Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RESO 15,108RESOLUTION NO. 15,108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'nib CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-7-85 AND ZONE CHANGE ZC-5-85 REQUESTED BY ROBERT CHILDERS CO., INC. (CASE FILE NO. IS-85-41) WHEREAS a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and the National City Procedures for Environmental Review; and WHEREAS a public notice of the availability of the draft EIR, designating a 30-day public review period ending on May 21, 1986, was provided in accordance with Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS a final EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, State EIR Guidelines and the National City Procedures for Environmental Review, and consists of the draft EIR, the list of individuals, organizations or agencies commenting on the draft EIR, comments received on the draft EIR and responses to comments; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 1986, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the final EIR, at which time staff reported on the major issues, significant impacts and mitigations, as well as comments received from individuals, organizations, and public agencies on the draft EIR and the responses given thereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard public testimony on the final EIR and adequately addressed such testimony; and WHEREAS, the final EIR identified certain significant environmental impacts requiring mitigation at the development stage; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission found that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed (revised) project, originally proposed project, and specific alternatives would have significant but mitigated effects in the areas of land use/neighborhood character, flooding/drainage/hydrology, traffic circulation, noise, public services, and geology/soils as explained in the Planning Department Report to the City Planning Commission regarding Case File No. IS-85-41 dated June 2, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission certified that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and National City Procedures for Environmental Review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council, having final approval authority over the project, make the above findings, and adopt the explanation of findings, certify that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and National City Procedures for Environmental Review, and review and consider the information contained in the EIR prior to rendering the final decision on project approval, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Final Environmental Impact Report and environmental findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City, California, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the final EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the proposed (revised) project, originally proposed project, and specific alternatives would have significant but mitigated effects in the areas of land use/neighborhood character, flooding/drainage/hydrology, traffic circulation, noise, public services, and geology/soils as explained in the Planning Department Report to the City Planning Commission regarding Case File No. IS-85-41 dated June 2, 1986, attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A"; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council certifies that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and National City Procedures for Environmental Review. Kile Morgan, ma or ATTEST: Ion Campbell, City Jerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: A/JL� Geor a H. iser, III -City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS TO BE ADOPTED WITH CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR * 1. LAND USE/NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER a. Originally submitted project: Implementation of the GPA and Zone Change would facilitate the development of the two-family residential units and general commercial uses on -site. The change from predominately undeveloped to urban is not considered significant by itself since development could currently take place under existing land use designations. However, the GPA and Zone Change would increase the allowable residential density on -site from 8.7 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 17.4 du/ac. The doubling in density represents a potentially significant effect. Also, the type of unit (attached) that could be developed on -site, if not properly designed, could significantly differ from existing single family` homes in the area and could represent an adverse effect. Allowable commercial uses would also be altered by implementation of the GPA and Zone Change. Existing land use designations include 4.42 acres of general and limited commercial uses at the northwestern and north -central and southern project boundaries. The (originally proposed) discretionary actions would remove the commercial land use designations from the northwestern and north -central site limits and, would provide 2.0 acres of general commercial land uses along the southern site margin. Commercially designated land at the southern site boundary would not serve as an extension of an adjacent commercial center due to the westerly orientation of the existing center. Also, the GPA and Zone Change would allow residential and commercial land uses in close proximity which could cause incompatible land uses if not appropriately buffered. The potential shadow -effect of the project was analyzed in conjunction with the preparation of this EIR. It was determined that structures at the extreme eastern limit of the site, if up to the maximum 35-foot height limit, could cause adverse shading on units to the east. However, one and two-story units with increased setbacks would not significantly shade nearby residences. The potential for light and glare associated with street -lights, headlights and incidental lighting was considered insignificant. b. No Project Alternative: (Not Significant) This alternative would allow on -site development under existing land use designations. Existing designations would permit up to 41 single family dwelling units with 4.42 acres of limited and general commercial land uses along Plaza Boulevard, Harbison Avenue and Eighth Street. From a land use perspective, this alternative would be beneficial in that it would locate single-family residential development near existing single-family units. However, a land use impact related to the proximity of on and off - site residential and commercial uses could result under this alternative. Buffering and the Planned Development Review process would mitigate this effect. This alternative would not shade residences to the east except on winter afternoons late in the day. Lighting would need to be designed so as not to impact the surrounding neighborhood. *Explanation/excerption from Planning Department Report to Planning Commission RE: IS-S5-41, dated lone 2, 10S6. c. All residential RS-2 Alternative: (Not Significant) This alternative would permit single-family residential development throughout the site for a maximum yield of 72 units after subtracting area for roads. The single-family homes would be compatible with surrounding residential development although buffering would be required near commercial uses. No significant shading effects to the east are forseen due to the 25-foot rear yard setbacks required by the RS-2 designation. d. All Residential RT alternative: This alternative would designate the entire site RT, residential two-family and would accommodate from approximately 104 to 145 attached or detached two-family units. Like the RS-2 alternative, review of project proposals under this alternative would be ensured at the tentative map stage through the subdivision review process. From a land use perspective, dwelling units allowed by this alternative could differ in character from surrounding single-family homes depending on their design. A potential adverse shading effect could occur to the east especially if two and/or three story structures are constructed at the minimum rear -yard setback. Buffering near commercial uses and sensitive lighting would be required. e. All Residential RT-PUD Alternative (REVISED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION): This alternative would permit up to 181 two-family or multi -family units throughout the site. The alternative includes a PUD (Planned Unit Development) overlay which, in addition to additional design flexibility, would ensure that proposed developments are reviewed prior to approval by the Planning Commission, City residents and staff. Due to the higher density provided by the RT-PUD designation, there is a potential for incompatibilities with existing development. Likewise, adverse shading could occur on residences to the east. Lighting and uses near commercial development should be sensitively designed. The PUD permit process can ensure appropriate mitigation. f. All Residential RT-PUD Mitigating Alternative (INTENDED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT): This alternative involves the same land use designation as the above alternative but represents a specific development plan proposed by the applicant. The current proposal includes 104 attached, two-family units at a density of 10 du/ac. The units would be one, one plus loft and two stories in height and would be set back from the eastern property line by approximately 25 feet. The RT-PUD designation by itself would not limit allowable units to 104. Thus, if a GPA and Zone Change were approved, a higher density would be allowed and development under the applicant's current development plan would not be absolutely ensured. However, the plan does reflect the applicant's intentions for the site and any project applications would need to go before the Planning Commission and the public in general for approval. In addition, the PUD approval process will be subject to State environmental review requirements. A more intensive project could not be approved without further environmental documentation. g• Due to the design of the project, this alternative would mitigate potential conflicts with nearby residences and shading. However, buffering would be required near commercial uses and lighting would need to be sensitively designed. All Residential RM-1 Alternative: This alternative would designate the entire site RM-1, multi -family extendable. This designation permits single-family, duplex or multi -family housing with a maximum of 150 units. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be required to implement this proposal. Although not discussed in the Draft EIR, the Planned Development (PD) overlay could be applied to require approval of development plans by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The PD designation would have no environmental effect. The RM-1 alternative could have several land use impacts. A potential incompatibility impact could occur since on -site multi -family development could substantially differ in density and character from surrounding single- family residential development. Shading of existing residences east of the site could also occur. Development would need to be buffered from adjacent commercial development and lighting would need to be located so as not to create a nuisance in the surrounding area. Mitigation could be ensured by the Planned Development permit approval process. 