f
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
( or authorized represe
/1-/v-4"
Date
N/A
Print~d Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
N/A
Signature of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
25
2-109
XXI. ENVIRONl'dENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"
as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
o Land Use and Planning
o Populat ion and Housing
I Geology/Soils
D Agricultural Resources
II Hydrology/Water
II Air Quality
o Pale on to logical
Resources
o T ransportationlT raffi c
DBiological Resources
o Energ y and Mineral
Resources
o Public Servic es
D Utili ties and Service Systems
o Aesthet ics
lIHazards and Hazardous
Materials
o Cultur al Resources
II Noise
o Recr eation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
2-~6J 0
x,m. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed projecLmay have a significant effect on the environment,
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
/)
~~f~
Environmental Proj ts Manager
City of Chula Vista
/;1 "~/a;
J: \P lanning\lVfARlA \lni tial S tudy\Home Depo1\IS -06-007 draftcheckl ist doc
2-12171
D
II
D
D
D
.'
n
.. ~~
'0 I !', ! i
~ ~ ,..... ~ : ... If ~ .. i
;; ~ ~ h ~ ~! ~ "'~" Ii
I' ! ;'1"1'" , 1" i
1 ,'I Ij'll,li :, 'I,n ,~.
i3[~~ql~ 1~$~:2~: j"ll ;:1 ~ ~i
~ i~~IlI:!lpnU~~2~:!illll~i~ ~:
~'!1:2i~h~~2~!l~!il~Il~'l!~ ~ I;!h~!l~!2
III ~~lltllll:eii~~~:2~:; ~ ~1l2~i:g
"'I""" ~II' ~'!r,li'!!'!
.e~ ~;~i~i~l'! llli~~~~~~~~:wi
l,U ~~;:q i ~n;~~ !l1l1~~!~!l~i'"
0',. ,,! .II,..",I,."!".I,,
I!! !!!!!!!l!lj!!!!!lIIII!!II!!11
~ ~ S aa U aaU ~ aaUU8S~ S S~HU ~ a a
~8eeeesese@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
_ _ __ ~ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J1- _ -=- -- _'"_ -~"-~~ ~ ;.=-- ---'- - _-..2] llW fll
~::;:-=-~'=~~r'=~~~L-=i~~rts~~~~7~J-I'~ -' If ~~1
iT-:::-;-'II.rf1=-::::;;::"" -=-::'-1(" *~F ~==-=r~~' . ':.~ f --i~ ;
II III.~ ~" " ',Y ~ 1~11 111
!I ", I I ~~ - / I I '
:[. '~!f':'.~ ',' ~~..'l~ )1L
II 1 ai:' ~ ......",-"... ..:..;11
~ ~ :1 ". ...[....1
ii.. n-: ~ ')1'~; '1' ~ ,
J..' ( .. ..t: .I'p "k <;
i: . . .' ". I. 1: ji I Iii """: .
: [0": rill 1:;;1 ta I" ;
if I ! I \ I:. ~,_.~ ;:!,;
I (I fiLiI Hi ':1;
v i J ~ ~ J~q
\ 'I rt
-----1 II'
'c,J".. II 1,11
::'~':}-n; rfu'--{~
,i ~;~ T'\ .!L' ._.1 II
L c/' Ii I ;:L
~ei!j . f:t~L
~,ll~ 1 ;:vl I ji:t ~
;:1\ ')/ jJ+ :i~
1 Ii f' ~>/ I ~
I rp '6 ,- dE e {..oV'" 'II ~ ~ - -. -A:. r.---r--lI:
1t._'t--:---j-'-L'-6~'-=--+ , ....:.~ I fi
:t-. ~\.--.~~~" ''L 1 II I II
- -=--=> ----);"'9 ~ J . -J'"
,,""- -----~ - -- --- '~I
/' . -,,- ~'1k"-- ~,-,~"",d1<l N/.IIL
I"H-ilI1'-"W(l ".~a;:'-;~.~) .~,;..,;~;;~~ ""'~':;,~~ ilJ. In
~O..='~fj ""I4CJ'Il<li5'J -ffi:I'~L .L.-J]I
.J . ~ '1111 f-!i-
II,il ...i-!J
ltLi
,!i17 _ II.
. TTrKH/l.{e.J/
....,.
"''"'"'''''''''''"'''''
!
'l
"
h
~lI!o~
"gs~
n~~
OJ
~~ a~ ~ ~ ~
~ ';5 :it' ~ ilj~ ~:'I! ~
;;o"'!! ~~i'l~ ~t;;~ ~Ole~"
!i~~ lUg ~~~ ;~~~ i
~i~1i ~~~~ ~~~ :i~1i~ ~
,.~!i hi I !" ".,!
:j ~ ;t;;~ l!tl~ :l~~~ i
~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ da l~h ~
~ i','!l !:;,! "I'!"~ Illi !
!i! " ..i', '"'11','1.'
ii' ,'I' "!' ,>0" '.
I ~,,~~ ~~a~ ~ ~~t;;~ ~~~~ ~!i)
"'!~~ I:l~~i ~ ~..~~ ~i<>~ "'~
I ~~1ig ~~2", ~ ;;~Uli!j ~~f~ ~~
Gr
2-112
W"
0" ,
u:Hi~
"'-fl,
:J -j" !
...: IH
1I"~.i~
.}, j":;: ~
"'" -~
"
, ~
r ~
.
.
~~
O.
L.
W.
0'
.
Wo
~.
O'
z.
~~~~
>Il~o
~!" ,
" ,
u
~!
>,
81
;
g
t
!
; .
~ ~
i~ t
ii~l~
!;~l'!
.lll.
1"I!1
,-.
ilj
'!.
,
i
!lil~
1 !in
ll!lil'
,'!'!".
'~i~! i
'11,11 ~
~~ !ge ..
'.II'!
;111;
II
, ,
& :'
I
! J I
I' I
, ,..
H
.:l~
7
'"
I
~
~
w
-
-.,"~.~,
,
_ _ ..:nl1Rl)J\VEN"E
:c.,
:::\
~
f'
:t:
.s:
~
l:::
1
cA
n_-~~:FriTFr.-~r-.n':~-- - r'-n-"r..'rf'~74 I
I I I I I I i I I /
l:lllIi.
~==-~~~
~.--.
CI> ~~~,!:~~,- Scheme 'K.5'
OUTSIDE SALES & DISPLAY AREAS
L
-
-, I
"
,
,
,
,
I
.
,
I
,
,
I
,
..
I I'
,
~
I
,
,
I
if
iL
L_..
COUMERClAL
j~'.-
,
,
I
"""
~..---.................
"'~... UjlLPC.lJf.
OUIOOOR ll<SPlAYS
it..,:"";"=i':i:"'-:='i:_-
--~"""'''''i! =
~;.t;.t::r..z .:=:~
A $-.::':E".e:a:=:-
. :r..::::t"""..i:.~---
... ==:.:."::c.:;:,=':~
~...
"- ...------
--...-
WlEIJll
iIIiI C'Mf00lll\H.
6. lI&\IIW- fNIKIC
I LOll "'"
...fI/lt~(Q
-fIIlt~(Hl
""""""""
~~]:x wt5
@)
""
I
~
~
-
'----'
./>0
----
---1:1
~I
___...J
--
_ ....nu.RO.JoVENlll::
.--"----'''-.''-..ry
: n : n. I
o I
I I
I
n -,.........--..-..-...-.-.
I L.On: rtl: n: ;
I I I I I
n:~
,
I
IIIIlIi.
==-~..=~
---
<J> ~~~'=-~~o-- Scheme 'K.S'
OUTSIDE SALES & DISPLA. Y AREAS
L
1(____
I _n_
O
o
I
.
.
I
,
.
I
I
I
o
o
I
.
i
.
,
I
o
;
I
.
o
I
if
:L
l_u_
""""'""""'-
,----
.
i
..,
.-..--..............,
..lMfCo.......loLJIIIl'O-
llIJIllOOIlllJSllU'IS
r:.:=-~.i=:::=:_-
....__.p~...~::o~~
t='.-:-,:o,,;r_r.;..--
~ ==.!f":!.:a-=-
Ii =-.:-...z::..~---
t ==.:.t::lo::.!:'''::='
--
6; ..._______
--....-
l.EGEl&
- -......
i>~-
1""-
.... f'IllEHIGlClIWI1'OO
- """""0<1
-....
'riii:!i:i:!iIUW.Ul: SMlS
_.__,._'GISP\Jl
@
N
I
~
~
-
L
01
I'
,
.
i cot.IlotfRClAL
.
i
,
"
I
.
,
I'
,
i
if
.
.L
L.____
_ _ -nuROJI\Il!N' II:
fl D~Ffi:n:'--r--n :~--- r'-n-'T-- n"'-)1 I
1 I I I I I I I ,I I
/----
.
I
l:lIIlIi.
~=:~==-~
~......
(I ~~~,:.~~O"- Scheme 'K.5'
OUTSIDE SALES & DISPLAY AREAS
...
---"_.....~
",0tIt_ WUIlI'"
001000R liSl'lJoYS
"='~':'.::-=-...::=--
1it:l8.. _._..__
=-....=-~=r..:!==
--
~ =-=z=:.::'5::-
10 t:'.:=:-'..J::...-=----
10 ==':'~,.'=J::';:::
--
10 ...______
----
l.fWlll
- ...-.
"'~-
I """""
..... NEMGH:RIIlIf(()
- fIl(ltCICllWiIT(NJ
- -...
~~:~wa
@)
'-..--- ---,'
N
I
~
~
'"
-
L.
------
I'
,
i
i a'....E..CIAl
,
i
,
I.
I
,
r
,
,
I
if
lL.
L._.._
n -.....-..-..-
I L.Dn: m:n:
I I I I
n : """""'"Fl
I
I
-n-"'r'" n":-770.,
I I /
I .
,-'--
,
,
I
-
.-fl_...............
..CMlit.....!ILIlm'.
OIJIDOOR DISPlAYS
n::-":,,.::=:""-:=,..,i--
=_:e=~...~~-:::::-
:.~.n;:;r_r.._..
~ S.:=F.e.:a:=-
.. =-.::-..t:..,"=,,----
. =::":.:.u-=-,,;:=.
--
. ...------
----
I.Wll
~ C'Mf0lliJllW.
a .....,........
I .........
.. ,.~oo
.. MItHIIWif(MJ
....... ...
:~;~wa
..
::.=:.::=:-~
---
(I) ~~~,:.~~o_- Scheme 'K.5'
OUTSIDE SALES &. DISPLAY AREAS
@)
N
I
~
~
e)C!S1WG RAt PH'!Il AIM
.......
f1. ~'.r-~~F-i:"-T--.n~~ .~~ :---n-..':----n."--'/7
n. I ~ I. I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
..
z=.=-d":::'::-~
---
CI ~~,:,~~o-- Scheme 'K.5'
OUTSIDE SALES It DISPILA Y AREAS
L
i'
,
i
i
,
i
,
i
,
;
I
,
,
I
if
:L.
L
e".Il.ERCIAl
-
..... .. _... II.....
.,\MIC'''''lUL1.1Ilpt.
0IJJ1l00R DISPlAYS
r==--":"'i:::'-:=' =.:,:
"-.:e:-=...~:;n.:..-r
i:='....:.:r""'.:1o;;:;;r'-....-..
~ =-=$"='=:=-
. =-.=:-..J::..~---
. ==.:,:~.=-,.:-.-=.
--
. ...-.----
----
Llmll
-....-
6. .....,...-
I ...."'"
... AI[ WOQWljIJ 00
...fIIt~(NJ
........
)r~ ~=" SIUS
,----
,
,
I
@
'--'
N
I
~
~
00
I
,
i
if
iL.
L.._
.
rLD~-h-l:Fr.'-T-.n:':~--' ;'--fl-'-ruon"'-)4 I
I I I I I I I I I
f----
.
i
.IIIIlI;.
=.=---:=::-
---
<I> ~e.:.~~O"- Scheme 'K.S'
OUTSIDE SALES It DISPLAY AREAS
t=-=-=-~ ~t:=:.
. =-:i=:F=.::'S::-
. =-.=-0...::.-=----
. ::.s:'::'''=:==-':=.'';l
, :==-.-==---
WlEIlll
- """......
6. ........-
I""""
- flit IOOIWII 00
-,.~(l(l
_lIDO
:~~=- Wf$
e
I
I
+-
,.1/
<//i!ifl;/Zi'Zi%if%%iE
o OUTDOOR SAl.,,'" DISPLAY DETAIl. A
..........
'"
I
~
~
~__-_..'>_'_'___i_________.
....., ,.,.,. I" t
----- I
..-- , ,
B '_ ,.-.--.-
I
I
CD
._~ZZiS?~ZzlfZi%ifE%~z~wJ!!!h1if:1L~1111b"~7._
"'.!%.
~$r~
1- - .- -. 177
tJ-]
'//A
~
""
d-'}i!.Y;:;ff)(%i?~~
~%y.P
~--------_. ---
tC/Ioumonl,SAlESntSPIAYDETAIt.B
\.C:i....,.-...
@oUmOORSALE!,;OIS?I.AYDETAILG
",,",'.1..
LEGEND
SIDEWALK SALES
gzzj DISPLAY AREA WITH
ENHANCED PAVING
Y;Z.J 5' WIDE PEDESTRAJN
PATH
~ THE"HOMEOEPOT
~~"<;lt__''''\''''''E'@
M,..,:;;
Il. ChuIaVi$Ia,CA
CA-HD03-K.5
z~..~..m;
...-.....1:11
.'*'_,,~ 10;;''''.......
c"........""-"".,,
"'.........~...,.~""'~
"""""~"";"'_" ".,.<t.,.
"'-'..'~.
".,,..,.,,,,~........,,,~
"'''~''''''''
",,[;Ow ~'"-'''''''''''
:;::C~ .....
,-..~""...~,.,.-"
W~:C7"'''.""",,,r,,'.''o,,''''=''''
"'"."...........oI".."."'''~'"'~H.....,
'4"".000,""""'''0'' lOi!l;~;~U;,
"'c.~"""'."''''''''''''S.''Oli;;)'
"""""'~,~,,,.l,
P'~iMN<l.:
f'1ot&alo l'~40'-{t
1_.Dal~; 0."",,,-<;0,1.2_
p,.,.,.",~ Br. ~5p
5.D.C.:
JohnH"os..
P,I".M"".~:
{;."'~eRoi'
CUP & DR
REIOGN"","":
CHULA VISTA, CA
(KmartTakeover)
OUTDOOR DISPLAY
DETAILS
--~
a.:
o
w
o
z
<(
J:
Z
W
J:
I-
~
OOJ:C:>
<(t;z
Wa:a:
~z<(
<(0
~-oo
...JCt:0
o...l-Z
0000<(
-W-J
000
~ww
....Jo...oo
~wo
>00...
W-o
0$0:::
wino..
I Ie:
- '~ j i
I
,
,
/
,/'
/
{
l
l
1
I
/
!
/1
--
e
..;
....r
2-120
e
I'.
:..,.,.;".
"']iv'
:;j[H'
.
19.58.360
commercial purposes (this situation does not
negate the other provisions of this section).
F. If new or enlarged commercial development
occurs adjacent to .the existing dwelling units
which face a local street, a fence separating the
property shall also be constructed on the side lot
line, the length of such fence to be determined by
the director of planning. Such a fence may be of
wood construction. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1, 1971; Ord.
1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.90I(B)(35)).
19.58.360 Zoning wall or fence.
A six-foot-high minimum solid masonry wall
subject to the provisions ofCVMC 19.58.150 shall
be erecled along the property line or zoning bound-
ary to separate any C or I zones and/or uses from
adjacent residential zones. A six-foot-high maxi-
mum solid fence shall be erected along the prop-
erty line or zoning boundary to separate multiple-
family zones andlor uses from abutting single-fam-
ily residential zones or areas. Said wall or fence
may be waived by the planning commission if it is
found that the adjacent areas would be sufficiently
screened and protected without said wall or fence.
(Ord. 1356 ~ 1. 1971; Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior
code ~ 33.90I(B)(36)).
19.58.370 Outside sales and display-
Pennanent and temporary.
A. Permanent. The permanent outside sales and
display of merchandise, including vending
machines of all types and coin-operated amuse-
:nenlS, shall beper:nitted only when included as
part of an approved site plan subject to the condi-
tions herein. Service stations are subject to the pro-
visions of CYMC 19.58.280.
I. The following items shall be considered
for outside display:
a Vending machines of all types;
b. Coin-operated amusements, excluding
games such as pinball machines;
c. Vehicles of all types, including boats;
d. Magazines, newspapers and books;
e. flowers. including artificial;
f. Art displays;
g. Plants;
h. Model storage buildings, patios and
additions;
i. Any other item which is determined by
the planning commission to be of the same general
character;
j. Any other item specifically approved by
the planning commission to be displayed in an area
specifically designed for said merchandise.
2. Conditions.
a. Vending machines and coin-operated
amusements shall whenever possible be within an
enclosed area or sUllcture specifically designed to
accommodate said items;
b. The outside display shall not interfere
with pedestrian or vehicular circulation;
c. Model storage buildings, patios and
additions shall not be located in any area facing a
major or collector street. or at the main entrance to
the building;
d. Plants shall be the only items in a plant
nursery visible from the street;
e. No outside display sbaIl be of such size
or quantity as to alter the architectural appearance
of the building;
f. A lO-foot landscaped area shall be pro-
vided between vehicle display areas and the street.
Any item not located within a building or solid
enclosure shall be deemed to be outside display
and subject to the conditions herein.
3. The following merchandise shall be
expressly prohibited from outside display;
a Furniture;
b. Clothing;
c. Appliances;
d. Play equipment;
e. Dry goods;
f. Soil additives;
g. Tires, excluding service station as pro-
vided herein;
h. Used goods, except as provided herein.
. B. Temporary. Temporary outside. .ales and
display of merchandise for a period of 24 days in
any calendar year, but not exceeding seven consec-
utive days. shall he permitted upon approval of a
temporary outside sales permit by the zoning
administrator. Not more than six permits a year
shall be issued to anyone business or shopping
complex. Each such permit shall be accompanied
by the required filing fee(s).
Upon application for a permit. the applicant
shall submit two site plans showing the location of
the proposed outside sales area The plan shall
include sufficient information to insure that the dis-
play and sales will be conducted in a safe and
proper manner and will not obstrUct traffic or cause
a hazardous condition based on the standards
adopted by the city. The permit sball designate the
commencement and termination dates.
1. Other Required Conditions.
a The application sbaIl be submitted for
approval a minimum of two days prior to the
requested date of commencement.
/i ITA c:.. H IV( t ,() T 9
19-1~121
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
-.
.
