HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/08/10 (5)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994
Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 94-02)
A. BACKGROUND
National Avenue Associates, in conjunction with Gatlin Development is proposing to construct
a 219,219 square foot shopping center on a 32,5 acre site at the northern terminus of Fifth
Avenue and bordered by SR-54 to the north and Broadway to the south. The proposed
development would create a regional shopping center with a 149,289 square foot anchor store,
a 52,640 square foot co-anchor, 10,790 square feet of additional retail space and a 6,500 square
foot pad proposed for retail/restaurant (currently Walmart and Mega Foods are negotiating with
the applicant for anchor and co-anchor stores, respectively). The project as proposed would
require a General Plan Amendment from Industrial General to Commercial Retail and an
accompanying zone change, an amendment to the Town Center II Redevelopment Plan, an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program, as well as Design Review approval.
Various projects have been previously proposed for portions of the project site, including a golf
range/ sports center, and an industrial/office development. The site is currently undeveloped but
has been graded, The portion of the site proposed for grading and development (approximately
22 acres of the 32,5 acre site has been disturbed by previous grading activities.
As a result of circulation of the Notice of Preparation, three comment letters were received,
Letters from both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High
School District requested full mitigation for school impacts from the project. Additionally,
Caltrans submitted suggestions regarding the scope of the traffic study.
Three letters of comment have been received to date (August 2, 1994) from circulation of the
Draft EIR; these include:
1. Sweetwater Authority (June 28, 1994): indicating that the analysis is satisfactory and that
they have no further comments.
2, Chula Vista Elementary School District (June 30, 1994): requesting modifications to the
methodology for calculating school impacts and mitigation.
3. Save Our Bay, Inc. (July 19, 1994): included comments requesting clarifications on text
and exhibits, and indicated concerns regarding the onsite wetlands and salt marsh habitats.
Any additional comments will be hand delivered to the Planning Commission at the Public
Hearing (August 10, 1994). All comments received on the Draft EIR, both written and oral
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994
Page 2
comments, will be responded to in the "Responses to Comments" section of the Final EIR.
An informal public forum has been held in the community to present the proposed project and
solicit input. This was held on June 30. The Draft EIR was presented at the meeting, at which
two members of the public were in attendance.
The Resource Conservation Commission considered the Draft EIR on July 25, 1994. The RCC
voted 4 - 1 to recommend its certification.
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
Conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft EIR (EIR 94-02), close the hearing, and give staff
direction to prepare the Final EIR.
C. ANALYSIS
1. Land Use
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact Project impacts to coastal salt marsh would be inconsistent with the Local Coastal
Program and impacts to the Chula Vista Greenbelt designation are considered
significant.
Mitigation Impacts to coastal salt marsh are mitigated through revegetation at a ratio of 3: 1,
Impacts to the Greenbelt would be mitigated through one or more of four
mitigation scenarios identified in the Draft EIR.
2. Aesthetics
Impact Summary: Less than Significant
3. Air Oualitv
Impact Summary: Significant, Not Mitigable
Impact Vehicle emissions contribute to the regional (cumulative) air quality impact; short
term construction impacts,
Mitigation Construction impacts are mitigated through implementation of dust control
measures and proper use of emission control on construction equipment.
4. Noise Impact Summary: Less than Significant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994
Page 3
5. Fiscal/Economic
Impact Summary: Beneficial Impact
6. Biolol!'ical Resources
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact Impacts to .06 acre of un vegetated drainage channel and .15 acre of coastal salt marsh
Mitigation Revegetation on site at a ratio of 3: 1, to the satisfaction of the U, S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U, S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game,
7. Public Services and Utilities
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable.
A. Fire - No significant impact.
B, Police - No significant impact.
C. Schools - Potentially significant impact mitigated through payment of fees and/or
assessments.
D, Sewer - No significant impact.
E. Water - No significant impact.
F. Parks and Recreation - No significant impact.
8. Traffic Circulation
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impacts:
A, Project traffic would significantly impact offsite roadway intersections including 4th
Avenue/Brisbane Street and 5th Avenue/C Street.
