v . 0 03 P a g e | 1
September 12, 2023
ITEM TITLE
Planning Commission Appeal: Certification of Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS21-0006) and Approval of a Design Review for a 178,156-Square-Foot Industrial Building for Office and Warehouse Uses on a Vacant
9.72-Acre Site Located at 517 Shinohara Lane
Report Number: 23-0241
Location: 517 Shinohara Lane
Department: Development Services
Environmental Notice : A Mitigated Negative Declaration with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) (IS21-0006) has been prepared.
Recommended Action
Conduct a public hearing and adopt resolutions: A) denying the appeal filed by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, and B) affirming the Planning Commission’s certification of Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS21-0006) and approving Design Review Permit DR21 -0032 to construct a 178,156 square -foot office/warehouse building.
SUMMARY
On December 20, 2021, VWP-OP Shinohara Owner, LLC (“Applicant”) submitted a Design Review application for the construction of a 178,156-square foot office/warehouse building on a vacant 9.72-acre lot located at 517 Shinohara Lane (Attachment 1), known as the Shinohara Industrial Center. The Project site is zoned ILP and designated Limited Industrial (“IL") in the General Plan . In accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code (“CVMC”) Section 19.14.582, plans for the establishment, location, expansion, or alteration of nonresidential structures in commercial and industrial zones require Design Review approval by the Planning Commission. As part of the preparation of the Project for the Planning Commission’s consideration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared whic h analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project.
On June 28, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Project, certified the MND, and approved the Project by a vote of 4-0 (Attachment 2). A total of four speakers submitted speaker slips at the Planning P a g e | 2
Commission hearing. The staff report and associated attachments from the Planning Commission hearing are provided as Attachment 3 to this report.
On July 12, 2023, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal (Attachment 6) of the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council based on the assertion that the MND was insufficient to adequately address the environmental impacts of the Project . The Appellant cites “Findings Not Supported” as the basis of the appeal.
Specifically, the appeal claims “the City violated provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requiring that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) be prepared to adequately analyze significant adverse environmental impacts.” The appeal further states, “The level of review adopted by the City was insufficient and therefore did not allow decision makers to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the Project.”
The Appellant asserts a full EIR should have been prepared for the Project instead of an MND. The Appellant alleges four main areas of the MND’s deficiency to substantiate their claim:
1. The Project is being “piecemealed” since the same developer is processing a separate pro ject near the Project site.
2. The MND is deficient in properly studying the Environmental Justice impacts related to:
a. Air Quality
b. Energy
c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3. The MND did not adequately study the impact of the Project’s workforce against regional growth forecasts as provided by the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”).
4. The MND’s Transportation analysis is flawed based upon the VMT analysis used as well as the geometric design of the Project site.
This item is now presented to the City Council for consideration and action. While this is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s June 28, 2023 vote, City Council should take into full consideration the deliberations and decision of the Planning Commission . Under C VMC Section 19.14.588(B) , the City Council has the authority to consider the Project, in its entirety, and make a de novo determination based upon appropriate findings.
Staff has reviewed and recommend s approval of the Project due to several factors, including that the proposed use is consistent within the ILP Zone, and is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses and zoning. Additionally, it is in compliance with current Development Standards and would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, policies, or programs relating to the CVMC or General Plan. More specifically, the proposed use is allowed at this location and complies with the General Plan policy by adding industrial uses to the City of Chula Vista. Additional industrial uses will attract industries and businesses that contribute to the diversification and stabilization of the local economy. Therefore, it is staff’s recommendation that the appeal be denied, and the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld.
Furthermore, while the Council’s review on appeal is de novo, this staff report is focused on the issues contained within the appeal and staff’s analysis of the appeal items, which includes detailed responses to the appeal issues that were prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by staff (Attachment 7). The MND was P a g e | 3
certified by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2023, and further discussions of the document will not add to or cause for a revision of the CEQA document unless the appeal is upheld, and the Planning Commission’s decision is overturned. The appeal focuses on t he environmental review process, the adequacy of the technical studies provided, and ultimately the determination of the environmental review which are all addressed within this report and the Applicant-provided responses to the appeal issues (Attachment 7). As a result, the information provided by staff will address the appeal and any new information is included as a response to the appeal and not as a revision or update to the Project MND.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the Project for compliance with CEQA and has conducted an Initial Study, IS21-0006, in accordance with CEQA. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Director of Development Services 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 Director o f Development Services has caused the preparation of MND No. IS21-0006, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) (Attachment 3a).
The Project MND was circulated for public review on two separate occasions. The first public review period was from August 22, 2022 to September 22, 2022. The MND was then revised and re-circulated. The second public review period was from January 27, 2023 to February 27, 2023. Both review periods were for 30 days, exceeding the minimum 20-day review period for this type of MND required under CEQA.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On June 28, 2023 , the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to certify the MND and approve the Project . Draft meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 2.