ChuIa Vista Municipal Code
] 9.58.400
b. There shall be a minimum of 30 days
between the commencement dates of the permit.
c_ Temporary outside sales are prohibited
in the CoO, CoN and C-V zones.
d. The sales area shall maintain a 25-foot
setback from the street when within an area desig.
nated for parking.
e. The sales area may utilize a panion of
required parking to a maximum of 20 percent.
f. The sales area shaJJ not interfere with
the internal circulation of the site.
g. Pennants may be used only for safety
and precautionary purposes.
h. The sales area shall be kept in a neat
and well-kept manner at aJJ times.
i. Price signs may be used but shall not
exceed 12 by 16 inches. '
j. Other signs may be allowed subject to
zoning administrator approval. Said signs shaJJ not
exceed two square feet of lineal street frontage of
the sales area.
k. Promotional items allowed in conjunc-
tion with a special even~ such as annive~aries and
grand openings, are not subject to the provisions
herein except when an outside sales permit is
requested.
I. Only merchandise customarily sold on
the premises shall be considered for temporary ou[-
side sales and display. (Ord. 2506 ~ I, 1992; Ord.
2011 !i 2,1982; Ord. ]436 !i3, 1973; Ord.1356 !iI,
197]; Ord. 1212 ~ I, 1969; prior code ~ 33.901
(B)(37)).
19.58.380 SpeCial events.
A. Any business may request a permit for the
use of temporary promotional signs and promo-
tional items in conjunction with the following spe-
cial events: grand openings, change of business
address, change of ownership or lessee, and busi.
ness anniversaries. If a business is part ofa parent
organization, the anniversary of the parent com-
pany may be used in lieu of the business anniver-
sary during the calendar year.
B. The maximum time limit for a special event
shall not exceed 14 consecutive days.
C. The applicant shaJJ submit a statement stat-
ing the reason for the special event and indicating
the commencement and ending date. The applicant
shall also submit a site plan indicating the location
and area of signs and location of promotional
items. Each permit shall also be accompanied by
the required filing feelS).
D. Promotional items are subject to the follow-
ing approval:
1. They may not be located in the from set-
back;
2. They shall not interfere with internal cir-
culation or eliminate required parking;
3. They shall not be indiscriminately placed
or be of such quantity as to present a cluttered and
unsightly appearance.
E. Pennants may only be used in conjunction
with grand openings and change of ownership or
lessee.
F. The planning department shaJJ issue to the
applicant a special event permi~ upon approval of
the applicant'5 request. The reason for the special
event shall be conspicuously di5played on a sign
for the duration of the event. (Ord. 2506 !i l, 1992;
Ord. 201 I ~ ], ]982; Ord. 1436 ~ 3, 1973; Ord.
1356 ~ I, 1971; Ord. 12]2 ~ I, 1969; prior code
~ 33.901(B)(38)).
19.58.390 Senior housing development.
Pursuant to CVMC 19.54.020, housing develop-
ments for setriors. as defmed in CYMe 19.04.20],
may be allowed in any zone except the R-I, R-2,
C- V, C. T and industrial zones. Because the resi-
dents of 5uch development have dwelling charac-
teristics which differ from those of families and
younger persons, it is not appropriate to apply aJJ of
the normal zoning standards thereto. Accordingl y,
pursuant to the processing of a conditional use per-
mit for such developments, as required by CVMC
19.54.020(P), the planning commission and city
council may make exceptions to the density, off-
street parking, minimum unit size, open space, and
5uch other requirements as may be appropriate. The
planning commission and city council may also
adjust required setbacks, building height, and yard
areas as appropriate to provide an adequate living
environment both within the development and on
nearby propenies. Any exceptions and adjustments
shall be subject to the condition that the deve]op-
ment will be available for occupancy by seniors
only. (On;U878!i 3, 1979).
19.58.400 Recreational vehicle storage yards.
An application to establish a recreational vehi-
cle (RV) storage yard (storage area for motor-
homes, camping trailers, bOals and other recreation
equipment) shaJJ address the following issues: (1)
height limit for 5tOred items, (2) screening (land-
5caping and fencing), (3) surfacing, (4) access to
the site, (5) office facilities, (6) customer parking,
(7) lighting, (8) hours of operation, (9) security,
(10) signing, (II) surrounding land uses and 5trUC-
ture5. The application 5hall also be accompanied
19t~122
(Revised 1/(4)
DRAFT
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
December 4, 2006
Ken Lee Building Conference Room
430 'F' Street
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER by Chair Reid at 4:30 p.m.
ROLL CALUMOTION TO EXCUSE
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Doug Reid, Vice-Chair Stanley Jasek, Commissioners Eric
Mosolgo, Georgie Stillman, Lynda Gilgun and Richie Macias
MSC (Jasek/Stillman) to excuse Commissioner Brett Davis. Vote: (6-0)
STAFF PRESENT:
Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager
Brendan Reed, Environmental Resource Manager
Maria Muett, Associate Planner
Steve Power, Environmental Projects Manager
Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner
Michael Meacham, Conservation & Environmental Services
Director
Roman Partida-Lopez, Intern - Energy Conservation Fund
Luis Hernandez, Development Planning Manager
Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner
Jim Newton, Sr. Civil Engineer
Linda Bond, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Ziebarth, Ziebarth Associates, 2800 Fourth Avenue, #204,
San Diego, CA 92102
Teresa Acerro, 3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista
Pamela Bensoussan, 616 Second Avenue, Chula Vista
Mair Nae, 345 Moss Street, Chula Vista
Earl Jentz, 397-A Third Avenue, Chula Vista
Total of 11 public attendees
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 6,2006
MSC (Stillman/Jasek) to approve the minutes of November 6,2006. Vote: (5-0-1-1) with
Reid abstaining and Davis absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
DRAFT
2-123
. .,. A '.'\ ,).:'/-- /.-'-
A rTACl""v,c : {U
DRAFT
RGG Minutes
- 2-
December 4, 2006
NEW BUSINESS
1. Presentation on the Chula Vista NatureScape Program
Mr. Brendan Reed (Environmental Resource Manager) presented an overview of the
NatureScape Program, a community-based initiative promoting nature friendly landscaping
and gardening. Residents can have their yardlgarden certified as an official National Wildlife
Federation backyard habitat. Mr. Reed discussed the goals, what NatureScapes are,
backyard habitat certification and community certification. The first workshop is scheduled
for the end of February 2007.
Commission Comments
Commissioner Mosolgo asked the following questions:
. Will there be a schedule for emptying rain barrels?
. How will you increase the awareness between yards and open space?
Staff satisfactorily provided information to the Commissioners' questions.
2. 15-06-007 -- Home Depot, 1030 Third Avenue
Mr. John Ziebarth (Ziebarth Associates, 2800 Fourth Avenue, #204, San Diego, GA 92102)
described the proposed project and architecture.
Ms. Maria Muett (Associate Planner) presented an overview of the proposed project and
identified potential environmental effects.
Commission Comments
Commissioner Stillman questioned the sentence regarding Level of Service "D" at the
bottom of page 4 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Gilgun asked if any responses had been received from the public noticing.
Commissioner Mosolgo requested that staff provide larger site plans in the packets from
now on. He had the following questions and concern:
. What type of drainage control will be provided for the outside garden center?
. Is the storm drain at the site at capacity?
. He would like the plan to incorporate more bio-swales.
Public Comments
Ms. Teresa Acerro (3730 Festival Court, Chula Vista, CA 91911) presented a PowerPoint
presentation showing disturbing outside storage conditions at other Home Depots. She
stated that a different alternative such as rotating the building should be considered because
the noise from the numerous delivery trucks would have a significant impact on the many
DRAFT
2-124
DRAFT
RGG Minutes
- 3 -
December 4. 2006
residences to the west and the hospital to the south. The delivery area/loading docks should
be further away from the people. Ms. Acerro indicated that she had a petition signed by
many of the residents.
Commission Comments ICont'd)
Commissioner Stillman indicated that she had problems regarding air quality and noise.
Commissioner Macias felt that anything you do, there is going to be problems.
Commissioner Mosolgo had the following concerns:
. He felt that there would be a queuing problem on Third Avenue because of more
traffic.
. On page 7 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commissioner Mosolgo indicated
the last paragraph under Hydrology and Water Quality seemed very confusing.
Staff provided information and clarification to the Commissions' questions and concerns.
MSC (Jasek/Macias) that the RCC find the Initial Study adequate and recommend
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. Vote: (5-1-0-1) with Gilgun
opposed and Davis absent.
Commissioner Gilgun made a motion to look at other alternatives to mitigate noise.
After some discussion, she withdrew her motion.
MS (Stillman/Gilgun) that the RCC recommend that the Design Review Committee
consider repositioning the location of the building so it backs up against Third
Avenue and faces west.
Discussion
Commissioner Stillman stated that it is a moral opportunity that we see that the noise and air
standards be applied.
Vice-Chair Jasek stated that the applicant has gone far and above. What the applicant has
planned is going to be a significant improvement in comparison to what is there now. Vice
Chair Jasek suggested that the City could improve their code enforcement for existing Home
Depots. He also stated that this would likely reduce the impacts that Commissioner Stillman
is thinking about trying to minimize by design. Vice Chair Jasek further stated that it was
unfortunate that this item came before the RCC at a time in the process when it is not
economically sound to require a redesign. He suggested that possibly the City could
consider bringing projects to the RCC for input earlier in the process. Mr. Jasek concluded
that the CEQA document was, however, adequate.
Vote tied: (3-3-0-1) with Reid, Jasek and Macias opposed and Davis absent.
DRAFT
2-125
DRAFT
RCC Minutes
-4-
December 4. 2006
Mr. Luis Hernandez (Development Planning Manager) stated that the vote could be
appealed to the Planning Commission.
Vice-Chair Jasek left the meeting at 5:54 p.m.
3. Overview of the Historic Preservation Implementation Program
Ms. Tessitore-Lopez (Associate Planner) presented an overview of the Historic Preservation
Program Framework and Work Program Methodology that staff is taking forward to the City
Council on December 19, 2006. Ms. Tessitorie-Lopez stated that she would be coming back
to the RCC at a later date asking them to appoint a representative and an alternate to the ad
hoc interim Historic Preservation Committee. This ad hoc Committee would be established
until the formation of the permanent Historic Preservation Committee.
Commission Comments
Chair Reid asked if the proposed historic survey might have different levels of detail.
Commissioner Mosolgo stated that it would be great if there were a level of historic
significance attached to the framework.
Commissioner Gilgun stated that the proposed program would standardize the process so
people would know what is required.
Commissioner Stillman had concerns regarding the interim Historic Preservation Committee
in the proposal. She stated that the interim committee should be comprised of members who
the certified local government considers certified qualified. Staff should adhere to the criteria
of members appointed to the special advisory committee. At the moment, staff has the RFP
going out before the interim committee is selected. Commissioner Stillman thought that the
interim committee should provide input on the scope for the RFP.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS MANAGER COMMENTS: Ms. Marisa Lundstedt
(Environmental Projects Manager) stated that there would be an RCC meeting on December
18, 2006.
CHAIR COMMENTS: Chair Reid requested that an updated roster be provided to the RCC
members.
DRAFT
2-126
DRAFT
RCC Minutes
- 5 -
December 4. 2006
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilgun updated the Commissioners on what was discussed at the last
Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting. The meeting was about cleaning up the
Bayfront Brown Field site in Southwest Chula Vista property. The next meeting of the RAC is
scheduled for Thursday, December 44 1.. 2006.
Commissioner Mosolgo read about the major clean up and abatement on the Bayfront. He
requested a presentation before the RCC regarding water quality sampling for the Bay.
Mr. Earl Jentz (397-A Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910) had a question about the RFP and
indicated that he was interested in the Historic Preservation Program.
ADJOURNMENT: Chair Reid adjourned the meeting at 6:31 p.m. to a regular meeting on
Monday, December 18, 2006, at 4:30 p.m. in the Ken Lee Building Conference Room, 430 "F"
Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Prepared by:
Linda Bond
Recording Secretary
(J:IPlanningIRCC\2006\RCC120406Mins)
DRAFT
2-127
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
After the close of the public review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-06-007),
the City received additional comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073,
the City is only required to respond to comments received during the 30-day public
comment period that ran from November 13, 2006 to December 15, 2006. In an effort
to be fully responsive the City has prepared responses to late comments. The following
summary contains the major comments and staff responses.
1. Comment e-mail from Theresa Acerro. received December 25. 2006
Comment:
Look at Page 14 in the Air Report: "Because the project will include retail and
restaurant uses, Project-related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture
of vehicle in accordance with the EMFAC2002 model outputs for traffic. This
assumption includes light duty autos and light duty trucks as well as medium and
heavy duty vehicles that may be traveling to the facility to make deliveries or as
business customers with larger vehicles." Obviously this is why their figures
seem so low. They ran the model based upon the wrong assumptions for vehicle
traffic. The project obviously does not include retail and restaurant and their
assumption makes no sense for a HD. As I said in previous comments 8,350
ADTs for the restaurant and the K-Mart makes absolutely no sense either. The
restaurant was converting to a Chinese restaurant that would have ADT of
89/1,000 sqft or 943.4 ADT plus K-Mart's measured 4,870 or a total of 5,813.4 if
the restaurant ever opened. This is no where near 8,350 claimed in report and
less than the underestimated total for HD of 6,020. 7,740 is more likely figure for
HD, since 60 ADT is what EI Cajon store has. The H Street store is not a very
busy store, and traffic was measured week before Thanksgiving in middle of
week-not their prime time. Home depot admits to 30 of their own trucks a day
plus contractor and vendor trucks. This is figure that needs to be used.
Staff Response:
Your comments have been noted. The statement regarding a mix of retail and
restaurant uses was a typographical error and has been corrected in the air
quality report. The correction does not affect the number or type of trips
generated or the emission estimates in the air quality analysis as that is based on
data from the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Detailed analysis of the impacts of trucks both during construction and during
operation was performed. The number of estimated construction trucks is
identified on page 18 of the air quality report. The number of operational trucks
ATTACHMENT 11
2-128
is addressed on page 19 of the air quality report. Thirty operational trucks is the
maximum in a day with an average of 115 trucks per week.
The analysis was conducted based on emission factors generated by the ARB's
approved EMFAC2002 model. The EMFAC2002 model is the model that is
required for use by the ARB for estimating emissions from motor vehicles. That
model provides emissions for the mix of vehicles that is on the road during
specific years evaluated. The calculations in the EMFAC2002 model
demonstrate that emissions decrease in the future due to improved emission
standards and phase-out of older vehicles is based on guidelines that are
approved by the ARB and is not an assumption used for this study alone. It
should be noted that the emissions presented in Table 6 are based on the year
2008 and do not take into account future years with improved emission standards
and phase-out of higher polluting vehicles after the year 2008. Thus the analysis
is more conservative and a worse case scenario.
In addition, in order to obtain a trip generation rate based upon an actual Home
Depot operation, traffic counts were conducted at the existing Home Depot store
located on East H Street in Rancho Del Rey. A trip generation rate of 46.7 trips per
thousand square-feet of store area was derived based upon field data. This trip
generation number was then applied to the proposed Home Depot store on 3rd
Avenue. The trip generation rate is more conservative than the trip generation
rate noted in the SANDAG trip generation table which has a trip generation rate
for a home improvement super store of 40 trips per thousand square-feet of floor
area.
Permitted and constructed uses on the site as it presently exists, would result in
8,350 trips. The 8,350 ADT comes from the 118,000 square-foot K Mart at 60
ADT/1000 s.f. and 10,600 s.f. of restaurant at 120 ADT/ 1000 s.f. These trip
generation coefficients are based upon the SANDAG trip generation table. The
traffic generation numbers noted on Page 14 of the traffic study were provided for
comparative purposes. The traffic calculations for the site used to determine
traffic impacts were based upon the actual operation of the K Mart store. Trips
associated with the closed restaurant were not figured into the trip generation
rate for the project.
2. Comment e-mail from Theresa Acerro, received December 25. 2006
Comment:
Having reviewed the Noise Report again and reread the staff letter to the
applicant dated 3/15/06 I realize that there are a few more flaws in the report.
The staff letter states: "Discuss any potential noise impacts to the nearby multi-
2
ATTACHMENT 11
2-129
family second story residential dwellings. The acoustical analysis shall
demonstrate that second-and-third floor interior (my emphasis) noise levels due
to exterior noise sources would be below the 45 CNEL standard." The noise
report does not mention interior noise levels at all. It concerns itself with exterior
only. This is a glaring oversight. Considering that the 15- foot noise wall will only
get exterior noise upstairs down to 59 decibels (page 10), it seems unlikely this
standard is met.
It is troubling the way they shop around for information using 70 decibels at 50
feet (page 7) from Mount Carmel Ranch for proposed EI Cajon store, which is
questionable data because there is an EI Cajon store that would have been more
similar and provided more accurate data for that report, but using octave band
from Torrance. The Mount Carmel study modeled for receptors that were at 155
feet away according to the Appendix. The Moss Villas has receptors at less than
30 feet unless all the trucks and equipment are confined to the 15 feet next to the
west wall of the building at all times. This seems unlikely to me. The new wall is
only 20 feet from the east side of some of the condos. The driveway appears to
be 45 feet wide that leaves 15 feet for the trucks, forklifts and lumber to
maneuver in if they are going to stay 50 feet away from the condos, whose
private space includes the 4 and a half feet from their east wall to the concrete
wall. How wide is a semi-truck?
Another quote: "Short-term construction noise impacts to nearby sensitive noise
receptors (the surrounding multifamily residential units) must be identified and
included in the noise analysis Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code" There is no mention in the noise report of construction
noise at all. There is also the exclusion of the sensitive receptors at Bayview
Behavioral Center from the list of those who must be considered. This could be
very significant since there will be no noise walls and 32 trucks a day plus heavy
equipment will be in operation for 8 or more hours per day for six days per week
for 34 weeks. (I am assuming our Municipal Code regulates the amount of noise
allowed during the day in construction zones, not just forbidding it at night. I
would also argue that there is nothing short-term about 34 weeks.)
Staff Response:
The applicable noise threshold is the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance. The
noise ordinance measures sound relative to Leq, not CNEL. Standard
construction mitigates sound by 15 - 20 dBs. Thus, bringing interior sound to 45
dB Leq.
Various data source comments noted. As noted in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, a noise study was completed by a qualified professional. Existing
ATTACHMENT 11
2-130
Home Depots were modeled and analyzed. The noise study indicated that the
noise from truck operations would be below city standards with the proposed
mitigation. No significant unmitigated noise impacts were identified to occur after
mitigation.