B. Project traffic would incrementally contribute, in conjunction with buildout of the City
General Plan, to significant impacts to the left turn at SR-54 westbound offramp at
Highland and to Broadway and E Street.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994
Page 4
Mitigation:
A. The project applicant shall signalize the intersections of 4th Avenue/Brisbane Street and 5th
Avenue/C Street.
B. The project applicant will complete and/or pay a fair share portion of improvements at the
SR-54 westbound offramp at Highland and at Broadway and E Street.
9. Geolo!!v
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact Significant impacts have been identified for soil suitability, seismic hazards and
liquefaction
Mitigation The applicant is required to conduct a surchage operation that will compress
soils to a suitable state for construction to reduce soil and liquefaction hazards
to less than significant levels. Structural design to resist seismic impacts is
required.
10. Hvdrolol!V/Water Qualitv
Impact Summary: Significant, Mitigable
Impact Drainage facility capacities and introduction of urban pollutants and sedimentation
have been identified as potentially significant impacts.
Mitigation Demonstration that the drainage facilities can convey the appropriate flow levels
and installation of water quality protection devices is required.
D. ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires a description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project", and to
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives, The discussion of alternatives "shall focus
on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse effects or reducing them to a level
of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of
project objectives, or would be more costly. "
The following discussion presents a brief summary of each alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 10, 1994
Page 5
"No Proiect" Alternative
No changes to land use would occur under the No Project Alternative, and project objectives
would not be met.
"Aooroved Use" Alternative
This alternative would leave the site as is, with its present designation and ability to develop as
industrial uses. Impacts would be reduced with this alternative, however, air quality and noise
would remain significant and not mitigable, The project objectives would not be met with this
alternative, but it has been determined to be the "environmentally superior" alternative, due to
a reduction in significant impacts (though not to a level below significance).
"Reduced Densitv" Alternative
Development of 146,877 square feet of commercial floor area would occur, rather than the
219,219 as proposed by the project. Generally, impacts would be reduced, though the not-
mitigable impacts to air quality would remain. This alternative would meet the project
objectives, however, to a lesser degree than the proposed project.
Alternative Sites
Three alternative sites were evaluated in order to determine whether another site might be
environmentally superior, Generally, similar impacts or scale of impacts would occur with each
of these, and project objectives may not be met due to the non-viability of the respective market
areas.
E. CONCLUSION
In summary, the proposed Channelside Shopping Center project would result in significant and
unmitigated impacts to air quality. Otherwise, all significant impacts can be reduced to a level
below significant. Project alternatives resulted in the same impact summary (with the exception
of the "No Project" alternative), though the existing General Plan alternative reduced impacts
resulting in its identification as the "environmentally superior" alternative.
SWEETWATER AUTHORIT'
~~nv~~
~.S
<: ,,/.~
:'V(;^:....~
~f10,,\
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912-2328
(6191420-1413
FAX (6191 425-7469
GOVERNING BOARD
BUD POCKLlNGTON. CHAIRMAN
GEORGE H WATERS VICE CHAIRMAN
SUE JARRETT
EDWIN J STEELE
MARGARET A WELSH
JAMES S WOLNIEWICZ
CARY F WRIGHT
June 28, 1994
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
DIAN J REEVES
SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE
Environmental Projects Manager
City of Chula vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
~
Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CHANNELSIDE SHOPPING CENTER
CASE NO.: EIR-94-02
SWA DEV. FILE: WAL-MART
".
c.
f'
i..:
Gentlemen:
Sweetwater Authority has reviewed the referenced Draft
Environmental Impact Report prepared by Dudek and Associates. The
Authority finds that comments concerning water service for the
project are appropriate and have no further comments.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Russell Collins at 420-
1413, ext. 239.
Very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
?~~ ,-) '~1--
~ James L. s~t~
"'-_;:hief Engineer
JLS:RC:vls
k:\laurie\vickie\wal-mart.eir
A Public Agency,
Serving National City, Chulo Vista and Surrounding Areas
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
GREG R. SANOOVAL
SUPERINTENDENT
LIBIA S. GIL. Ph.D.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIS'IRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
June 30, 1994
Mr. Joe Monaco
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Draft EIR - Channelside Shopping Center EIR
Dear Mr. Monaco:
Thank you for providing a copy of the Draft EIR for the proposed
Channelside Shopping Center for our review and comment.