2. FLOODING/DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY The project's location within the floodplain of Paradise Creek represents a flooding potential to any development on -site. Mitigation of this impact would involve implementation of a covered or uncovered channel capable of carying the 100-year flood. Impacts related to flooding, drainage, hydrology would be the same for all alternative land use designations identified in the EIR. However, alternative measures for flood control could be considered, such as an open drainage swale. The open drainage swale alternative involves improvement and enhancement of Paradise Creek on -site. The channel would remain open and would comprise a naturalistic, landscaped drainage. This alternative could be applied to any of the alternative land use designations previously discussed. For example, two-family or multi -family residential units could be developed under this plan if clustered outside of the drainage easement. Depending on the designation and whether clustering would be permitted, this alternative could accommodate up to the maximum density discussed above. However, due to its current alignment, the channel would most likely preclude access from Plaza Boulevard. If single-family residential units are developed on -site, away from the drainage, no land use conflicts are forseen regarding nearby residential development. Similarly, some low density, two-family products may be compatible, depending on their design. Multiple -family structures may pose a land use conflict. In addition, adverse shading effect could occur under the RS-3-PD, RT, RT-PUD, and RM-1 zones but are unlikely under the RS-2 zone. Sensitive lighting and buffer areas should be provided under any scenario. A new, potential land use problem, that of safety, could result under this alternative. During periods when it contains water, the channel could create a drowning hazard and should be fenced. Potential effects related to flooding would be eliminated by enlargement of the channel to handle 100-year flood flows. Impacts from development with the open, naturalistic flood channel could result regarding geology, schools, traffic and noise from Harbison Avenue and Eighth Street. The magnitude of impact would be dependent on the level of development proposed. No impacts to paleontology, cultural resources, biology or air quality seem likely to occur. 3. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION a. Original Project: For the traffic analysis, development under the GPA and Zone Change was compared to what would be allowed under existing land use designations. The GPA and Zone Change would generate less traffic then development according to existing land use designations. However, like development under existing designations, the project would contribute to congestion at the intersection of Eighth Street and Harbison Avenue and thus constitutes an incrementally adverse impact. Mitigation of this effect could be accomplished by restriping Harbison Avenue to provide a southbound left - turn lane. Traffic flow could also be improved by reconstruction of existing signalization. Adverse parking effects would be avoided through conformance with National City parking regulations. The same mitigation would apply to all alternative land use designations. b. No project alternative (existing designations): Traffic generation would be the highest under this alternative and restriping of Harbison Avenue to provide left turn lanes is desirable. c. RS-2 alternative: Not significant. d. RT alternative, RT-PUD alternative, RT-PUD mitigating alternative and RM-1 alternative: No direct traffic impacts would occur. However, the cumulative effect of this and other developments could create congestion at the intersection of Eighth Street and Harbison Avenue. Restriping of Harbison Avenue to provide a left -turn lane and/or traffic signalization improvements would mitigate this effect. 4. NOISE A noise analysis prepared for the originally conceived project revealed that any on -site development would be subject to noise in excess of noise limits established by National City and the State of California. Construction of six- foot walls along the perimeter roads and implementation of structural attenuation measures for second -story units along Eighth Street would mitigate noise levels to State standards. Six-foot walls would also help off -set nuisance noise generated by truck unloading at the adjacent commercial center. The same impacts would occur and require the same mitigation for the no project alternative (existing General Plan and Zoning); as well as the RS-2, RT, RT-PUD, RT-PUD mitigating, and RM-1 alternatives. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Educational, Facilities An analysis of educational facilities revealed that any residential development on -site would impact the National School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District. Developer fees represent the most prominent measure to mitigate the impact. Impacts on schools may be mitigated by payment of fees by a project developer at the time specific development plans are submitted. An agreement for payment of fees should be provided at the time an application for subdivision, planned development permit or planned unit development permit is submitted. Payment of fees should be verified at the site plan review process. A potential student safety impact could result from students crossing Eighth Street. This effect could be mitigated either through implementation of a traffic light or elimination of project access to Eighth Street. b.. Water Facilities and Services Comments received from the Sweetwater Authority refer to the need for increased water flow and storage in the area. For any of the land use alternatives detailed review of subsequent development plans will be necessary to determine the specific improvement requirements. Subsequent environmental review may be necessary to address impacts of improvements at the development stage the improvements are determined, i.e. subdivision, planned development or planned unit development permit. 6. GEOLOGY/SOILS Potential impacts associated with seismic activity would be mitigated through standard construction techniques. Specialized grading techniques would mitigate potential impacts associated with expansive soils and should be overseen by a qualified geotechnical engineer.