Additionally, in order to obtain noise generation activities and back-of store
operations, based upon an actual Home Depot store located at existing Home
Depot stores including EI Cajon, Torrance and Mount Carmel Ranch. Lumber
and other building materials are off-loaded from the same flat-bed trucks at both
locations in similar quantity, both stores have similar loading docks, both stores
use similar cardboard compactors and have emergency generators, both stores
use similar HVAC systems. The Mount Carmel Ranch noise data was used
because it was considered representative, and had been monitored whereas the
EI Cajon store had not. The Carmel Ranch data was supplemented with the
Torrance measurements for certain activities not separately monitored. The
differences in source-receiver distance and any barrier effects were explicitly
modeled using standard noise propagation protocols since no two sets of
situations are identical. The location of the unloading is determined by the
location of the unloading pad, which is a hardened concrete slab designed for
trucks to park and not block the alley for other traffic. The location of the
unloading is therefore confined by the pad location. A semi-truck is 8 feet wide,
the unloading occurs from both sides of the truck, one side directly into the sales
building, the other side staged along the building for placement after the truck
leaves. The assumed source-receiver distance at Chula Vista is reliable and
representative of back-of-store operations at most Home Depot stores.
Construction noise is exempt from numerical noise ordinance (Municipal Code)
standards compliance as long as the noise is generated during hours of lesser
noise sensitive (weekday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). Through compliance with these
time limits, construction noise was presumed mitigated to less-than-significant,
and not further evaluated in the noise study. The operational activity noise
exposure to the Bayview Behavioral Center was assumed equivalent to the
levels calculated at the adjacent single family uses north of Moss Street which
were determined to be within acceptable levels. The statement that 32 trucks will
operate 8 hours per day for 34 weeks during construction is a misrepresentation
of sequential construction activities where activity peaks during demolition or
pouring of foundations are interspersed with lesser intensity periods. Once the
store walls are up, much of the activity will be shielded from direct view.
Maximum construction activity intensity will not occur unabated for 34 weeks as
suggested in this comment, which disputes the short-term nature of commercial
construction.
4
ATTACHMENT 11
2-131
3. Comment e-mail from Theresa Acerro. received December 27.2006
Comment:
The Noise ordinance says all residential except multifamily has a day maximum
of 55 and a night of 45. It seems quite unfair that multifamily has been singled out
for 60 and 50 and a bit confusing. The Marasella villas proposed for Ada are
called attached single family dwelling units in the MND. They are town homes or
condos. Which category would they fall in?
What besides single family detached homes is the ordinance refering to when it
says all residential? I believe that condos are single family attached homes,
because each family owns its own seperate unit. They should be considered in
the all residential category, not the multifamily exception. Marsella villas are now
R2, but Moss Villas are R3, but they are not apartments they are single family
attached dwellings. Calling them multifamily implies they are apartments, which
they are not. They should fall under the stricter standard.
If the council is the body that has the final say on the interpretation of ordinances
I would request that they clarify this issue in favor of condominium residents who
do not live in multifamily buildings, but single family attached homes. Multifamily
is meant to describe apartments.
Staff Response:
Comments noted. The abutting property to the west is zoned multi-family
residential. The multi-family zone has threshold of 60 dB Leq was applied. This
is the same threshold that was applied to that particular project when it was
analyzed for noise impacts a few years ago.
4. Comment e-mail from Bettie Lupi. received December 31.2006
Comment:
From: baccv@aol.com [mailto:baccv@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 31,200610:57 AM
To: CurrentPlanning
Subject: Planning & Building Contact Form
The following information has been received:
Division: Planning Commission
First Name: Bettie
Last Name: Lupi
Email: baccv@aol.com
ATTACHMENT 11
2-132
Message: The proposal to locate the Home Depot positioned parallel to the
alley & facing apartments for the old Kmart loaction on Third Ave. is not
environmentally sound.
When creatijng these plans, especially ones with long term mpact, we need
to be proactive. We need to consider what we are negetively causing &
make those changes while in the planning stages. NOT AFTER THE FACT.
Please reconsider all the issues involved & make educated choices to keep
to a minimum the problems that will arise if current plans go forth.
Staff Response:
Comments noted. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070:
A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in
light of the whole record before the agency, that the project
may have a substantial effect on the environment, or
b) The initial study identified potentially significant effects, but:
1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the
applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial
study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the
agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Substantial evidence has been included and relied upon in the initial study that
demonstrates that the project as mitigated will not have a substantial impact
upon the environment. Therefore, in accordance with state law a mitigated
negative declaration has been prepared.
Technical studies have been prepared by qualified experts that show all impacts
associated with the project for such issue areas as noise, air quality, drainage,
water quality, and traffic are mitigated to a level of less than significant. Public
Resources Code section 21080 (e) states that "...substantial evidence includes
fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported
by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative." No substantial evidence of a potentially significant
environmental impact associated with the project has been submitted. Public
6
ATTACHMENT 11
2-133
Resources Code Section 21080.2(c) states that public comments that are not
based upon a specific factual foundation (expert opinion) do not constitute
substantial evidence of an environmental impact.
5. Comment (e-mail) letter from Teresa Acerro, received January 20, 2007
Comment:
According to the Air Quality consultant, the reference to an article in The Voice of
San Diego published January 2, 2007; entitled "A Toxic Air Inventory" shows that
the 91911 zip code has 30,287 Ibs. of toxic pollution in the air (ih highest in the
County) while the county's average is only 7,975. Top emitters of pollutants were
listed according to the article by zip code.
Staff Response:
The commenter cites as one of her main references an article in the Voice of San
Diego published on January 2, 2007, entitled "A Toxic Air Inventory." A review of
the article indicates that the data published in the article are highly suspect. The
article allows a link to a list of the "Top emitters of criteria pollution..... and "Top
emitters of toxic pollution..... in a given zip code. When 91911 was entered, the
list of "top emitters of criteria pollution" listed in the link began with Roman's
Truck Body & Paint. A review of the APCD's data for that facility indicated that
the Roman's Truck Body & Paint facility emitted 0.904 tons per year of reactive
organic gases in the year 1997, the last year for which data were available on the
District's online inventory. By comparison the South Bay Power Plant (also in the
91911 zip code), which reported emissions of 38.71 tons per year of reactive
organic gases is not on the list of top emitters in the 91911 zip code. The Voice
of San Diego article does not appear to cite correct or current data and is not a
reliable source on which to base decisions on this project. Moreover, the study
does not specifically address air quality impacts associated with the Project.
Comment:
It is a scientific fact that 70% of all cancer caused by toxic air contaminants can
be traced to diesel exhaust. Long term exposure to diesel exhaust is associated
with a 40% increase in lung cancer. This makes it critical that the Air Quality and
Health Risk Assessments be based upon the maximum number of trucks per
week rather than an average, which underestimates the impacts. It also means
that the thresholds should be lower in the 91911 zip code.
Staff Response:
The statement "It is a scientific fact that 70% of all cancer caused by toxic air
contaminants can be traced to diesel exhaust", is not substantiated by studies,
references or data that can be reviewed or upon what it is based upon. As to
7
ATTACHMENT 11
2-134
other similar comments regarding health risks such as "".Iong term exposure to
diesel exhaust is associated with a 40% increase in lung cancer--" according to
the California Air Resources Board, "Over 30 human epidemiological studies
have investigated the potential carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust. These studies,
on the average, found that long-term occupational exposures to diesel exhaust
were associated with a 40 percent increase in the relative risk of lung cancer.
The lung cancer findings are consistent and the association is unlikely to be due
to chance. These epidemiological studies strongly suggest a causal relationship
between occupational diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer." (California Air
Resources Board, Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on THE REPORT ON
DIESEL EXHAUST as adopted at the Panel's April 22, 1998, Meeting). Thus,
according to the California Air Resources Board, the increase in lung cancer risk
is specific to occupational exposure to diesel exhaust.
In addition, the air quality model was rerun with 158 trucks per week instead of
115. The results indicated the cancer risk at the nearest receptor (multifamily to
the west) would increase to 1.47 in a million, and the chronic hazard index would
be 0.000922. Both of these results are still well below the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District's air toxics significance thresholds of 10 in a million for
excess cancer risk and 1.0 for chronic hazard. According to the health risk
calculations conducted for the Home Depot, the maximum excess cancer risk
due to inhalation of DPM for the maximum exposed sensitive receptor were
predicted to be 1.07 in a million, based upon the assumption that a resident
would live at that location for 70 years.
Comment:
CEQA requires an analysis of anything that might be an impact. Using an
average does not do this. The Health Risk Assessment specifically requires an
analysis of the greatest possible impact. The HRA also uses a 70-year cancer
risk assuming that the risk goes down over the years it should be based upon
worse case 2008. The report underestimates the risks by making assumptions
that mayor may not occur in the future. This is clearly not allowed by CEQA the
analysis needs to be based upon what is currently occurring now.
Staff Response:
The risk assessment that was conducted for the proposed project was done in
accordance with the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessments latest guidelines for addressing potential health risks associated
with exposure to toxic air contaminants. Diesel particulate has been identified by
the State of California as a toxic air contaminant, and the health effects,
according to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
include carcinogenic risk and chronic long-term risk. There has been no
determination by the State of California that shorter-term exposures cause
ATTACHMENT 11
2-135
adverse health effects, and the State has not issued guidelines on addressing
short-term exposures to diesel particulate. The Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment guidelines indicate that excess cancer risks are presented in
terms of an increased probability of cancer over a lifetime (70-year) exposure
period. The commenter indicates that the maximum number of trucks per week
should be used to assess risk; however, because excess cancer risk calculations
are based on evaluating increased probability of an individual contracting cancer
over a lifetime of exposure, the long term average, rather than short term peak,
exposure should be evaluated. Thus, it is appropriate to use the average truck
trips over a 70-year lifetime exposure period rather than using peak trips to
assess long-term risk or impacts.
The exposure period used for evaluation of emissions was over a 70-year period.
The comment issue argued that the health risk assessment should be based on
the year 2008. The fact is that excess cancer risk is calculated as a probability
that an individual will contract cancer due to exposure to toxic air pollution over a
70-year exposure period. Because excess cancer risk calculations are based on
evaluating increased probability of an individual contracting cancer over a lifetime
of exposure, the long term average, rather than short term peak is appropriate to
evaluate the emissions that would occur over the 70-year period. It should be
noted that the risk assessment analysis are conservative or taken as worse-case
scenarios for the following reasons: first, the assumption that the risk
assessment is for an individual remaining in the same location (point of maximum
exposure) for 70 years, without ever changing locations, and secondly, the
emissions are calculated based upon diesel emission factors for 2010 through
2040 (the EMFAC2002 model does not provide emissions factors for years
subsequent to 2040, therefore it was assumed that the emissions would remain a
constant for the period 2040 through 2080 and no additional improvements in
emissions were assumed. Finally, the model does not assume any improvement
in emissions over the 70-year period for truck idling; thus the truck idling
emission factors remain constant over the exposure period and do represent a
worse case emission scenario.
Diesel technology and new standards for diesel fuels to reduce emissions from
diesel engines have been implemented and are regulatory requirements in the
state of California. It is anticipated, with programs to reduce diesel particulate
adopted by the California Air Resources Board, that further reductions will be
experienced and thus it is appropriate to use emission factors that are
representative of the entire 70-year period of exposure, not 2008. Furthermore,
the health risk assessment is extremely conservative because the EMFAC model
does not take into account these emission improvements in its idling emission
factors.
9
ATTACHMENT 11
2-136
Comment:
Statement that the health risk assessment did not evaluate benzene and other
toxic chemicals in diesel exhaust.
Staff Response:
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's unit risk factor of 3 x
10-4 (lJg/m3r1 and chronic reference exposure level of 0.5 for diesel particulate
exposure are based upon the mix of toxic air pollutants contained within diesel
exhaust. It is designed to account for exposure to the components of diesel
exhaust, including benzene and other toxic chemicals. According to the
SCAOMD CEOA Handbook in Section 10, Table 10-2, facilities where benzene
would potentially be associated with risks would include gas stations, refineries,
organic chemical manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and food processing where
substantial emissions of benzene could occur due to the type of operation.
Benzene is generally not a typical pollutant of concern at retail locations.
Comment:
A project can have significant cumulative impacts even though the project
complies with thresholds of significance in an approved plan or mitigation
program.
Staff Response:
Neither the traffic, noise, nor the air quality reports found a cumulative significant
impact. Traffic found the traffic volume below the allowable traffic volume for the
existing buildings on the site. Thus cumulative traffic impacts would be reduced.
There is no increase in cumulative air impacts due to the reduction of traffic even
after factoring in any increase in truck volumes. Further the current drive distance
to a Home Depot will be reduced, which will reduce exhaust in the air basin. The
reduction of traffic at sensitive traffic volume intersections will also reduce
contribution to cumulative impacts on the air basin. Thus, the Project will not add to
the cumulative levels of air pollution. The commentator states, "Even chronic, low-
level traffic noise at 50-60 dB can adversely affect children." The accuracy of 1978
study cited by the commentator is questionable when considering the average
decibel level of a human voice talking is approximately 60 -65 dB. Chula Vista in
1985 adopted Ordinance No. 2101 adding Section 19.68 to the Municipal code
entitled "Performance Standards and Noise Control." The applicable noise
standard for multi-family residential zone in the municipal code between 7 a.m. and
10 p.m. is 60 dB LEO. Other agencies such as Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 24, Part 51,
"Environmental Criteria Standards" establish land use guidelines of DNL 65 dB as
acceptable. The noise thresholds utilize for this study is the lead agencies criteria.
The mitigation measure will achieve this level by requiring deliveries to occur
10
ATTACHMENT 11
2-137
between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise level at the closest single-family homes
across Moss Street will be well below the single-family residential standard of 55
dB LEQ between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise report included cumulative noise
analysis as well as near term noise and found neither to be significant. With the
resultant mitigation measures the noise impacts on surrounding uses will be
lessened below the current impacts. The reports do not rely on de minimus criteria
for cumulative impacts.
Comment:
Thresholds of Significance applicability. How many trucks per week would be
necessary to exceed the Threshold of Significance?
Staff Response:
According to the health risk calculations conducted indicate the maximum excess
cancer risk due to inhalation of DPM for the maximally exposed residential receptor
were predicted to be 1.07 in a million, based upon the assumption that a resident
would live at that location for 70 years. The significance threshold, based upon the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District's air toxics notification threshold, would be
10 in a million excess cancer risk. The risk calculations were based on average of
115 trucks per week; thus to exceed the threshold, it would require 9.345 times the
number of trucks per week to travel to the Home Depot or 1,075 trucks per week.
In another comment, the commenter indicated that the 158 weekly truck trips
should be used versus the average of 115 weekly truck trips should be used to
assess potential health risks. While it is appropriate to use average operations to
estimate long-term risks, the HARP model was rerun based on this scenario. The
cancer risk at the nearest receptor (the apartments just to the west behind the
building) would increase to 1.47 in a million, and the chronic hazard index would be
0.000922. Both of these results are still well below the significance thresholds of
10 in a million for excess cancer risk and 1.0 for chronic hazard.
Comment:
Statement that the single-family threshold level of 55dB LEQ will be exceeded
even with a 15-foot high wall.
Staff Response:
The adjacent uses to the west were approved as multi-family, not single family,
and are located in the R3 - Apartment Residential zone and designated RH -
Residential High (18-27 dwelling units! acre) on the City's General Plan. The noise
study by Douglas Eilar & Associates and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Moss Street Townhomes Case No. IS-01-09, that its approval was based on, was
for multi-family development. Chula Vista in 1985 adopted Ordinance No. 2101
adding Section 19.68 to the Municipal code entitled "Performance Standards and
II
ATTACHMENT 11
2-138
Noise Control." The applicable noise standard for multi-family residential zone in
the municipal code between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. is 60 dB LEO. The mitigation
measure will achieve this level by requiring deliveries to occur between 7 a.m. and
10 p.m. The noise level at the closest single-family homes across Moss Street will
be well below the single-family residential standard of 55 dB LEO between 7 a.m.
and 10 p.m.
Comment:
There is also no analysis of the impact of the noise of 115 (average) per week
trucks on the patients and residents in the hospital and apartments they will pass in
the current plan is adopted.
Staff Response:
The proposed project will not measurably increase the noise exposure at the Moss
Street homes, apartments, nor the Bayview Behavioral Center, nor will it cause
City noise exposure thresholds to be exceeded.
Comment:
Unloading will not be confined to only the unloading pad and will not be adequately
screened by a 15-foot high screen wall.
Staff Response:
The unloading area is defined by a reinforced concrete pad that can accommodate
the weight of loaded trucks parked for the duration of the unloading process and
minimize maintenance of paving due to unloading operation. The pad will be in
front of the receiving door so that as much of the material as possible can be
unloaded from the receiving door side and placed directly into the warehouse. A
15-foot high acoustical wall screens this unloading area. This will also screen even
the second story residential from the noise. The noise will be below the thresholds
identified in the previous response.
Comment:
Some unloading will occur closer than 50 feet to off-site receivers.
Staff Response:
The unloading activities of the far side of the truck will go directly into the
warehouse. The contents of the truck will screen the unloading process from the
side nearest the warehouse door, and the greater distance will offset any effects of
unloading on the side away from the door. The total noise generator is the
midpoint of all activities as was assumed in this case.
12
ATTACHMENT 11
2-139
Comment:
Noise levels of 50-60dBA are unhealthy, and raise blood pressure, raise heart
rates, etc.
Staff Response:
The normal decibel level of the human voice talking is approximately 60 dB. As
indicated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Response To Comments, a noise
study was completed for the proposed project in order to assess potential noise
impacts. The existing noise levels at single-family homes along Moss Street are
61 dBA. The City's noise/land use compatibility standard is 60-65 dBA CNEL for
usable outdoor space in residential areas. The noise level from a single truck
passage is 50 dBA (FHWA, 1977), and hourly truck volumes will be one or two
trucks. The proposed project will not measurably increase the noise exposure at
the Moss Street homes, nor will it cause City noise exposure thresholds to be
exceeded.
Comment:
No analysis of the impact of the noise from 115 (average) per week trucks on the
patients and residents in the hospital and apartments they will pass if the current
plan is adopted. This is not done because the ambient noise is calculated to be 61
decibels due to 500 peak hourly trips daily on Moss and the traffic study never
shows anywhere near the number of vehicles on Moss at any time of the day or
night.
Staff Response:
See previous response. The proposed project will not measurably increase the
noise exposure at the Moss Street homes, apartments, nor the Bayview Behavioral
Center, nor will it cause City noise exposure thresholds to be exceeded. The
project traffic study shows 282 existing peak hour trips eastbound on Moss Street
near the proposed project site, and 260 peak hour trips westbound. The sum of
these two values is 542 trips (see Figure 3-2, LLG Traffic Study, Moss Street west
of 3rd Avenue).