There are a few errors that need to be corrected. On page 4.7-8, the
amount shown for current mitigation fees is incorrect. The total fees for both
Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista Elementary School
District (CVESD) are $1. 72/square foot for residential and $ .28/square foot
for non-residential. The amounts shown in the Draft EIR represent
Sweetwater's portion of the total fees.
In addition, the description on that same page of the school mitigation study
is completely inaccurate. First, it is SourcePoint, a non-profit arm of
SANDAG, that is doing the study. The purpose is not to determine if
adequate funding is available for each school site in the South Bay area.
The purpose of the study is to analyze and quantify sources of student
enrollment and provide strategies for accommodating enrollment projections
also, the study area is restricted to the City's planning area and CVESD's
boundaries, not the entire South Bay.
Still on page 4.7-8, the CVESD operates 32 elementary schools, 25 of which
are within the City's boundaries. Four schools are in San Diego, and three
are in the County.
On page 4.7-10, the base rate for Community Facilities District (CFD) NO.5
is $0.161 for 1993-94. This figure changes every July 1 based on the
inflation factor contained in the Engineering News Record for Los Angeles
County.
June 30, 19~
Mr. Joe Monaco
Page 2
RE: Draft EIR - Channelside Shopping Center EIR
My June 3, 1994, comments to you (copy enclosed) included the
recommendation that, since the City's growth analysis anticipated the new
Wal-Mart alone to employ 500 persons, that the worst case scenario in the
EIR be based on this figure instead of the calculation from the 1990
SourcePoint study. Utilizing that number, total students would be 83.45,
double what is estimated from the 1990 study. I believe the most current
and detailed projections should be used for making student projections, and
clearly the City's analysis is project-specific and much more recent. I note
that this recommendation was not incorporated.
The proposed mitigation of annexation into CFD No. 5 is acceptable;
however, the caveat that mitigation may be adjusted (reduced) if the
SourcePoint study or other information shows less of an impact is not
acceptable. Once a project annexes to a CFD, a lien is placed on the
property and there can be no adjustment. This works both ways. The study
could produce findings that impacts are greater than anticipated. To attempt
to provide for a reduction without providing for an increase should the
evidence so indicate, is certainly one-sided, and would place the District in
the position of having to oppose the project. The District requests that this
language be deleted. Failure to do so would be in violation of the City's
agreement with the District to either not process projects until the
SourcePoint study is completed, or to condition projects such that they will
comply with whatever form of mitigation results from that study.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to seeing these
corrections made to the Final EIR.
Sincerely,
h~~ ~~-r-
Kate Shurson
Director, Planning & Facilities
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
bchalOnelside
100 ~L_~_ ~_u;;~~__~_ [0
i ;.'
1:,'
II JUL 2 I ice,:! .'.
L.___ ......
Ci;\ i'
C'"
-
...~._.._-..-
. __w__
457 Delaware Slreel, Imperial Beach, CA 91932-T.I: (619) 429 7946
1422
July 19. 1994
Hon. 'rim Nader, Mayor
city of Chula Vista and
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
City Council Members
Attn: Joseph Monaco, AICP
Community Development Department
Dear Mayor Nader, Lady and Gentlemen:
We are thankful for the privilege of commenting on the Draft
EIR for the Channelside Shopping Center.
Since Chula Vista Committees, such as Planning, have yet to
review the "Draft", we assumed we have not missed any comment
deadline; but if we have, we plan to comment to the U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers when application for a permit is made to them.
We will, of course, be interested in reviewing the Final EIR
when it is circulated to the public.
Our specific comments are:
page(p)ES-2, paragraph(para)l: Impacts to the General
Plan Greenbelt are NOT to be mitigated. why NOT?
P ES-2, para 2, Aesthetics: The site could be turned into
a native plant garden. Which would be prettier, a garden
or a shopping center?
P ES-2, Air Quality. Where will the exported 200,000 cubic
yards go ?