Comment:
The impact upon our police department that consistently has been unable to meet
their threshold response time for non-emergency calls was also not evaluated in
the MND and is a serious impact that needs to be evaluated. The expected
increase in calls of 193 more than K-Mart's 2005 129 is only going to make the
situation worse and violates the city's Growth Management Ordinance, which
forbids development that is likely to worsen a non-attainment of a threshold. The
MND suggests that people should call in noise complaints and complaints about
the day laborers. Staff's response to comments about noise and day laborer
impacts is that city loitering and nuisance noise ordinances cover these matters,
13
ATTACHMENT 11
2-140
essentially acknowledging that there will be negative impacts in this area and
brushing them off as a police matter, not requiring CEQA review. The SWCVCA
believes this conclusion confirms a further burden upon the police caused by the
project
Staff Response:
The City of Chula Vista Police Department reviewed the proposed project and as
noted in the MND established adequate services can still be provided and no
significant impacts to emergency services are anticipated. According to the Police
Department, thefts from persons, auto theft, vehicle burglary, and panhandling are
concerns for any retail parking lot and conditions are placed upon these projects to
alleviate that potential. Project conditions include compliance with the City Police
requirements that include proper utilization of security hardware, access alarms,
lighting and landscaping to reduce criminal activity and to heighten crime
prevention awareness through the concept of defensible space and design are
standard practices. The City Police Department has a proactive business
merchant program that includes proper lighting, monitored parking lot cameras,
and a security bicycle patrol that can have a positive affect in reducing the rise of
these type crimes occurring. Crime Prevention personnel are available for training
regarding emergency and police reporting procedures. Scheduling of this training
is recommended to coincide with the beginning of regular business operations.
Comment:
There is also no mitigation for the commonly accepted fact that heavy trucks tear
up small streets like Moss. With a maximum of 30 trucks a day, not counting
contractor and vendor trucks, Home Depot has an increase of at maximum of 29
trucks on Moss a day or an average of 115 per week as now planned. The
residents of the Southwest have observed the deterioration of many streets in our
area.
Staff Response:
This is a road maintenance issue and is not analyzed for CEQA compliance
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.
Comment:
Comments relating to Land Use and Planning Impacts from projects being
approved throughout the area that are significantly changing the community
character. The SWCVCA is concerned that all of this is happening with no plan. It
appears the City too readily approves plans in isolation without evaluating their
cumulative effects upon the community.
14
ATTACHMENT 11
2-141
Staff Response:
While the subject site at the southeast corner of Moss St. and Third Ave. is within
the General Plan's South Third Ave. District (Figure 5-21, pg. LUT-141), it was not
subject to any designation changes through the General Plan update adopted in
December 2005, and remains designated as Commercial Retail and consistently
zoned as CC - Central Commercial. The proposed project is consistent with the
existing zoning and is subject to design review, as well as a CUP for the outdoor
storage component.
As indicated by several of the GP policies cited in the comments, the General Plan
does anticipate a future specific plan and/or other forms of rezoning (and the
establishment of according design guidelines) to occur in the area. Several of the
GP policies cited indicate that the prescribed future design emphases (building
placement, mixed use, etc) be taken up through these subsequent specific
plan/zoning efforts. While it is likely that these future efforts will be focused largely
within the Southwest Town Focus Study Area to the south (Figure 5-21), they may
also involve the subject site. However, until such time as those efforts are
undertaken, projects will continue to be processed pursuant to existing zoning in
areas such as this, where no GP land use designation changes were made and
existing zoning is consistent with the GP.
6. Comment letter from Theresa Acerro. received February 1 and February 3. 2007
Comment::
As a result of the MND for Creekside Villas it was decided no left turns would be
allowed from this project to be built at the corner of L and Third. This means that
200+ residents per day will most likely turn right at Moss in order to go west or
north from their homes; as many as 500 (94 more trips) per day onto Moss since it
is the quickest option to 1-5 or points west or north. This will_be an incredible
impact upon the residents of Moss between Third and Fourth. This should have
been a part of the traffic study for Home Depot since its store will add significant
amounts of traffic and trucks to this intersection and street.
Staff Response:
The comment states that Moss Street would be significantly impacted by the
Creekside Vistas project in addition to the Home Depot. The Creekside Vistas
project was not originally identified as a cumulative project and therefore a growth
factor was utilized to account for cumulative traffic. Since the commenter
specifically questioned the capacity of Moss Street, an analysis of the Moss Street
intersections at 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue was conducted.
IS
ATTACHMENT 11
2-142
The Home Depot project traffic was added to existing conditions, as was all
outbound Creekside Villas project traffic, plus 158 trucks instead of 115. Table 1
shows the analysis results. This table shows that LOS B operations are
maintained at the two intersections with the addition of Home Depot and Creekside
Vistas traffic. Therefore, no significant impacts in addition to those already
identified in the traffic study were determined.
TABLE 1
NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Existing +
Existing + Existing + Growth +
Contr Pea Growth + Project +
k Growth
Intersection 01 Project Creekside
Type Hou Villas
r
Delay LOS Delay LO Dela LOS
a b S Y
grd Avenue / Moss Signal PM 19.4 B 19.5 B 19.6 B
Street
4th Avenue / Moss Signal PM 17.1 B 17.2 B 17.5 B
Street
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds
per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
DELA Y/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOSTHRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 < 10.0 A 0.0 < 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 8 10.1 to 15.0 8
20.1 to 35.0 C 15.11025.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
> 80.1 F > 50.1 F
Comment:
Request a number of lumber trucks Home Depot has per day and description of
the vehicle mix. How much does a loaded lumber truck and cement truck weigh?
The Air Quality Report on page A-11 ran analysis for 8.91 trips/1000 square feet
16
ATTACHMENT 11
2-143
1,149.39 trips, which helps explain the results however, the fleet mix on A-11 looks
a little light too.
Staff Response:
To address the vehicle mix in the URBEMIS 2002 model, the initial analysis
included the default vehicle mix to estimate traffic emissions. The default vehicle
mix assumed the following: light auto, light, medium and heavy trucks of various
weight, line haul, urban bus, motorcycle, school bus and motor homes. Because
there would be a maximum of 30 trucks per day traveling to the Home Depot and
because the project would not generate school bus trips, the default vehicle mix in
the model was adjusted to increase the heavy-heavy duty truck trips from 0.9
percent to 1.0 percent and to eliminate school bus trips, taking the worse case
scenario. For conservative purposes, it was assumed that 100 percent of all
heavy-heavy duty truck trips would be diesel trucks instead of a mix of catalyst and
diesel trucks. The remaining vehicle mix assumptions were not adjusted. It should
be noted that the revised assumptions resulted in the following estimated average
daily trips for each category of vehicles. Thus the assumptions used in the
analysis result in not only 60 heavy-heavy duty truck trips traveling to and from the
Home Depot per day, but also, 434 medium truck trips, 66 light-heavy 8,501-
10,000 Ibs), 24 light-heavy (10,001-14,000 Ibs) truck trips, and 60 medium-heavy
truck trips, total of all average daily trips is 6,020. Based on these revised
assumptions, the emissions were calculated for the year 2008 in the
URBEMIS2002 model. The emissions would be less than significant.
With respect specifically to the amount of lumber trucks, there are 5 to 7 lumber
trucks per weekday and 1 to 2 on the weekend for an average maximum of 30
trucks per week. There are 4 to 5 garden trucks per weekday and 1 to 2 on the
weekend. The balance of maximum 30 trucks per day will utilize the loading dock.
7. Comment letter from Tonv LoPresti. Environmental Health Coalition. received
January 29.2007.
Comment:
The text of the Air Quality study refers to the SCAQMD methodology for
determining a Localized Significance Threshold based on the size of the project
site and proximity of receptors. Some of the values on the table for PM10, are
below the estimated PM 10 emissions from Home Depot operations, as listed in
Table 6 (page 15), and also the construction impacts, Table 5. This suggests that
there IS a localized impact from PM10, and that further analysis of emissions from
the loading dock to the nearest receptor is needed. According to SCAQMD: "If the
project exceeds any applicable LST when the mass rate look-up tables are used
as a screening analysis, then project specific air quality modeling may be
17
ATTACHMENT 11
2-144
performed. In the event that the project area exceeds 5 acres, it is recommended
that lead agencies perform project-specific air quality modeling for these larger
projects."
Staff Response:
The City of Chula Vista utilizes the SCAQMD's quantitative emission thresholds for
construction and operation to address the significance of impacts to the ambient air
quality. The City of Chula Vista's CEQA significance thresholds are adequate and
appropriate for evaluating the potential significance of impacts. Based on these
thresholds, the emissions of PM10 are below 150 Ibs/day and are therefore less
than significant.
Comment:
The emissions estimates depend on Home Depot being consistently willing and
able to limit idling times of trucks to 5 minutes. We have gone to several Home
Depots and have timed idling times well in excess of 5 minutes. While Home
Depot can and should suggest to limitation of idling times to 5 minutes as
mitigation, emissions estimates must be based on actual existing data from actual
existing scenarios. The fact is, trucks using Home Depots idle far more than 5
minutes. Also, it should be noted that we timed these trucks in January during
mid-day when temperatures were mild. Trucks are more likely to stay idling when
drivers wish to keep their air conditioning or heating on. Excessive idling is likely to
increase in winter morning and evening hours, and in hot summer hours.
Staff Response:
Effective February 1, 2005, the State of California adopted Section 2485 within
Chapter 10-Mobile Source Operational Controls, Article 1-Motor Vehicles, Division
3. Air Resources Board, Title 13, California Code of Regulations. This regulation
restricts diesel vehicles from idling more than 5 minutes at any location. The Home
Depot posts signs in the loading area and remind truck drivers of the 5-minute
idling regulation. The average unloading time is 30 minutes per truck. Assuming
all 115 trucks idle for 30 minutes at the nearest offsite receptor (which is the
apartment complex behind the Home Depot), the excess cancer risk is 4.35 in a
million, which is still below the threshold of 10 in a million. The fact is that there are
only 22 to 30 lumber trucks a week that unload in this area breaks down to 4 to 7
per weekday and 1 to 2 each weekend.
Comment:
The air analysis uses meteorological data from Lindbergh Field. The APCD has
meteorological data from Chula Vista. This data should be used in analysis of air
emissions in Chula Vista.
18
ATTACHMENT 11
2-145
Staff Res/Jonse:
For health risk assessments, the APCD requires the use of the Hot Spots Analysis
and Reporting Program (HARP). SRA contacted the APCD and asked whether the
APCD had a preprocessed meteorological data set for use in ISCST3, which is the
model that the HARP utilizes to conduct health risk assessments. The APCD
indicated that they did not have a data set from Chula Vista that has been
processed and available for use in ISCST3. According to the APCD's
Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Taxies "Hot Spots" Program Health
Risk Assessments (HRAs) (SDAPCD 2006), "Meteorological data used for refined
HRAs should be from either San Diego Lindbergh Field (surface data from
Lindbergh, Station 23188 and upper air data from Miramar, Station 93107) for
coastal San Diego River-plain and low-lying terrain near San Diego Bay (including
downtown San Diego), or Miramar MCAS (surface and upper air data from former
Miramar NAS, Station 93107) for inland or upland/mesa locations." The
meteorological data used were consistent with APCD guidelines.
Comment:
The air quality report does not spell out how analysis was conducted on chronic
non-cancer risk. This analysis should use the single worst year, not an average of
the 70 years as is done for cancer risk. It is not clear how this analysis was
conducted. It is also unclear what the actual increase in PM10 in the air at ground
level would be from the project. With this figure, an estimate could be made of the
extra asthma visits to doctors, school absences, etc., attributable to the Home
Depot.
Staff Res/Jonse:
The chronic risk evaluation was recalculated to account for the single worst year.
The chronic hazard index based on the single worst year is 0.000994 at a location
to the north of the Home Depot site next to 4th Avenue. The chronic hazard index
at the nearest residential receptor to the site is 0.000983. This value is still three
orders of magnitude below the significant risk threshold of 1.0. In accordance with
the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, the
standard approach currently used for health risk assessments includes four steps:
1) hazard identification; 2) exposure assessment; 3) dose-response assessment;
and 4) risk characterization. The hazard identification step involves evaluating if a
hazard exists and, if so, what the exact pollutants of concern would be and what
type of health effects are associated with exposure to those pollutants. The
exposure assessment involves evaluating the extent of public exposure to each
substance for which risk will be evaluated. This step involves emission
quantification, modeling of environmental transport, evaluation of environmental
fate, identification of exposure routes, identification of exposed populations, and
\9
ATTACHMENT 11
2-146
estimation of short-term and long-term exposure levels. The dose-response
assessment is the process of characterizing the relationship between exposure to
an agent and incidence of an adverse health effect in exposed populations. The
risk characterization step involves combining the results of the exposure
assessment with the dose-response assessment to evaluate risk.
Diesel particulate matter has been identified by the OEHHA as a potential
carcinogen, and as a chronic non-cancer agent. Carcinogenic risk is evaluated by
assessing the increase in probability that an individual would experience due to
exposure to the substance. Chronic non-cancer risk is evaluated based on the
potential for an individual to experience an adverse non-cancer health effect due to
long-term exposure. The California Air Resources Board's "Proposed Identification
of Diesel Exhaust as A Toxic Air Contaminant, Part B: Health Risk Assessment for
Diesel Exhaust" (ARB 1998) identifies diesel particulate matter as a respiratory
toxicant. According to that study, "Epidemiological studies suggest increased
frequency of bronchitic symptoms, cough and phlegm, wheezing, and decrements
in lung function as measured by forced expiratory volume in workers exposed to
diesel exhaust. Exposure-effect relationships in these studies are often obscured
by confounding factors such as the presence of mine or coal dusts." The chronic
Reference Exposure Level (REL), which is used to assess potential chronic, non-
cancer health risks associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter, is based
on respiratory health effects and thus takes into account those health effects
discussed by the commenter.
Comment:
The health risk assessment is based on estimates of average truck trips per week
(115), but not high-end estimates (150). The risk must be presented for high-end
as well as average conditions.
Staff Response:
According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, excess
cancer risk and chronic risks are based on long-term exposure. Because the risks
are based on long-term exposure, it is appropriate to use an average annual
operational scenario to address health risks. Thus using the average truck trips
per week is an appropriate methodology for conducting the risk assessment.
The model was also run with 158 trucks instead of 115 as well by the air quality
consultant. The results indicated that the cancer risk at the nearest receptor (the
apartments just to the west of the project building) for 158 trucks would increase to
1.47 in a million, and the chronic hazard index would be 0.000922. Both of these
results are well below the significance thresholds of 10 in a million for excess
cancer risk and 1.0 for chronic hazard. In addition, the project traffic study shows
282 existing peak hour trips eastbound on Moss Street near the proposed project
20
ATTACHMENT 11
2-147
site, and 260 peak hour trips westbound. The sum of these two values is 542 trips
(see Figure 3-2, LLG Traffic Study, Moss Street west of 3rd Avenue).
Comment:
We are very skeptical of the comparison of ADTs from the current site use to the
Home Depot. These are likely to be very different mixes of vehicles. Customers
drive different vehicles to shop at a Home Depot than they would at a Kmart. Also,
we fail to understand how a restaurant could attract 3,000 vehicle trips per day, as
seems to be the assumption made in the allowable traffic.
Staff Response:
The URBEMIS model was used to estimate emissions from the Home Depot
without comparing with the decrease anticipated from the K-Mart, and indicated
that emissions are less than the City's significance thresholds. No net evaluation
was conducted. The comparison of ADTs was based on the traffic impact analysis
and indicates that there would be a decrease in ADTs based on SANDAG's trip
generation rates for allowable uses on the site within the given building square
footages on site. The traffic study assumed that the 10,600 sJ. restaurant would
generate 1,272 ADTs at the SANDAG trip generation rate of 120 ADTs per 1,000
sf for a sit down restaurant.
To address the comment received regarding the URBEMIS2002 model outputs,
the model was run using the default assumptions contained within the model to
estimate impacts from a Home Improvement Superstore. The default assumptions
assume a lower trip generation rate than was estimated in the traffic impact
analysis, but also rely on default trip lengths and vehicle mix for the San Diego Air
Basin.
To develop a site-specific analysis that accounts for the maximum number of truck
trips anticipated and adjusts for the ADTs predicted for the 3rd Avenue Home
Depot, the URBEMIS2002 model was rerun with default assumptions adjusted. It
was assumed that the trips generation rate would be 46.7 trips per 1000 square
feet, for a total of 6,020 ADTs. It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Analysis
does not report or account for the way trucks are treated in the trip generation
model assumptions; truck trips are often treated as "passenger car equivalents" in
traffic models and thus ADTs are increased accordingly to account for truck traffic.
No adjustment was made for this assumption in the UREBEMIS2002 model run.
To address the comment regarding the vehicle mix in the URBEMIS2002 model,
the initial analysis included the default vehicle mix to estimate traffic emissions.
The default vehicle mix assumes the following:
21
ATTACHMENT 11
2-148
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 55.00 1.60 98.00 0.40
Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 15.00 2.70 95.30 2.00
Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.20 1.20 97.50 1.30
Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.20 1.40 95.80 2.80
Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20
Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00
Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00
Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90
Line Haul> 60,000 Ibs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00
Motorcycle 1.70 76.50 23.50 0.00
School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00
Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.40
Because there would be a maximum of 30 trucks per day traveling to the Home
Depot, and because the project would not generate school bus trips, the default
vehicle mix in the URBEMIS model was adjusted to increase the heavy-heavy duty
truck trips from 0.9 percent to 1.0 percent, and to eliminate school bus trips.
Furthermore, for conservative purposes, it was assumed that 100 percent of all
heavy-heavy duty truck trips would be diesel trucks instead of a mix of catalyst and
diesel trucks. The remaining vehicle mix assumptions were not adjusted. It should
be noted that the revised assumptions result in the following estimated average
daily trips for each category of vehicles:
Vehicle Type Dailv Trios
Liqht-duty Auto 3,311
Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 903
Liaht Truck 3,751- 5,750 976
Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 434
Lite-Heavv 8,501-10,000 66
Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 24
Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 60
Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 60
Urban Bus 12
Motorcycle 102
Motor Home 72
TOTAL 6,020
Thus the assumptions used in the analysis result in not only 60 heavy-heavy duty
truck trips traveling to and from the Home Depot per day, but in addition, 434
22
ATTACHMENT 11
2-149
medium truck trips, 66 light-heavy (8,501-10,000 Ibs) truck trips, 24 light-heavy
(10,001-14,000 Ibs) truck trips, and 60 medium-heavy truck trips.
To address site-specific travel distances, as discussed in the Traffic Impact
Analysis, the trip distances were evaluated based on the relative location of other
home improvement stores. A review of Mapquest identified the nearest seven
Home Depot locations to the site. It was assumed that the 3rd Avenue Home
Depot store would attract customers from approximately half the distance or closer
from each of these locations. The locations and their distances from the 3'd
Avenue site are shown below.
Existing Home Depot Store Distance to Site,
miles
725 Plaza Court, Chula Vista 3.54
1320 Eastlake Parkwav, Chula Vista 8.11
525 Saturn Blvd., Imperial Beach 2.56
355 Marketplace Ave., San Dieqo 8.88
950 Dennerv Road, San Dieqo 5.07
1601 Precision Park Lane, San Ysidro 6.28
7530 Broadway, Lemon Grove 14.81
Average Distance to Other Home Deaot Locations 7.036
Half the Average Distance 3.518
In addition, the average minimum winter and maximum summer temperatures for
Chula Vista were obtained from the Western Regional Climatic Center database
(www.wrcc.drLedu) and used to estimate maximum winter and summer daily
emissions.
Based on these revised assumptions, the emissions were calculated for the year
2008 in the URBEMIS2002 model. A revised Table 6 is presented below. The
emissions would be less than significant. Copy of the computerized model
program is available in the Planning and Building Department files.
Table 6
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
CO ROC NOx SOx PM10
Lbs/day
Natural Gas Usage 1.05 0.09 1.25 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.78 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vehicular Emissions 370.22 33.28 47.12 0.19 32.31
Emergency Generator 0.56 0.21 2.60 0.17 0.18
TOTAL 372.61 33.70 50.97 0.36 32.49
23
ATTACHMENT 11
2-150
Significance Criteria 550 55 55 150 150
Sianificant? No No No No No
Comment:
We are very concerned that there is no assessment of the cumulative impact on
localized air quality. There must be analysis that includes other sources of PM and
Diesel PM in the area.
Staff Response: As discussed on Page 24 of the report, "Based on the ARB's
California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality - 2005 Edition (ARB 2005), the
relative cancer risk attributable to diesel particulate emissions in San Diego County
ranged from an estimated 870 in a million in the year 1990 to an estimated 420 in a
million for the year 2000. Based on these estimates, the HRA results of 1.07 in a
million excess cancer risk for residents near the project site is lower overall than
that predicted for residential exposure to diesel particulate Countywide." This
discussion was based on the ARB's California Almanac of Emissions and Air
Quality - 2005 Edition (ARB 2005). Background particulate concentrations were
also provided in Table 2 on Page 5 of the report.
Comment:
The analysis of cancer risk included only diesel particulate matter. Of course, this
may be the major pollutant of concern, but it is not the only one. Benzene and
butadiene, for instance, must be studied as well. These pollutants should be
included in the cancer risk assessment.
Staff Response:
The health risk assessment focuses on diesel particulate matter. Diesel particulate
matter is the risk-driving chemical in truck exhaust. According to the California Air
Resources Board's "Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as A Toxic Air
Contaminant, Part A: Exposure Assessment" (ARB 1998), the substances
identified in diesel exhaust that are considered toxics include benzene and 1,3-
butadiene, as well as 39 additional components. Thus the diesel risk assessment
does account for emissions of and exposure to benzene and 1,3-butadiene within
the toxicity factors.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook in Section 10, Table 10-2, facilities
where benzene would potentially be associated with risks would include gas
stations, refineries, organic chemical manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and food
processing where substantial emissions of benzene could occur due to the type of
operation. Emissions of 1,3-butadiene would potentially be associated with risks
due to incomplete combustion of petroleum-derived fuels, petroleum refining,
certain fumigant production, and styrene- butadiene copolymer production.
Emissions of benzene and butadiene from personal automobiles are small and do
24
ATTACHMENT 11
2-151
not contribute substantially to the excess cancer risk; retail facilities are not cited
as major sources of emissions of these pollutants. With regard to diesel
particulate, the diesel particulate unit risk factor accounts for the mix of pollutants
contained within truck exhaust.
Comment:
We are very concerned that there is no assessment of the cumulative impacts.
Staff Response: Neither the traffic, noise, nor the air quality reports found a
cumulative significant impact contrary to the statement in the comment. Traffic
found the traffic volume below the allowable traffic volume for the existing buildings
on the site. As a result there is no increase in cumulative air impacts due to the
reduction of traffic. Further the current drive distance to a Home Depot will be
reduced which will reduce exhaust in the air basin. The reduction of traffic at
sensitive traffic volume intersections will also reduce contribution to cumulative
impacts on the air basin. Thus it will not add to the cumulative levels of air
pollution. The commentator states, "Even chronic, low-level traffic noise at 50-60
dB can adversely affect children." Chula Vista in 1985 adopted Ordinance No.
2101 adding Section 19.68 to the Municipal code entitled "Performance Standards
and Noise ControL" The applicable noise standard for multi-family residential zone
in the municipal code between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. is 60 dB LEa. Other agencies
such as Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Code of
Federal Regulations Title 24, Part 51, "Environmental Criteria Standards" establish
land use guidelines of DNL 65 dB as acceptable. The noise thresholds utilize for
this study is the lead agencies criteria. The mitigation measure will achieve this
level by requiring deliveries to occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise level
at the closest single-family homes across Moss Street will be well below the single-
family residential standard of 55 dB LEa between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The noise
report was analyzed for cumulative noise as well as near term noise and found not
to be significant. The reports do not rely on de minimus criteria for cumulative
impacts.
25
ATTACHMENT 11
2-152
8. Comments on DRC staff reoort and resoonses to comments 3/19/07 and
Attachment 11/RCC Minutes from Teresa Acero.
Comment:
Issues raised regarding the Air Quality model used, diesel exhaust, risk
assessments and City noise ordinance.
Staff Response: (to RCC Minutes)
1. The EMFAC2007 model was re-run to evaluate what the results would
be if this model were used. For certain vehicle classes for certain
pollutants, emissions are higher in the EMFAC2002 model than in the
EMFAC2007 model, and for other pollutants and other vehicle classes,
emissions are lower. For example, NOx emissions are generally
projected to be lower with the EMFAC2007 model than with the
EMFAC2002 model. The model does, however, estimate higher
emissions for the on-road portion of heavy-duty truck travel; thus the
on-road emissions are predicted to be higher. The commenter has
expressed the greatest concern, however, about truck idling emissions
from trucks idling at the lumber unloading area and the load dock. The
idling emissions were also compared with the idling emissions
predicted by the EMFAC2002 model. The EMFAC2002 model did not
predict any decreases in idling emissions from 2008 through 2040 due
to increasingly stringent vehicle emission and fuel standards. The
EMFAC2007 model accounts for increasingly stringent vehicle and fuel
standards and predicts a decrease in idling emissions. When
accounted for in the emission calculations for the Home Depot, the
idling emissions decrease by a factor of 2.213. Thus the idling portion
of the emissions would be more than 50 percent lower using the
EMFAC2007 model than using the EMFAC2002 model.
5. . Criteria pollutants are different than toxic pollutants. Auto body
painting, dry cleaning, and gasoline station operations emit very low
amounts of criteria pollutants, which include NOx, CO, SOx, PM10,
and PM2.5. Toxic air pollutants include substances such as
perchloroethylene, xylenes, benzene, etc. which are emitted by certain
types of businesses such as auto body shops, dry cleaners, and
gasoline stations. The reason that the 91911 zip code has a higher
level of pollutants reported is mainly due to the presence of the South
Bay Power Plant which is located within that zip code.
26
2-153
ATTACHMENT 11
The article that the commenter cites in her comments is mainly
concerned with reporting the effects of non-road diesel exhaust. The
focus of the study to which she is referring includes diesel engines
powering equipment such as bulldozers, ships, trains, and power
tractors. It is important to note that the California Air Resources Board
has passed rnore stringent requirements for on-road diesel trucks, and
has implemented measures such as restricting idling to 5 minutes to
control emissions from on-road sources. The ARB is continuing to
focus efforts to reduce emissions from both on-road and off-road
sources.
6. It is important to note that more than occupational exposure has been
addressed in the health risk assessment that was prepared for the
project. Residential exposure was assumed in calculating health risks
in accordance with the California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment Guidelines (OEHHA 2003). The OEHHA
guidelines for preparing health risk assessment within California
specify that one should assume exposure duration of 70 years in a
residential scenario. Thus, the scenario that was used to evaluate
potential health risks for the risk assessment conducted for the Home
Depot assumes that residents would live in the apartments behind the
project for 70 years, and would never leave the premises; they would
not go to work, go to school, or leave the site; rather, they would be
present for 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
A comment states that the significance threshold of 1 in 1 million
should apply to the project based on EPA guidelines. The City of
Chula Vista uses the SCAOMD's significance thresholds. The
SCAOMD utilizes a significant risk threshold of 10 in a million on which
to evaluate projects. This is also consistent with San Diego Air
Pollution Control District guidelines in Rule 1210, which indicate that a
facility must notify the public of risks if the risk predicted due to the
facility's emissions is greater than 10 in a million.
EPA guidelines differ from OEHHA guidelines in several respects.'
According to the EPA in Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in
Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions, OSWER Directive 9355.0-30,
April 22, 1991, and Development of Remediation Goals under
CERCLA, numerical preliminary remediation goals are based on the
upper bound carcinogenic risk of one in a million. These preliminary
remediation goals are designed by EPA as screening tools to eliminate
projects that do not require further evaluation. However, EPA states
that "The RG [Remediation Goal] can be based on a 10-4 [100 in a
million] cancer risk that is still within the NCP's [National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan's] acceptable
27
2-154
ATTACHMENT 11
range (10-4 to 10-6) for carcinogenic risk." EPA clearly directs that a
range of risk is acceptable, and allows anywhere from 1 in a million to
100 in a million as an acceptable risk range.
Furthermore, EPA's risk assessment guidelines allow for exposure
scenarios for risk assessments that are based on more site-specific
information. EPA's "reasonable maximum exposure" duration for a
residential exposure scenario is 30 years, not 70 years, in a residential
setting. This exposure duration represents the upper bound as
determined by EPA for the length of time that an individual would live
in a particular location. EPA also utilizes an average residential
duration of 9 years to represent average residential duration. EPA
allows site-specific information to be used in risk calculations as well.
For example, if an average and maximum duration of tenancy in the
condominiums behind the Home Depot indicated that the average and
maximum duration of residence is lower than EPA's assumed
durations of 9 and 30 years, respectively, this can be factored into a
risk assessment.
It is clear that the risk assessment that was conducted for the Home
Depot provides a highly conservative estimate of risk, as it is based on
the assumption that no emission reduction in idling emissions would
occur over the 70-year period of operation assumed. It was assumed
that a resident would live in that location without ever leaving the
premises for a duration of 70 years.
The risk was calculated using the OEHHA's unit risk factor of 3 x 10-4,
which corresponds to the information provided by the commenter in
her comments that indicate "a lifetime exposure to an average of one
microgram of diesel PM in a cubic meter of air carries of cancer risk of
300 in a million."
Data has been provided from the URBEMIS model and the City cannot
comment on the commenter's runs using the URBEMIS2002 model.
The San Diego County emissions were used in the URBEMIS model
runs that were conducted for the project. It should also be noted that
no netting analysis was conducted for the project; i.e., there was no
accounting for the reduction in vehicle trips that would be realized from
the closure of the K-Mart.
28
2-155
ATTACHMENT 11
Page 1 of 1
Maria Muett
From: THERESA ACERRO [thacerro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 25,20068:28 PM
To: Maria Muelt; Steve Power; Jim Sandoval; Tony
Cc: Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann; Rudy Ramirez; Jerry Rindone
Subject: Home Depot Air Quality report
Look at page 14 in the Air Report: "Because the project will include retail and restaurant uses,
Project-related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicle in accordance with
the EMFAC2002 model outputs for traffic. This assumption includes light duty autos and light
duty trucks as well as medium and heavy duty vehicles that may be traveling to the facility to
make deliveries or as business customers with larger vehicles." Obviously this is why their
figures seem so low. They ran the model based upon the wrong assumptions for vehicle traffic.
The project obviously does not include retail and restaurant and their assumption makes no sense
for a HD. As I said in previous comments 8,350 ADT's for the restaurant and the K-Mart makes
absolutely no sense either. The restaurant was converting to a Chinese restaurant that would have
ADT of 89/1,000 sqft or 943.4 ADT plus K-Mart's measured 4,870 or a total of5,813.4 if the
restaurant ever opened. This is no where near 8,350 claimed in report and less than the
underestimated total for HD of 6,020. 7,740 is more likely figure for HD, since 60 ADT is what
El Cajon store has. The H Street store is not a very busy store, and traffic was measured week
before Thanksgiving in middle of the week-not their prime time. Home depot admits to 30 of
their own trucks a day plus contractor and vendor trucks. This is figure that needs to be used.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired ofspam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
2-156
,47//-KH/l-1EA)T (J-..
02/23/2007
Page I of I
Maria Muett
From: THERESA ACERRO [thacerro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 11 :30 AM
To: Maria Muett; Steve Power; Jim Sandoval
Cc: Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann: Rudy Ramirez: Jerry Rindone
Subject: a few more things noise report and MND need to address
Having reviewed the Noise Report again and reread the staff letter to the applicant dated
3/15/06 I realize that there are a few more flaws in the report. The staff letter states: "Discuss any
potential noise impacts to the nearby multi-family second story residential dwellings. The
acoustical analysis shall demonstrate that second-and-third floor interior (my emphasis) noise
levels due to exterior noise sources would be below the 45 CNEL standard." The noise report
does not mention interior noise levels at all. It concerns itself with exterior only. This is a glaring
oversight. Considering that the 15- foot noise wall will only get exterior noise upstairs down to
59 decibels (page 10), it seems unlikely this standard is met.
It is troubling the way they shop around for information using 70 decibels at 50 feet
(page 7) from Mount Carmel Ranch for proposed EI Cajon store, which is questionable data
because there is an EI Cajon store that would have been more similar and provided more accurate
data for that report, but using octave band from Torrance. The Mount Carmel study modeled for
receptors that were at 155 feet away according to the Appendix. The Moss Villas has receptors at
less than 30 feet unless all the trucks and equipment are confined to the 15 feet next to the west
wall of the building at all times. This seems unlikely to me. The new wall is only 20 feet from
the east side of some of the condos. The driveway appears to be 45 feet wide that leaves 15 feet
for the trucks, forklifts and lumber to maneuver in if they are going to stay 50 feet away from the
condos, whose private space includes the 4 and a half feet from their east wall to the concrete
wall. How wide is a semi-truck?
Another quote: "Short-term construction noise impacts to nearby sensitive noise
receptors (the surrounding multifamily residential units) must be identified and included in the
noise analysis Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code" There is no
mention in the noise report of construction noise at all. There is also the exclusion of the
sensitive receptors at Bayview Behavioral Center from the list of those who must be considered.
This could be very significant since there will be no noise walls and 32 trucks a day plus heavy
equipment will be in operation for 8 or more hours per day for six days per week for 34 weeks. (I
am assuming our Municipal Code regulates the amount of noise allowed during the day in
construction zones, not just forbidding it at night. I would also argue that there is nothing short-
term about 34 weeks.)
Theresa Acerro 3730 Festival Court
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired ofspam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
2-157
02/23/2007
Page I of I
Maria Muett
From: THERESA ACERRO [thacerro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 20066:27 PM
To: Maria Muett; Steve Power; Jim Sandoval
Cc: Tony; Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann; Rudy Ramirez; Jerry Rindone
Subject: noise ordinance, status of condominiums
The Noise ordinance says all residential except multifamily has a day maximum of 55 and a
night of 45. It seems quite unfair that multifamily has been singled out for 60 and 50 and a bit
confusing. The Marasella villas proposed for Ada are called attached single family dwelling units
in the MND. They are townhomes or condos. Which category would they fall in?
What besides single family detached homes is the ordinance refering to when it says all
residential? I believe that condos are single family attached homes, because each family owns its
own seperate unit. They should be considered in the all residential category, not the multifamily
exception. Marsella villas are now R2, but Moss Villas are R3, but they are not apartments they
are single family attached dwellings. Calling them multifamily implies they are apartments,
which they are not. They should fall under the stricter standard.
If the council is the body that has the final say on the
interpretation of ordinances I would reguest that they clarify
this issue in favor of condominium residents who do not live
in multifamily buildings, but single family attached homes~
Multifamily is meant to describe apartments.
Theresa Acerro
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired ofspam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
2-158
02/23/2007
Richard Zumwalt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rosemarie Rice
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:07 AM
Richard Zumwalt
Luis Hernandez
FW: Planning & Building Contact Form
-----Original Message-----
From: baccv@aol.com [mailto:baccv@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 10:57 AM
To: Current Planning
Subject: Planning & Building Contact Form
The following information has been received:
Division: Planning Commission
First Name: Bettie
Last Name: Lupi
Email: baccv@aol.com
Message: The proposal to locate the Horne Depot positioned parallel to the
alley & facing apartments for the old Kmart loaction on Third Ave. is not
environmentally sound.
When creatijng these plans, especially ones with long term mpact, we need
to be proactive. We need to consider what we. are negetively causing &
make those changes while in the planning stages, NOT AFTER THE FACT.
Please reconsider all the issues involved & make educated choices to keep
to a minimum the problems that will arise if current plans go forth.
,
1
2-159
Maria Muett
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Richard Zumwalt
Monday, January 22,2007 10:53 AM
Luis Hernandez; Steve Power; Maria Muett
FW: City Attorney's Office Contact Form
fyi
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Vargas
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:32 AM
To: CityAttorney
Cc: Richard Zumwalt
Subject: RE: City Attorney's Office Contact Form
Yes; I'll forward it to Rich Zumwalt.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryl Ponds On Behalf Of CityAttorney
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:56 AM
To: Diana Vargas
Subject: FW: City Attorney's Office Contact Form
Importance: High
Diane is this something your department handles? If not let me know who I should refer
this to?
-----Original Message-----
From: thacerro@yahoo.com [rnailto:thacerro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:09 PM
To: CityAttorney
Subject: City Attorney's Office Contact Form
The following information has been received:
First Name: Theresa
Last Name: Acerra
Email: thacerro@yahoo.com
Message: Has your office looked at the MND for the Home Depot proposed for
Third and Moss? we are in the process of requesting an EIR due to the
inadequacy of the MND in mitigating or even evaluating all the negative
and cumulative effects of the project. This is a preliminary letter. Our
lawyer is drafting another.
1/22/07
Dear Chairman Jose Alberdi and Committee Members: Jeremy Hogan, Jeff
Justus, David Bringas, and Yolanda Calvo:
Our Request
The Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association was formed to provide a
structured association for the residents, property owners, and business
owners of the underrepresented Southwestern region of Chula Vista, to
participate in the preservation, planning, development and protection of
the unique character of the area through community education and group
action. In response to the 250 signatures of residents on petitions asking
the city to require Home Depot to redesign and/or relocate their building
planned for Moss and Third in order to keep trucks and loading/unloading
activities as far away from residents homes and Moss Street as possible,
the SWCVCA is asking that you recommend that the MND submitted for the
1
2-160
project not be approved. We further request that you ask Home Depot to
seriously consider alternative designs, including those used at other Home
Depots and return at a latter date with a design that will reduce
significantly more the impact of their operations upon the residents of
the southwestern community.
Air Quality Impacts
The Voice of San Diego article published on 1/2/07 shows that the 91911
zip code has 30,287 lbs. of toxic pollution in the air (7th highest in the
county) while the county's average is only 7,975. It also has 3.1 million
lbs. of criteria pollution in the air (3rd highest in the county) while
the county's average is 38,240 lbs. This data coupled with the 20% higher
asthma hospitalization rate in this zip code makes it imperative that
cumulative impacts be analyzed. It is a scientific fact that 70% of all
cancer caused by toxic air contaminants can be traced to diesel exhaust.