We note in Appendix A that the (CA) State Clearinghouse pre -
sumably sent NOP to nine (9) State agencies? Apparently only
one, CALThANS, responded. Is there any proof the other eight
agencies received the NOP? To whom has this EIR been sent?
SAVE OUR BAY, INC
page 2
P 2.0-1, para 4, last sentence: Is Eucalyptus Park shown
as General Roca Park on Figure(Fig)2-2?
Fig 2-): Even a lOX hand lens will not reveal what might
be elevations on this Figl!
p 2.0-1 through 6: To assess cumulative impacts to the area,
National City Plans north of the Sweetwater River Channel
and west of 1-5 should be described in 2.0, Environmental
Setting (also see p 4.1-), para 4, Planned). A description
of what existed on the Project Site, now Cleared and Graded
(Fig 4.6-1) would also be helpful in learning what we have
already lost.
Fig )-1: 'rhe legend should explain what are the vertical
lines with diamonds? 'ile See no "Pad A" (Table )-1) de-
signated on this Fig.
p ).0-6, proj. Objectives: To what level are unemployment
levels to be irr.proved?
p 4.1-9, para) (III. Local Coastal Program): On this pro-
ject site, "The existing saltwater marshes,_ _ _ should be
preserved and enhanced" (underscoring supplied) "_ _ _."
p 4.1-15, para 2(Dedication of On-site Open Space), para)
(Off-site Mitigation): Is it possible that this EIR chould
be certified prior to acquisition of the required informa-
tion? Could EIK certification be speculative?
Fig 4.2-2: Do matchlines match?
p 4.)-9, Level of Significance After Mitigation. If"
long-term cumulative impacts to the ozone emissions are
significant and not mitigable..., is there any hope?
- --
p 4.6-), para 2, Drainage: Is "non-wetland waters" an
oxymoron term?
p 4.6-6, para 2, Mammals . Scat, strongly resembling that
of coyote, was observed on the site on July i). 1994.
P 4.6-8, PROPOSED MITIGATION: If the proposed mitigation
is done prior to the project construction or if adequate
performance bonding is required, we agree that mitigation
will be adequate for the proposed project but not for habitat
already lost in the already cleared and graded area.
SAVE OUR BAY, IN~. page)
P 4.10-2, para 4: Does tidal influence extend as far east
as the "six Caltrans )6-inch_ _ _(RCP)(see Figure 4.10-1)"?
If so, how does "fresh water flushing of the historic_ _ _
wetlands: _ _occur?
p 4.10-4, para 1, 21 Where is the 6.5' x 6' RCB in relation
to the 4' x 8' RCB?
p 4.10-4, para 21 If "The hydraulic capacity of the eartheD
channel_ _ _" has not been determined, will it be? Will
scouring it contribute how much sediment to the Sweetwater
Marsh National Wildlife Refuge?
p 4.10-5, para 11 If "_ _ _a request to grant an exception
of floodproofing requirements was not filed for the southerly
parcel.", will such a request be filed?
P 4.10-11, Table 4.10-5, Project Storm Flows: On line, Basin
2, what does 50 mean in the Facility column?
p 4.10-12, Fig 4.10-21 How many 48" culverts will be
under the proposed bridge?
p 4.10-1), para 1: How will the 48" culvert carry storm
flows to the channelized river?
p 4.10-15, 16: We are particularly concerned that maintenance
of the grease traps (para 4.10-C) be guaranteed especially
since the Regional Water Quality Control Board is so poorly
staffed (p. 4.10-10, "_ _ _(NPDES) Permit Program", last
sentence)!
p 6.0-1, 6.0 Significant Cumulative Effects: More National
City Projects should be considered, such as that around the old
Santa Fe Depot north of the Flood Control Channel and West of 1-5.
p. 6.0-), Hydrology/Water Quality:
fresh water run-off into salt water
discussion I
The cumulative impact of
habitat needs further
p 8.0-2, 8.2, sentence #1: Are some words missing here?
p 8.0-4: Night light could impact wildlife uses in the salt
marsh; this impact should be mitigated.
Finally, we congratulate Dudek and Associates, Inc. for one of the
more honest EIR's that we have reviewed in California.
stu::::z: ~ ~
William E. Claycomb
President