Long term exposure to diesel exhaust is associated with a 40% increase in
lung cancer. This makes it critical that the Air Quality and Health Risk
Assessments be based upon the maximum number of trucks per week rather
than an average, which underestimates the impacts. It also means that the
thresholds should be lower in the 91911 zip code. CEQUA requires an
analysis of anything that might be an impact. Using an average does not do
this. The Health Risk Assessment specifically requires an analysis of the
greatest possible impact, not an average. Also the HRA does not evaluate
benzene and other toxic chemicals in diesel exhaust at all. The HRA also
uses a 70- year cancer risk assuming that risk will go down over the
years. This is faulty procedure. The HRA should be based upon worse case
2008. The existing report underestimates the risks by making assumptions
that mayor may not occur in the future. This is clearly not allowed by
CEQUA the analysis needs to be based upon what is currently occurring now.
This means diesel idling must be part of the risks, since the 5 minute law
is commonly violated, unless a monitor will be present at all times when
trucks are on site observing and enforcing the law it must be assumed that
especially in hot or cold weather the engines will not be turned off while
waiting or loading and unloading. Observations are sufficient proof that
this is the reality of the current situation.
Cumulative Effects:
Section 15065. says Mandatory Findings of Significance must be found when
4) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The negative
effects found in the Air and Noise Technical studies do find substantial
effects on human beings when they are viewed cumulatively with existing
air pollution standard non-compliance in Chula Vista. **454 The trial
court found that Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) contravenes CEQA case law,
which holds that a project can have significant cumulative impacts even
though the project complies with thresholds of significance in an approved
plan or mitigation program. [FN41] There is no contravention, however, if
Guidelines section 15064(i) (3) incorporates the fair argument standard;
rather, the principle enunciated in these cases provides the legal basis
for a fair argument that a project has significant cumulative impacts
notwithstanding that it complies with an approved plan or mitigation
program. FN41. See City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d
1325, FN41. See City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d
1325, 1332-1338, 232 Cal.Rptr. 507; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v.
City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 716-717, 270 Cal.Rptr. 650
(Kings County ). Staff response to comments on the MND consistently relies
upon minimal attainment of thresholds. CEQUA case law clearly does not
find thresholds to be definitive when there is substantial additional
evidence as the article in Voice of San Diego and expert testimony by EHC'
s expert have provided.
Noise
The SWCVCA also finds it troubling that the noise report was only able to
get the noise down to 59 decibels with a fifteen foot sound absorbing
wall, admitting it could not reach the single family threshold of 55. The
SWCCVA has extreme doubts that all of the lumber, forklifts and trucks are
2
2-161
going to be confined to the 15 feet of space next to the west wall of the
building at all times in order to maintain the required distance of 50
feet. In fact the response to a comment to that effect states that "A
semi-truck is 8 feet wide, the unloading occurs from both sides of the
truck, one side directly into the sales building, the other side staged
along the building for placement after the truck leaves. 50 feet in the
diagram is the middle of the truck. This verifies that half of the noise
source will be less than 50 feet from the nearest residents and therefore
not meet the threshold, but the significant evidence presented documenting
the negative effects of even low-level noise upon human health is a fair
argument showing an adverse effect in spite of the threshold.
("Substantial evidence" means "enough relevant information and reasonable
inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to
support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be
reached." (Guidelines, ~ 15384, subd. (a).) Substantial evidence "shall
include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert
opinion supported by facts." (Guidelines, 5 15384, subd.) CEQUA law has
validated that thresholds are not definitive. If all the cumulative
impacts of lower level noise coupled with the 15 hours when they will be
permitted of 7AM to 10PM are considered this is not only a nuisance, but
also a negative impact upon people's health. "Even chronic, low-level
traffic noise at 50 - 60 dB can adversely affect children. It can cause a
rise in blood pressure, heart rate, and stress hormones. In addition, it
also reduces task motivation and learning. Elevations of stress hormones
are linked to the adult illnesses of "high blood pressure, elevated lipids
and cholesterol, heart disease and a reduction in the body's supply of
disease-fighting immune cells.If (Source:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/ - Ithaca, NY, 5/22/2001. Noise: A Health
Problem.. This 1978 document If... is a somewhat dated but still very
helpful EPA document about noise and health." Article Online Source: Noise
Pollution Clearing House
The MND does not deal with this cumulative impact. Noise has not been
adequately mitigated. (A threshold of significance may be useful to
determine whether an environmental impact normally should be considered
significant. (Guidelines, 5 15064.7, subd. (a).) [xii] A threshold of
significance is not conclusive, however, and does not relieve a public
agency of the duty to consider the evidence under the fair argument
standard. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108-1109; Communities for a Better
Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98,
110-114; see Guidelines, 5 15064, subd. (b). [xiii]) A public agency
cannot apply a threshold of significance or regulatory standard "in a way
that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence
showing there may be a significant effect." (Communities for a Better
Environment, supra, at p. 114.) This is exactly what the staff has done in
their response to comments.
There is also no analysis of the impact of the noise from 115 (average)
per week trucks on the patients and residents in the hospital and
apartments they will pass if the current plan is adopted. This is not done
because the ambient noise is calculated to be 61 decibels due.to 500 peak
hour trips daily on Moss. The traffic study never shows anywhere near this
number of vehicles on Moss at any time of the day or night; ergo this
needs to be analyzed in the EIR.
Health Impacts:
A full EIR is needed or a significant redesign of the building and its
placement in order to avoid these significant impacts. Health Impacts are
a CEQUA item that needs analysis. Air Quality and Noise have already been
mentioned. In the Health Impacts section of an EIR the safety record of
Home Depot also needs to be evaluated as well as the toxic substances they
store in huge quantities and the health risks they pose to close by
residents, customers and employees. A casual search on the Internet brings
up many incidents throughout the country where there have been mishandles
toxic substances. There is also the issue of employee and customer safety,
fires and storage and handling of hazardous materials:
"The next time Home Depot knocks on your neighborhood's door, ask local
3
2-162
fire officials to get a complete inventory of the hazardous materials
stored inside the store, and a print out of any incidents nationwide at
the store that involved the release of toxic materials. Be sure your local
fire chief has asked for copies of the National Fire Prevention
Association (NFPA) reports on the Home Depot fires in Tempe, AZ, and
Quincy, MA. Ask the company to provide a report of the garden center fire
at Signal Hill, CA. Local homeowners have a right to know the risks
involved in living near a warehouse full of chemicals, solvents, paints
and pesticides." 2006-05-31 - Elk River, MN. Another Horne Depot Catches
Fire , 2006-07-03 - College Park, MD. Fires Plague Horne Depot, 2005-08-02
- Los Angeles, CA. Home Depot Gets Subpoena On Hazardous Waste
http://www.sprawl-busters.com/search.php?readstory=405
How Horne Depot keeps store accidents secret - Atlanta Business
When Home Depot provides attorneys with information about the frequency
and severity of accidents in its stores, it demands they sign
confidentiality
. .www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/02/24/story4.html - 68k -
Cached - Similar pages
Accidents claim lives of Horne Depot shoppers - Atlanta Business ...
Accidents claim lives of Home Depot shoppers, ... No comprehensive list of
customers who have been killed or seriously injured in Home Depot stores
is ...www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/02/24/story2.html - 71k -
Jan 5, 2007
In 2001 because of several deaths in Horne Depots they hired Safety
Managers for all their stores and instituted safety-training programs for
all employees. Now profits are down so: 2006-03-19 Atlanta, GA. Horne Depot
Cuts Its Safety Managers Nationwide. This is a concern that SWCVCA has,
since these managers provided safety training and watched out for customer
safety.
Police Services
The impact upon our police department that consistently has been unable
to meet their threshold response time for non-emergency calls was also not
evaluated in the MND and is a serious impact that needs to be evaluated.
The expected increase in calls of 193 more than K-Mart's 2005 129 is only
going to make the situation worse and violates the city's Growth
Management Ordinance, which forbids development that is likely to worsen a
non-attainment of a threshold. The MND suggests that people should call in
noise complaints and complaints about the day laborers. Staff's response
to comments about noise and day laborer impacts is that city loitering and
nuisance noise ordinances cover these matters, essentially acknowledging
that there will be negative impacts in this area and brushing them off as
a police matter, not requiring CEQUA review. The SWCVCA believes this
conclusion confirms a further burden upon the police caused by the project
and agiin requests a full EIR for this project or a significant redesign
to mitigate expected cumulative impacts. ("There is 'a low threshold
requirement for preparation of an EIR' (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 84 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66J), and a
'preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review' (Sierra
Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316-1317 [8
Cal.Rptr.2d 473]). An EIR must be prepared 'whenever it can be fairly
argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have
significant environmental impact' (No Oil, Inc., supra, at p. 75, [118
Ca1.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66J), even if there is substantial evidence to the
contrary (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com.
(2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1346 [125 Cal.Rptr.2d 140]; Friends of "B"
Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 [165 Cal.Rptr.
514J)." (Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580-581;
see Guidelines, 5 15064, subd. If).) The SWCVCA believes that these and
other comments on the MND, includi~g power points, public comments and
letters provide substantial evidence.
Negative Impact on Moss Street:
4
2-163
There is also no mitigation for the commonly accepted fact that heavy
trucks tear up small streets like Moss. (Courts have held that the absence
of expert studies is not an obstacle because personal observations
concerning nontechnical matters may constitute substantial evidence under
CEQA. (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com., supra,
101 Cal.App.4th at p. 1347; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El
Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882-883.) The residents of the
Southwest have observed the deterioration of many streets in our area.
With a maximum of 30 trucks a day, not counting contractor and vendor
trucks, Home Depot has an increase of at maximum of 29 trucks on Moss a
day or an average of 115 per week as now planned. The citizens of Chula
Vista should not be responsible for redoing Moss Street or, as is more
likely and more common in the southwest, suffering with huge potholes
created by Home Depot's trucks. (This does not include vendor and
contractor trucks.)
Many of these areas were not evaluated at all in the MND because the city
insists upon comparing the proposed project to a permitted use that has
never existed on the site and also never had an EIR to evaluate its
negative effects upon the community. This is improper. When compared to
the existing use-K-Mart- there is a maximum of 1, 150 trips a day. An EIR
needs to be prepared to analyze fully the negative impacts of Home Depot
upon the southwest community or a creative redesign needs to occur that
further minimizes all the impacts that Might occur. We are asking the
members of the ORC to support the community by declining to recommend
approval of the MND or the current plan and requesting Home Depot to
consider alternative designs that will place loading and unloading further
away from residents, eliminate the garden PA system, since phones are used
in other stores, and further limit the hours when trucks can be on site.
There is an opportunity to build an orchid here instead of an onion. Let's
insist that this opportunity be taken.
Land Use and Planning Impacts
The Southwestern portion of the city does not have a specific plan. The
zoning ordinances are 50 years old. There are projects being approved
throughout our area that are significantly changing the community
character of the area. The SWCVCA is concerned that all of this is
happening with no plan. It appears the city too readily approves plans in
isolation without evaluating their cumulative effects upon the community.
The Home Depot is only the current example. The GPU vision is for
construction closer to the main street, not big box stores with a sea of
parking in the front. This is an archaic design and not at all
aesthetically pleasing. Not to mention the encouragement of urban blight
these big box stores can cause. SWCVCA wonders if the old Ralphs will ever
get a tenant with Horne Depot as its neighbor, and what will happen to the
Frazee Paint Store off of L Street? How will the big industrial buildings
recently built on Main Street effect the longtime local businesses that
have been a part of the community for many, many years?
The comment by the Home Depot representative that facing the loading areas
toward the empty parking lot next store instead of the residents is
contrary to the goals of redevelopment is patently wrong. The goal of
redevelopment in the southwest has to be to improve the environmental
justice and the health for the residents of the southwest. Relocating the
areas generating toxic contaminants further away from residents will do
both.
Do the residents and community character ever enter into planning
decisions in southwest Chula Vista? All of the construction going on in
the southwest needs to be looked at as a whole rather than as separate
projects as is happening now. The community made it clear they disliked
intensely the design of Spotlight on Broadway, so what does the city do
but approve another one very similar to it down the street. Planning is
supposed to be about what the residents want, NOT what the city wants. It
is time the city starts listening to the residents.
Sincerely,
5
2-164
Theresa Acerra
President of Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association
6
2-165
Original Message-----
From: Tony LoPresti [mailto:TonyL@environmentalhealth.org]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:21 AM
To: Elisa Cusato
Cc: Diane Clancey; Luis Hernandez; spowers@cLchula-cista.ca.us; THERESA
ACERRO; Joy Williams
Subject: HD Air Quality Report...
Ms. Cusato,
We understand that your office is reviewing the adequacy of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Home
Depot on Moss and Third. Environmental Health Coalition
supports MS. Acerra's claim that the MND is inadequate
environmental review under CEQA (as we stated in a comment
letter on the MND dated Dec. 13th, 2006), and that
cumulative impacts have not been properly studied. In
addition, our research director, Joy Williams, has reviewed
the air quality study and has identified what we believe
are shortcomings which further justify the need for a full
EIR and/or further mitigation of the single source and
cumulative impacts on nearby residences. We'd like to ask
you, or other staff assigned to the review of this project,
to include the following comments in your review:
1. The text of the Air Quality study (page 6 near the
bottom) refers to an SCAQMD methodology for
determining a Localized Significance Threshold based
on the size of the project site and proximity of
receptors. Some of the values on the table for PMIO,
attached to this e-mail and available at the SCAQMD
website, are below the estimated PMI0 emissions from
Home Depot operations, as listed in Table 6 (page
IS), and also the construction impacts, Table 5. This
suggests that there IS a localized impact from PMIO,
and that further analysis of emissions from the
loading dock to the nearest receptor is needed.
According to SCAQMD: "If the project exceeds any
applicable LST when the mass rate look-up tables are
used as a screening analysis, then project specific
air quality modeling may be performed. In the event
that the project area exceeds 5 acres, it is
recommended that lead agencies perform project-
specific air quality modeling for these larger
projects."
2. The emissions estimates depend on Home Depot being
consistently willing and able to limit idling times
of trucks to 5 minutes. We have gone to several Home
Depots and have timed idling times well in excess of
S minutes. While Home Depot can and should suggest
limitation of idling times to 5 minutes as a
mitigation, emissions estimates must be based on
actual existing data from actual existing scenarios.
The fact is, trucks using Horne Depots idle far more
than 5 minutes. Also, it should be noted that we
timed these trucks in January during mid-day when
2-166
temperatures were mild. Trucks are more likely to
stay idling when drivers wish to keep their air
conditioning or heating on. Excessive idling is
likely to increase in winter morning and evening
hours, and in hot summer hours.
3. The air analysis uses meteorological data from
Lindbergh Field. The APCD has meteorological data
from Chula Vista. This data should be used in
analyses of air emissions in Chula Vista.
4. The air quality report does not spell out how
analysis was conducted on chronic non-cancer risk.
This analysis should use the single worst year, not
an average of the 70 years as is done for cancer
risk. It is not clear how this analysis was
conducted. It is also unclear what the actual
increase in PM10 in the air at ground level would be
from the project. With this figure, an estimate could
be made of the extra asthma visits to doctors, school
absences, etc., attributable to the Home Depot.
5. The health risk assessment is based on estimates of
average truck trips per week (lIS), but not high-end
estimates (150). The risks must be presented for
high-end as well as average conditions.
6. We are very skeptical of the comparison of ADT's from
the current site use to the Home Depot. These are
likely to be very different mixes of vehicles.
Customers drive different vehicles to shop at a Home
Depot than they would at a K-mart. Also, we fail to
understand how a restaurant could attract 3,000
vehicle trips per day, as seems to be the assumption
made in the allowable traffic.
7. We are very concerned that there is no assessment of
the cumulative impact on localized air quality.
There must be analysis that includes other sources of
PM and Diesel PM in the area.
8. The analysis of cancer risk included only diesel
particulate matter. Of course, this may be the major
pollutant of concern, but it is not the only one.
Benzene and butadiene, for instance, must be studied
as well. These pollutants should be included in the
cancer risk assessment.
Thank you,
Tony LoPresti
Policy Advocate
Environmental Health Coalition
401 Mile of Cars Way
National City, CA 91950
w) 619.474.0220 x126 c) 831.246.3780
2-167
www.environmentalhealth.org
2-168
Page 1 of 1
Maria Muett
From: Steve Power
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 20071:19 PM
To: Maria Muett
Subject: FW: Home Depot
-----Original Message-----
From: Elisa Cusato
Sent: Friday, February 02, 20078:49 AM
To: Steve Power; Marisa Lundstedt
Subject: FW: Home Depot
Hi Steve and Marisa
-----Orlglnal Message-----
From: THERESA ACERRO [mailto:thacerro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:29 PM
To: Elisa Cusato
Subject: Home Depot
Elisa,
It was just brought to my iattention today that as a result of the MND for Creekside Villas it was
decided no left turns would be allowed from this project to be built at the corner of L and Third.
In fact the city plans to build a barrier to physically prevent left turns here. This means that 200+
residents per day will most likely turn right at Moss in order to go west or north or to 1-5 from
their homes. This will be an incredible impact upon the residents of Moss between Third and
Fourth. This absolutely should have been a part of the traffic study for Home Depot since its
store will also add significant amounts of traffic and trucks to this intersection and street. Part of
this section of Moss does not even have sidewalks and both sides of the street are full of cars due
to the densification of the block without adequate off street parking. Please add this to my list of
the inadequacies of the MND.
Thank-you,
Theresa
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Ya.hoo I Search Marketing.
2-169
02/28/2007
Page I of2
Maria Muett
From: Steve Power
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 20071:19 PM
To: Maria Muelt
Subject: FW: home depot cv
-----Original Message-----
From: Elisa Cusato
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:42 PM
To: Steve Power; Marisa Lundstedt
Subject: FW: home depot 01
FYI.
-----Original Message-----
From: THERESA ACERRO [mailto:thacerro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 20074:17 PM
To: Elisa Cusato; Steve Castaneda; Cheryl Cox; John McCann; Rudy Ramirez; Jerry Rindone
Subject: Fwd: home depot 01
THERESA ACERRO <thacerro@Jlahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:40:31 -0800 (PST)
From: THERESA ACERRO <thacerro@yahoo.com>
Subject: home depot cv
To: john@ziebarth.com, smaloni@tomshepard.com
John,
You said that you would send me number of lumber trucks HD has per day. I asked
about vehicle mix that I am sure has been measured at some Home Depot somewhere.
How much does a loaded lumber truck weigh? How much does a cement truck weigh?
The Air Quality Report on page A-II ran the analysis for 8.91 trips/IOOO square feet
1,149.39 trips, which certainly helps explain the results they got.The fleet mix on A-II
looks a little light too.
Did you know that the city is requiring Creekside Villas at Third and L (167 townhomes)
to allow only right turns out of property, which will put as many as 500 or more trips per
day onto Moss, since that will be quickest option for 1-5 or points west or north. This
makes keeping trucks off of Moss and all driveways on Third open even more important.
You say that Home Depot schedules all its trucks. Another helpful thing would be to
schedule trucks when people would not likely be at home. 7 AM to 10 PM is ridiculous.
A narrower range of hours in middle of day would help mitigate some. Also making
loudspeaker only for emergency purposes would help. (Pointing loudspeaker away from
residents would also point it away from nursery.)
Theresa
2-170
02/28/2007
Page 2 of2
Everyone is raving about theal1:new Yahoo! Mail bet'l,
Want to start your own business? Learn how on YahOOLS@lllB\!~il1~~1>,
2-171
02/28/2007
Comments on staff report and responses to comments 3/19/07
Staff Report
I: page 9 Exactly what is meant by the Design Review Permit is not
enforceable? Does this mean they can actually build anyway they
want? If plan is to be approved by directoI<ofPlanning-Jim Sandoval
can he enforce the permit provisions? A staging area for half the
lumber is proposed against the building. Isn't this in the fire lane,
which is shown and stated to be around the edge ofthi: building? Will
this mean trucks will pass closer to sound wall and residents than
allowed by MND?
2. We commend the applicant for the new site plan reducing the number
of trucks using Moss and passing behind residents' homes.
3. \v e commend staff for increasing height of wall to 9 feet,
but think that the entire length of the property line
should have a fifteen foot wall adjusted perhaps for
differences in elevation, as was done for the WalMart at
1200 Highland. We are asking staff to increase the height
of the minimum wall. The Wal Mart is lower than the
adjoining residential. It appears that the Home Depot will
be higher at the south end requiring the higher wall.
Attachment II stapled to RCC minutes
1. page 2 There is a new EMF AC2007 Model out as of January. We
have not had time yet to run the data in the new model, but expect
different results.http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm
2. Page 3 The City Noise Ordinance requires measuring the noise. Is
there not an ordinance limiting deliveries to the hours on AM to
lOPM weekdays and SAM to lOPM weekends as is mentioned
throughout MND? Who exactly is responsible for enforcing this, since
the police say they cannot find the ordinance number?
3. page 4 Rather than wait until the store walls are up we
request that a condition of approval be added that will
require the sound absorption wall with its accompanying
landscaping be installed before demolition starts to
protect the residents from the noise and dust.
4. page 6 We sincerely hope the mistake committed over at COSCO on
Naples can be avoided here. The location of the loading docks on the
north side of the building was clearly a huge mistake there that has
amounted to torturing the residents across the street for 3 years now.
5. page 7 Staff is confusing criteria pollution with toxic pollution. The
Auto Body Painting, dry cleaners and gasoline stations make us ih in
crieria pollution. The power plant. Landfill and Hanson Aggregates
make us third in toxic pollution. This data all comes from the EPA
2-172
and ARB websites and is a reason this is an Environmental Justice
Issue, since the 9 I 9 I I zip code with a higher percentage of people of
color and a lower median income than the rest of the city has been
historically targeted for the placement of polluting industries. This
information serves to show a cumulative effect upon Air Quality and
the need for lower threshold standards.
Here is information supporting 70% figure for diesel exhaust:
htto:/Iwww.commondreams.oro/news2003/0609-02.htm Page 5 of the Marsella Villas MND also
acknowledges this 70% figure as being from ARB.
A recent analysis by an association of state air regulators found that
diesel, exhaust - a mixture of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter,
arsenic, dioxin and mercury - increase the incidence of cancer in the
U.S. by as many as 125,000 additional cases over a 70 year lifetime.
California air officials estimate that diesel exhaust causes 70 percent
of the state's airborne cancer risk from toxic pollution. Preliminary
data released today by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM), a nonprofit association of the eight
Northeast air quality agencies, found that non-road heavy duty diesel
engines can make surrounding air quality as much as 16 times more
polluted -- suggesting that the health threats for workers and nearby
residents may be even more significant than previously recognized.
The interim NESCAUM summary is available at
http://www.nescaum.orq.
The UCS study breaks down pollution data on non-road diesel
engines and other mobile sources in all states, counties and major
metropolitan areas. The report also provides a cost analysis of
producing cleaner engines, finding that for oneto three percent of the
cost of equipment, pollution controls for particulate matter and
nitrogen oxide can cut emissions by 90 percent or more. For the
entire UCS report and local emissions see
http://www.ucsusa.orq/c1eaninqupdiesel.html.
6. page 8 Health effects of diesel exhaust are more than occupational.
The research so far is only conclusive for occupational exposure and cancer,
but there is a lot of evidence for other health risks such as asthma, infections,
lung damage, and premature death. Please see citings at:
htto://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0603/et0603s21.html. Some of what is
mentioned is danger to pregnant women. The newest study is: The use
study, which tracked 3,600 children for 13 years, found that those living
within 500 yards of a highway faced risk of permanent health damage.
2-173
including stunted lung growth and respiratory problems. January 30,
2007 Los Angeles Times? page 11. Essentially HRA was done for region
and not for people living 50 feet away, but finding a way to do this type of
analysis is difficult. We believe the acceptable risk is 1 in a million not 10.
We believe any fraction over that is significant censidering the ambient
conditions in this zip code. What is a an acceptable (E.g. EPA's "One-in-
a-Million") Risk?
According to EPA, single pollutants that are likely to cause
cancer are generally of concern if they exceed a "one in a
million" risk of cancer over a lifetime of exposure. One-in-a-
million is thus considered an acceptable risk of cancer for a
'single pollutant. The average person living in the US today is
exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals everyday by eating food,
drinking water, using consumer products and just by breathing.
Many of these toxic chemicals are also likely to cause cancer. To
protect public health we need to keep the public's exposure to
single pollutants below "one-in-a"million", because people are
exposed to so many cancer-causing agents in their lifetimes.
Using a "one-in a-million" risk level as a gUidepost to protect
public health can also help address the uncertainty we have
about a toxic chemical's potential for other serious--but yet
unknownuhealth effects such as birth defects, reproductive
system impacts and, nervous system damage among many
others.
Diesel exhaust exposure is unusually problematic because the
majority of the nation's population is exposed to a greater than one in
a million level of cancer risk. In fact the modeled averaged risk in all
U.S. counties exceed this level. According to the state of California, a
lifetime exposure to an average of one microgram of diesel PM in a
cubic meter of air carries a cancer risk of 300 in a million.
We acknowledge this issue is subjective at this point in time, but
ask that the city error on the side of being more responsive to
potential risk than normal.
8. page 12 There are several instances where it is acknowledged that
the Home Depot is also a warehouse which would mean there needs
to be more distance from loading areas and residents. It states here
that the loading activities from the far side of the truck will go into the
warehouse immediately. How will this be enforced?
9. page 23 We ran the Urbemis2002 model for both San Diego and
South Coast Air Basin using the vehicle mix given in response and
changing temperatures to CY in 2008 with defaults for other things.
2-174
We get a lot higher vehicle emissions than the consultant. We would
like to see his data.
San Diego Air Basin CO 491.08, ROC 37.86, NOX 64.05. SOX .35;
PMlO 62 .
South Coast Air Basin CO 422.18, ROC 35, NOX 57.23, SOX .29;
PMIO 51.13
As suspected using the San Diego Air Basin produced higher figures.
(Both Bayfront and GPU EIR's use SDAB). They are still below
threshold except for NOX that is above the threshold for both basins.
,
,
10. We are highly skeptical that the additional 1,000 vehicles from
Home Depot and 1,000 or more from Creekside will not cause traffic
problems in this area of Third. It is really hard to believe the
inteJsection of Moss and Third will be B for any length of time in the
future.
Oueratinl! Restrictions Site Plan
There appear to be a few errors:
Delivery Hours and Maintenance Hours are the same for weekdays
and weekends We want to know how these will be enforced since this
seems to be a problem area.
We would like to know exactly where this blue staging area is. Is it in
fire lane around the building?
In Conclusion:
It is unfortunate that Home Depot will not, staying within same
footprint, switch there building area to adjacent to gardening and
make it L shaped around gardening so that lumber offloading could
occur on south side of the building. This would mean that there was
no outside entrance to gardening, but walking a few 100 feet through
the store would hardly seem like a huge problem when it would make
such a big difference to the neighbors.
We ask that as a minimum conditions of approval be added that:
1., The sound absorbinl! wall be raised to 15 feet for the entire
lem!th of the back of the buildim!.
2. That the wall and landscaping be in place before demolition
begins.
2-175
3. That the truck route be cham!ed to keep most of the trucks
awav from the back of the building and off of Moss.
4. That some wav of enforcing all the conditions of approval
be found and all residents be notified of whom to call when
and if thev see or hear a violation:-'
We ask that the DRC not recommend the approval of the MND as
it now stands, but leave this to the decision makers to evaluate the
subjective areas of difference of opinion. You certainly have the
right to send it on to decision makers without a recommendation.
We also ask that you request a clear way of enforcing the
conditions of the Design Review Permit.
We sincerely hope that we get to enjoy the benefits of having a
Home Depot in our community. We hope they will be a good
neighbor and go beyond minimum requirements to accommodate
the concerns of the near by residents.
Theresa Acerro
President, Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association
2-176
EXHIBIT 2 - DRe APPROVED
PROPOSAL ADD 12' HIGH WALL
8' TO THE NORTH
IV)
.....
f--
~
l..\
~
'l:
\)
~
'l;
NEW 9' H. SCREEN I SOUND-
WALL
PER DRC
NEW 12' H. SCREEN / SOUND
WALL APPROX. 8' LENGTH
NEW 15' H. SCREEN /
CC?lQ
Landscaped Area
Exis 9 Drive
to 'Remov
N
,
i'-
lC)
MU l_~ t::
I o ND
r A p<Y..-....
N
~ I "[
way
ed
,~ -
I
,--.. I--
I
~
I
N
'"
NE 6' C
- SC EEN
WA L TO
AD CE
PR PER
l"-
I"-
o
.n
'. .. LUMBER OF -LOADIN
'0
..;
N
SCREENED
BUILDING
MATERIALS I
WILL CALL
AREA
2,261 sf
-'"
o
'"
.0
"
en
"
c.
'"
o
<I)
'0
C
'"
-'
Ln
~
40'-0"
@
~
18.0
EXHIBIT 3 - HOME DEPOT REVISED
PROPOSAL AFTER ORe - MODIFY
PARKING @ NORTH TO ALLOW
EXTENSION OF 15' WALL 18' TO SOUTH
AND 9' TO NORTH
NEW 9' H. SCREEN I SOUND
NEW 15' H. SCREEN I SOUND WALL
G=D
I N
,
F-
I ll)
I SCREENED '"
0
'"
BUILDING 40'-0" .c
I OJ
MATERIALS I rn
OJ
, WILL CALL c.
l l'l
AREA U>
~ @ 'C
2,261 sf c:
. '"
lo ...J
'<t en
~ ~
Landscaped Area
o
.0
Guard Rail
Fence Enclosed
ropane Racks
'"
or I learance
Space
NE 6' CMJ
SC EEN I 0 lJND
WA L TO r A I""r ,.. ."
AD CEN
PR PERT
Exis 9 Driveway
... to Removed
It::
<Xl
r-
!L~
,
.~ I
I
I
I
~
I
N
OZI,?:1rG7 1I.ZO JtAl
C,V, ~~l'G & B1ILDINr.
_"IV.
"'.nlll..,
.. a'.lldl"'l l,1lep.,tment
PIJu,,>l"g O'i'l[s'CJIlI Olli\tcl",pmllIlII'IOC...llIl
APPLJeA1'ION APPENOOt B
~.......1Ilt
~!II ~ Pl;lIlay 101-01, JIIlllI'lII WIt ~ llIllll\ _!hit wlIlIIqIllN "'1IIfQnIry actJan lI!i lIllI ~
PIIlI'II1IN CllI~..,Ii1l1on _ d oIIl<< IlIlIl::lII llOiIIlilr at.. Cllt, alitllalllltllt d diId'lIIRd oedIln OIl!'llPIhIp (If/' ~
Win ".1. ""'Ill.... cr.....lllIiQI. ~tar. Clly1lll'0IlIliI1IIIlIa...... -" batIIIIcL .,..~ ~""'<ilIIcln
lNdCa t . lit
1. LIi!t"Il_\lt.I~.i'lWlIl~lI",_liItIrtlIllntlle/.llllp\llilYlIultlll__lIdoftlle~"...., <<11\6
1lllftlI1IIll,..g...IlWlliIr.~..",*".,ulr' II 1l!~.~.!lIlJlIIIIIer.
0Imft; lIA lI::I.ep l!IQ't. ~1llbl.
T~t ~.~ ,.$.A., lI1c.
2. If lIlY jllIIINlll" lW/4llIlld pIlIIlIIRtlo C"}--'_. Clll........1 cr JI8IlneIIIlI/p.IIal'1he I181M5ll11'dlncllvldu* lIlIlIl
a~~u......m:\IIlt~(coi"";' II ~-"''''landly.
a
;Lt:."",;,,',~~;..;Qi~'~~ili~~~, ..~,.".T
puo1].#1y cJ:!id- >l!~.mr-:JllftA ~hfll '1~~.,.t_
(1)...... iIIIallOl'" ~iIZ6.., 1ll'tMl, IIIIt lhe _ 01 WIt petUl
llI' .ll'l1AIliar !lei -., y OI'tnlIlIIr ddtit lruIl
4.
l'III-li:IeI1III!fl/llfltrl~~""~ oi".~.llCII1IIlIlIIlI or ~(;tllltilltllll411lHS1JaYe
.1Ignikl1D tll,lUuA}Ol.I Mrr:ftllte Cllyl!>lhIa ......
,
.John Z:I.,oaftb
'iJ~loi;."h' t~.~~~..
Q_oro. Rav
R.~~ ..~at~'~-rl.r
&.
Jobn Bap..ell
BatiE Ltc
I
Hall -.y ~ Mac clll J ~ dl1bla _Ill. hlld lIlY lIMllllial ~I Ii lQ* wll!J 8lI 0II0lW" of lIllI CIty 01 Q'IlAa
vwa-,."'lO'lID i:IJnlMctwllllllt __12ll1C1r1l1a Yet_I'4o...L
j
,
1fYa, brIIIfty dB! ..Ib. _ "... or.. _....lnIiaIIllIt lIllI allIc:laI'" ....,...In.... 0..,__
6. "'1IlHS lI'IIIdlIa CIlIIIIIiIlIIlI 01_ __ $2IlO 1IIiIIliIIlIte.lIIiIII'Ie (12) 1II'Clrllhl1O. cummt .._.boo of 1M
CIIIIlB ~ Clfelll.-il'Ulo). Vaa_lr.,..,1IIIIcII CllIlnClI rr 1..1
U6 F<llltt" A...."". I C~iI 'iIl1>tll I Ciallto,.iil I 91910
I l"llll 6".-51 01
2-179
I1-TT/-1C.-flM -e: IJ( /1
~\f~
-r-
.
p I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official" of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
~ No~ .
If Yes, which official" and what was the nature of item provided?
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
Date:
119//1/6!7r
i
By: C.
Signature of Contractort
Print or
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
Official inciudes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council ,member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fuurth Avenue
(hula Vista 2r1~aQirornia
91910
'6191691-5101
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IS-06-007, APPROVING DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT DRC-06-33 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME
DEPOT STORE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-06-025
TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE PERMANENT OUTSIDE
SALES AND DISPLAY MERCHANDISE, AT 1030 THIRD
AVENUE WITHIN THE MERGED CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (ADDED AREA) - THE
HOME DEPOT USA INCORPORATED.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this resolution is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description herein consists of 11.10 acres located at 1030 Third Avenue ("Project Site");
and
B. Project; Applications for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, duly verified applications for a Design Review Permit ("DRC") and
Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department
on November 7, 2005, by The Home Depot USA Inc. ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a Design Review Permit to construct a
new 97, 396 sq. ft. Home Depot retail building, an enclosed 31,647 sq. ft. garden center, and
other related improvements as depicted on the DRC-06-33 plans; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval ofa Conditional Use Permit, PCC-06-025,
to establish and operate a permanent merchandise outside sales and display of merchandise
(together with the DRC Permit -"Project") at the store at the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.58.370.A, the
permanent outside sales and display of merchandise is permitted only when included as part of
an approved Site plan subject to the conditions set forth in this Section. Section 19.58.370.A.I
lists the items to be considered for outside display and allows that other items can be included if
the Planning Commission determines that the items are of the same general character as the
listed items (subsection i) or if the Planning Commission approves specific items to be displayed
in an area specifically designed for that merchandise (subsection j); and
2-181
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial
Study, IS-06-007 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based
upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that
the Project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the
Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a
point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-06-007; and
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2004, pursuant to Ordinance 2962, the Project Site was added to
the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project (Added Area), and therefore the Project requires
approval by the Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2006, the Resource Conservation Commission determined
that Initial Study IS-06-007 for the Project was adequate, and recommended adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007;
and
WHEREAS, on March 19,2007, the Design Review Committee recommended approval
of Design Review Permit DRC-06-033 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-06-007, by a vote of 5-0-0; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Design Review
Committee at the public hearing on the Design Review Permit held on March 19, 2007,
including the minutes and Notice of Decision are incorporated into the record of this proceeding;
and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend
that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with the
findings and subject to the conditions listed in that CUP; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on this Conditional Use Permit held on March 21, 2007,
including the minutes and Resolution are incorporated into the record ofthis proceeding; and
D. Redevelopment Agency Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project and
notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on April 24, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue; and
2-182
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 3
WHEREAS, after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony, and receiving the
recommendation of the Resource Conservation Committee, the Design Review Committee and
Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Agency voted _-_-_ to adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (IS-06-007), and to approve the
Design Review Permit and the Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with the findings listed
below; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA FINDS, DETERMINES and RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
II. Certification of Compliance with CEQA
The Redevelopment Agency finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-007) have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and adopts the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-007). The
Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved based upon findings of fact pursuant to the CEQA
Section 15074(b):
1. The environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study.
2. There is no substantial evidence on the basis of the whole record that the Project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment
and analysis.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(IS-06-007) is on file in the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA, 91910. The document and materials which constituted the record of
proceedings upon which the decision is based are under the custodial care of the Planning and
Building Director/Environmental Review Coordinator.
The Redevelopment Agency finds that in the exercise of their independent review and judgment,
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-
007) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA and
the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista and adopts the same.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista grants Design Review Permit DRC-06-
033 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the Applicant and/or property
owner(s):
III. Findings Necessary for the Design Review Permit
The Redevelopment Agency finds as follows:
2-183
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 4
I. That the proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the development
regulations of the Central Commercial-Precise Plan (CCP) Zone.
2. That the design features of the proposed development are consistent with, and are a cost
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and Landscape
Manual.
IV. Conditions of Approval
The following conditions shall be incorporated into the plan by the Applicant prior to
issuance of building permits for this Project:
General/Preliminary
A. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of
the subject property in reliance on this approval, the Property Owner, and the
ApplicanURepresentative shall execute this document by making a true copy of this
letter of conditional approval, signing both the original and true copy on the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the Property Owner and ApplicanU
Representative have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained
herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy with original
signatures shall be returned to the Project Planner in the Planning and Building
Department. Failure to return a signed copy and stamped copy of this document
within thirty days of recordation to the Planning and Building Department shall
indicate the Applicant's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Representative of Property Owner Date
Signature of Representative of Applicant Date
B. Each Applicant for a building permit shall develop and submit a "Recycling and Solid
Waste Management Plan" to the City's Conservation Coordinator for review and
approval. The synopsis of the plan shall be included in the notes on the Building
Plans. The plan shall demonstrate those steps that the Applicant will take to comply
with the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Sections 8.24 and 8.25, and
meet the State mandate to reduce or divert 50 percent of the waste generated by
commercial, residential and industrial developments. The Applicant shall contract
2-184
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 5
with the City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and occupancy phase of
the Project. A "Recycling and Solid Waste Management Guide" is available at the
Planning Department counter or through the City Manager's Office at (619)-397-
6360. The Plan shall include a statement of how the Applicant will implement and
participate in the Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan requirements. The
proposed trash enclosure shall be designed as follows:
1. Two enclosures located and sized as shown on the Site Plan dated 12/01106.
The enclosures shall have capacity to accommodate two recycling/solid waste
containers, and cardboard bales and pallets, to the satisfaction of the
Recycling Coordinator.
2. Architecture/materials to be consistent with design of the main structure.
3. Solid roof to divert runoff from trash enclosure is recommended.
4. Smooth concrete access/base designed to drain away from the storm drain.
Planning Division:
C. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and
Building prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise specified, for this
Project:
I. Pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing
fees for deposit account DQ-1275.
2. Submit and obtain approval of a Home Depot Site Control Plan from the
Director of Planning and Building, which includes all relevant DRC and CUP
conditions of approval, all relevant Mitigation Measures from the Mitigated
Negative Declaration 1S-06-007 Mitigation Monitoring Program, and any
other applicable CYMC requirements as determined by the Director of
Planning and Building. The Plan shall be mounted in plain view at the store
manager's office and loading areas, and other locations as determined by the
Director of Planning and Building.
3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, or other permit specified in the
Mitigation Measure, the Applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Building Department and the City Engineering Division the
mitigation measures identified in the Home Depot Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-06-007).
4. Submit and obtain approval of a detailed wall and fencing plan, with design,
colors and materials to be determined by the Zoning Administrator, including
the following: (a) Freestanding noise /screening wall along westerly property
2-185
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 6
line, with minimum height of nine feet, increasing to 15 feet where required
by the noise mitigation measures; (b) Provide an extension of thei5 foot
portion of the noise Iscreening wall for a distance of 18 feet to the south and 9
feet to the north; (c) Vinyl-coated chain-link fencing for seasonal garden area;
(d) The plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Site plan
and noise study, with the exception of the increased noise wall height as
required in (a) and (b) above.
5. Building plans submitted for building permits shall include the following:
a. Ground-mounted equipment including heating, air conditioning, utility
boxes, and backflow valves that will not be constructed in utility
enclosures will be required to be screened with a combination of
landscaping, walls or berms;
b. Obtain approval of sign permit(s) for any proposed monument and wall
signs.
c. Submit revised Site plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and
Building and the City Engineer. The revised Site plan shall be reviewed by
the City's Traffic Consultant prior to approval. The revised Site plan shall
include the following:
1. A re-designed noise Iscreening wall along the western property as
required by Condition C.4 above, and re-designed parking
necessary to maintain a minimum of 649 spaces on Site.
2. Add the landscape planter area shown on concept landscape plan at
the base of the sound absorption wall along the western property
line.
3. Addition ofa truck-turnaround and elimination of2 parking spaces
in vicinity of the main loading dock.
6. Provide a detailed landscape plan prepared by a California Licensed
Landscape Architect for review and approval with the building permit
submittal, which is in substantial conformance with the Concept Landscape
Plan, and designed per Landscape Manual and CVMC requirements. The plan
shall include the following modifications from the concept plan:
a. Add additional tree-planters, such as diamonds or tree grates, along the
side elevations (north and south) of the building, to break up views of
the side elevation and provide shade in the parking lot. These tree
planting areas shall be located every fifth parking space between the
parking spaces and the walkway.
2-186
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 7
b. Use shrub types that will grow 8-10 feet high in place of low growing
shrubs, adjacent to the 15 -ft. high sound wall, in the landscape buffer
along the western property line.
c. Replace Star Jasmine on slope areas with a shrub species that will
provide improved erosion control, longevity, and maintenance.
d. Provide vine screening on both sides of sound wall.
e. Replace canopy-type specimen trees with columnar-type specimen
trees in the landscape buffer along the western property line.
Building Division
D. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Building Official:
Submit building plans and required fees per the following Building Division
requirements:
I. Building permits are required per 2001 Ca. Building Code (CBC), Ca.
Mechanical Code, Ca. Plumbing Code, and 2001 Ca. Handicapped
Accessibility requirements, 2004 Ca. Electrical Code, and 2005 Ca. Energy
Code. See Table SA (CBC) regarding location on property and Table 5B
(CBC) regarding area limits.
2. A Demolition Permit is required with Hazardous Materials approval prior to
issuance of the Demolition permit for both buildings.
3. Compliance with Seismic Zone 4, Wind speed 70 mph, and Exposure C
standards required.
4. Structural Calculations from a licensed Civil Engineer or Architect are
required.
Police and Fire
E. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Police Department or
Fire Marshall as specified below:
I. A composite lighting plan and elevations shall be approved to the satisfaction
of the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) prior to issuance of the
building permit. Lighting shall be shielded to minimize spillover onto adjacent
properties.
2-187
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 8
2. Prior to final inspection, develop a crime prevention program to the
satisfaction ofCVPD, which may include the following:
a. Proper utilization of security hardware, access alarms, lighting and
landscaping to reduce criminal activity and to heighten crime
prevention awareness through the concept of defensible space and
design;
b. Participate in a proactive business merchant program that includes
proper lighting, monitored parking lot cameras, and a security bicycle
patrol;
c. Participate in training regarding emergency and police reporting
procedures. Scheduling of this training is recommended to coincide
with the beginning of regular business operations.
3. Prior to the delivery of combustible materials to the Site, comply with the
requirements of the City Fire Marshall, including but not limited to the
following requirements:
a. Provide a technical report from an approved consultant in accordance
with 2001 Fire Code.
b. Submit fire flow information from the Sweetwater Authority District
indicating required fire flow of 4,000 gallons per minute for 4 hours,
per Ca. Fire Code.
c. Provide Fire Hydrants to Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD)
standards. Hydrants to be spaced every 300 feet of travel distance with
no less than 4 hydrants for this Site.
d. A blue reflective marker shall identify each fire hydrant, fire
department connection (FDC) and post-indicating valve (PIV).
e. Fire department connections (FDC) and post indicating valve (PIV)
shall be designed to CVFD standards.
f. Underground fire service shall be installed per Sweetwater Authority
and CVFD Standards, including a Site plan with underground fire
utilities and a completed pipe certification.
g. Swing check valves shall comply with CVFD standards.
h. Provide a fire sprinkler riser room to house up to 4 risers per CVFD
standards.
2-188
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 9
1. Provide fire sprinklers per CYFD standards.
J. Provide fire alarms for fire flow per CYFD standards, including a
central station monitoring facility for sprinkler and partial alarm
system, and interior fire alarm notification device at main entry.
k. Submit plans to CVFD for interior fire alarm notification device.
I. Provide a single manual pull station at the main entrance and riser
room.
m. Provide duct detection for air handling system in excess of 2,000 cfm,
including fire dampers, and a test switch with LED.
n. Submit a letter acknowledging compliance with CYFD policy 2916.01
for access, turnarounds, and water supply for new construction.
o. Comply with CYFD policy for fire lanes.
p. Provide a visible street address (min. 18 inches) to be seen from main
access roads - Third Ave. and Moss Street.
q. Provide minimum rated fire extinguishers (2A-IOBC) per each 75 feet
of travel distance.
r. Provide a Knox box for CYFD access at the main entrance and riser
room.
s. Provide a hazardous materials storage plan.
Engineering and Public Works Department:
F. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to
approval of grading or improvement plans (whichever occurs first):
I. The following fees will be required based on the final building plans
submitted:
a. Sewer Connection and Capacities fees
b. Development Impact Fees
c. Traffic Signal Fees
2-189
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 10
2. The Applicant shall obtain a construction permit from the Engineering
Department to perform any work in the City's right-of-way including:
a. Sewer lateral and storm drain connections to existing public utilities.
The Public Works Operations Section will need to inspect any existing
sewer laterals and connections that are to be used by the new
development. Laterals and connections may need replacement as a
result of this inspection.
b. Sewer manholes per SDRSD S-2 are required.
c. Removal and replacement of broken curb, gutter, and sidewalk along
the proposed Project's frontage.
d. Removal of existing driveways and replacing with curb, gutter and
sidewalk.
e. Construction of proposed driveways per City Standard CVCS-IA.
f. Construction of new curb ramps per the latest City of Chula Vista
standards and American Disability Act (ADA) requirements.
3. Grading plans, in conformance with the City's Subdivision Manual, and a
grading permit will be required prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. A drainage study and geotechnical/soils study are required with the first
submittal of grading plans. Design should incorporate detention of storm
water runoff as needed.
5. A lot consolidation or adjustment plat will be required for this Project.
6. Applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire Department and/or Waste
Management Department for proper turn around requirements.
7. Plans submitted refer to existing public storm drain facilities on private
property without any easements. If these lines are to remain and are public,
easements will be required.
8. All existing and proposed onsite storm drain pipes and storm water treatment
unit to be private and privately maintained with the exception of the existing
24" RCP pipes beginning on western edge of Third Avenue and connecting
the proposed storm water treatment unit, which will be public.
2-190
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page II
9. Existing 24" RCP storm drain pipes, including the pipe running underneath
the existing restaurant, to be video taped and to be checked for any cracks and
damages during the construction.
10. All existing and proposed onsite sewer pipes and laterals to be private and
privately maintained.
11. A maintenance access right shall be issued to the City for the maintenance of
the 24" RCP public storm drain pipes mentioned above.
12. The storm water treatment pad shall be 6" thick re-enforced concrete with #4
rebar at 18" on center.
13. Grading Plans shall specify the type of the proposed storm water treatment
unit.
14. Design and construct a bus stop facility, including a bench, shelter, and trash
receptacle. The design, location and specifications shall be to the satisfaction
of the Transit Coordinator and Director of Planning and Building.
G. Water service from the Sweetwater Authority can be obtained upon submittal of Fire
flow information, Site plan, street improvement plan, irrigation plan, plumbing plan
showing total fixture-unit count, fire sprinkler plans and calculations, approved by the
Chula Vista Fire Department. Based on these plans the agency will determine if there
is need for a new water systems or substantial alteration of the existing water system.
If the owner provides the requested information and enters into an agreement for
water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at
pressure ranging from 54 to 64 psi. New water service will require installation of
backflow prevention assemblies, including double check detector backflow assembly
for any new fire protection systems. Please refer to the Sweetwater Authority letter
dated November 27,2005.
H. The Applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
prevent pollution of the storm water conveyance systems, both during and after
construction. Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the
Project design, and shall be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural
BMPs requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled
on the plans. Operate in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-025,
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-06-007 Mitigation Monitoring Program,
the Performance Standards, CVMC Chapters 19.66 and Performance Standards and
Noise Control, Chapter 19.68, including the Site Control Plan.
1. Comply with all applicable requirements of the approved Site Control Plan. A copy of
the Site Control Plan shall be posted in the Store Manager' office, each loading area,
and each public entrance to the building.
2-191
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 12
J. Operate in compliance with Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-06-007 Mitigation
Monitoring Program, the Performance Standards, CYMC Chapters 19.66 and
Performance Standards and Noise Control, Chapter 19.68, including the Site Control
Plan.
K. Prior to operation of the Seasonal Garden Area or the Outside Sales and Display
areas, comply with following requirements:
1. Install seasonal garden area improvements as shown on Site plan and fencing
plans, including temporary (removable) fencing, a crosswalk, and stop signs.
2. Comply with Outside Sales and Display requirements of the Central
Commercial Zone.
L. This Design Review Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within
one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code.
V. Findings Necessary for the Conditional Use Permit
A. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or
facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
Approval of the Project will allow the Home Depot to provide more diverse
commercial services, including outside sales and display of merchandise that will
help the business to succeed. Outdoor sales and display is essential for some larger
products, which are not practical to display indoors. It is also helpful for the sales and
display of certain products that enables more efficient use of interior floor space.
Display of some products, such as plants and shrubs, benefit from being outdoors,
while at the same time enhancing the appearance of the Site. The Project will include
attractive architectural features, landscaping and fencing that will improve and
enhance the appearance of the store and image of the neighborhood. The location of
the outside sales and display areas at the store entries are convenient and desirable for
both the Applicant and their customers.
B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The building has been designed to accommodate outside sales and display areas in a
cohesive manner, so as not to interfere with vehicle or pedestrian traffic to and from
the store. The outside sales and display areas will be visually enhanced by
architectural features and softened by landscaping so that they will be aesthetically
2-192
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 13
attractive. The types of materials displayed do not constitute a health or safety hazard
to the public.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The proposed Outside Sales and Display of Merchandise is consistent with the
requirements of the Central Commercial Zone, and the Outside Sales and Display
regulations (CVMC Section 19.58.370), which specifies the types of merchandise
permitted and prohibited from outside sales and display, and permits the display and
sales of items that are determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same
general character as the permitted items. In addition, the CUP conditions of approval
require the operation to be in continuing compliance with all applicable city codes
and regulations.
D. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The City General Plan land use designation for the Site is Commercial Retail. The
proposed CUP permits Outside Sales and Display of Merchandise, which is consistent
with the Commercial Retail General Plan land use designation, and therefore will not
adversely affect the implementation of the General Plan.
VI. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista grants Conditional Use Permit
PCC-06-025 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied by the Applicant
and/or property owner(s):
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
The following conditions shall be incorporated into the plan by the Applicant prior to
issuance of building permits for this Project:
I. Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first building permit, pay all applicable
fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DQ-
1275.
2. Use and reliance of this CUP is contingent upon approval of DRC-06-033 and
satisfaction of DRC conditions of approval applicable to the outside sales and display
area.
3. Obtain approval of a revised Site plan showing deletion of bulk lumber from the
notations on the plans, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
Upon certification by the Director of Planning and Building for occupancy or establishment
of use allowed by this CUP, the following conditions shall apply:
2-193
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 14
4. The conditions in this CUP shall be applied to the subject property until such time that
the CUP is modified or revoked.
5. Applicant shall obtain a final inspection from the Planning and Building Department, and
operate in compliance with the following requirements, ensuring that the Outside Sales
and Display Merchandise operates in compliance with the parameters of the use outlined
in the application, CYMC Section 19.58.370.A.l, and this Resolution, including the
following:
a. Merchandise permitted for outdoor display is limited to building material display,
outdoor equipment, outdoor furniture and storage units, and live goods and
landscape supplies items only, as specified on the approved plans. This
merchandise is expressly permitted by the Redevelopment Agency. Any proposed
change in the type of merchandise to be displayed requires approval of a
modification to the CUP, by the Redevelopment Agency or Zoning Administrator.
b. Outdoor sales and display of household furniture, household appliances, dry
goods, soil additives, clothing, play equipment, tires, and used goods are not
permitted, per CYMC 19.58.370.A.3.
c. The bulk storage of products, including lumber, is prohibited in areas set aside for
Outside Sales and Display of Merchandise. These areas shall be limited to
displays shown on the approved plans, and display of samples of lumber.
d. Outside Sales and Display area locations shall be limited to those areas specified
on the Site plan and delineated by enhanced paving.
e. Outdoor Sales and Display areas shall not obstruct fire lanes, driveways, or
pedestrian access.
f. Model storage buildings and displays related to patios or room additions shall not
be located immediately adjacent to the main entrance of the building. If these
types of displays are visible from Third A venue or Moss Street, they shall be
partially screened or softened by architectural features, landscaping, or other
means, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
g. No outside sales or display shall be of such Size or quantity as to alter the
architectural appearance of the building.
6. This CUP authorizes only the use specified in the application for PCC-06-025. Any new
use, modification/expansion of use, or activities not authorized under this CUP shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Redevelopment Agency. Any deviation from
the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a modified CUP.
2-194
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 15
7. This CUP shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed
after approval ofthis CUP to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health,
safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the
Applicant and after the City has given to the Applicant the right to be heard with regard
thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a
substantial expense or deprive Applicant of a substantial revenue source which the
Applicant cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
8. This CUP shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the
effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code.
Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this CUP to be reviewed by
the City for additional conditions or revocation.
The Applicant/owner shall and does agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the Redevelopment Agency and the City, their members, officers, employees
and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities)
incurred by the Redevelopment Agency or the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a)
The Redevelopment Agency's approval and issuance of this CUP, (b) The
Redevelopment Agency's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
Applicant/ owner shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of this CUP where indicated below. Applicant's/owner's compliance with this
provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall
be binding on any and all of Applicant's/ owner's successors and assigns.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(I), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the 90-day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or
other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution
and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020(a) and failure
to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set
aside, void or annul imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or
other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application
processing fees in connection with this Project; and it does not apply to any fees,
dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this,
nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has
previously expired.
The property owner and the Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained in the Conditional Use
Permit. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the
County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or Applicant, and a
2-195
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 16
signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of
recordation to the Planning and Building Department secretary.
Failure to return this document to the Planning and Building Department secretary shall
indicate the Property owners/Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding
application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without
approval. The document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as
document No.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Applicant
Date
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment Agency shall
have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition
issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates
of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and
prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for
their violation. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit may also
result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
2-196
RDA Resolution No. 2007-
Page 17
VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
this resolution and the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect.
PRESENTED BY
James D. Sandoval
Director of Planning and Building
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
<.-ILv !L L~
Ann Moore
Agency Attorney
2-197
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the
City ofChula Vista, this 24th day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
Agency Members:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Agency Members:
Agency Members:
Cheryl Cox, Chair
ATTEST:
Scott Tulloch, Acting Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
)
)
)
I, Scott Tulloch, Acting Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Redevelopment Agency Resolution
No. 2006- was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency at an
adjourned regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency held on the 24th day of April
2007.
Executed this _ day of _ 2007.
Scott Tulloch, Acting Secretary
J :\A ttomey\RESO\PLANN ING\Home Depot..RDA _ 04-24.07 .doc
2-198