DISCUSSION
The 9.72-acre Project site is an existing, vacant parcel at the terminus of Shinohara Lane, west of Brandywine Avenue and north of Main Street, address of 517 Shinohara Lane ( the “Project Site”, see Attachment 1).
Residential uses are located north and west of the Project Site and industrial uses to the east and south. The Project Site’s topography presents with a challenging set of circumstances. Due to the grade differential between adjacent properties and the Project Site, the Project will be constructed 42 feet above street level and will include retaining walls up to 50 feet in height along each property boundary. The grade difference(s) between the residential properties to the north of the Project Site set the proposed building below the line of sight for those properties but above the elevation of the residential properties to the west. In addition, the entryway along Shinohara Lane will include a retaining wall to accommodate the grade differential between the proposed building pad and Shinohara Lane. An elevator at the southeastern corner of the site will allow pedestrian and accessible access onto the site from Shinohara Lane while vehicles will access the site via a sloped driveway from the Shinohara Lane terminus.
The proposed Project is a single -story, tilt-up concrete industrial building for warehousing and office uses.
Proposed occupants would operate for 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week, with three (3) varying shifts comprised of approximately 200 employees. The 178,156 square foot building is comprised of 173,432 P a g e | 4
square feet of warehouse space (inclusive of 4,506 square feet for office space) with an additional 4,724 square feet of optional mezzanine space. Other improvements include 64,130 square feet of landscaping, and two (2) separate trash enclosures.
In compliance with CEQA, the MND for the Project was originally circulated for public comment from August 22, 2022 to September 22, 2022. During the first circulation of the MND it was discovered that an analysis of a technical stud y (Vapor Intrusion) was inadvertently substituted for the actual technical study itself.
Therefore, the City decided to properly re-circulate the complete MND for public review but to enhance and amend the MND to address comments received during the first circulation. The second public review period was from January 27, 2023 to February 27, 2023. Both review periods were for 30 days, exceeding the minimum 20-day review period for this type of MND required under CEQA.
On July 12, 2023, the Appellant filed an appeal, raising several issues. Detailed responses to the appeal issues are provided in Attachment 7.
APPELLANT’S APPEAL ISSUES
Findings Not Supported
The basis of the appeal is the assertion that the Project requires an EIR instead of an MND to adequately review and analyze the environmental impacts. The Appellant believes the Project’s MND does not disclose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the Appellant cites the following bases for appeal:
Piecemealing
CEQA Sec tion 15165 prohibits a Lead Agency (the City) , from separately approving multiple, or phased, projects where, taken in their totality, the collective projects create a significant impact on the environment.
While one project alone may not impact the environment, several projects when looked at collectively may do so. In those cases, the Lead Agency is compelled to prepare individual EIRs for the separate projects, or a programmatic EIR for the collective projects. Accordingly, the Appellant is asserting the City should have had an EIR prepared given the same development team is processing a separate project approximately one mile from the Shinohara Industrial Center Project site. The Appellant sees the approval of both projects as one action, where the “construction and operation of all related industrial buildings as a whole” should be addressed through an EIR.
Appellant’s claims on this issue are incorrect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15165 clearly states that if there are phases to a project, and the individual phases are merely individual parts of a larger project, then the larger project should have an EIR prepar ed. Section 15165 goes further and states that where one project is the “necessary precedent” to a later project, or if the project commits the lead agency to a larger project down the road, then an EIR should be prepared. Additionally, Section 15165 states that where one project is one of many projects, but the projects are not part of a larger project, then the lead agency may have an EIR prepared. However, this last example has a caveat: where the lead agency does not have an EIR prepared, then the cumulative effects of the different projects must be addressed.
For the Project, just because the Applicant team’s other project is located near the Project site, does not make the two distinct projects, one larger project. The City is not compelled to approve the Applicant team’s next P a g e | 5
project just because they approved this Project. The two projects do not rely on one another and are designed to function wholly independent from one another. (See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1223-1226; Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal. App. 5th 266, 281-282). Additionally, the Applicant included their other project (Nirvana Business Park) in the cumulative impacts s ection of the re-circulated MND ( Attachment 3a, p. 127 -128). Therefore, due to both CEQA regulations, and case law, there is no piecemealing with the approval of the Project.
MND Deficiencies – Environmental Justice Impacts
The appeal further asserts the MND is deficient in studying the cumulative environmental impacts of the Project related to Environmental Justice. Specifically, the Appellant asserts the original MND is deficient in studying the impacts of Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the community given the census tract of the Project indicates particularly vulnerable populations.
Appellant’s claims on this issue are incorrect. All of these matters were addressed in Sections VI and VIII, and Appendices A and C, of the re -circulated MND. As stated on page 48 of the recirculated MND, “ the project would qualify for the first tier of the CalEEMod Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard, the Acorn equity award level” based on actions and environmental review analyses for the Project . The complete list of health and equity measures to be implemented regarding the Project can be found in the CalEEMod output in Appendix A of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study, which is Appendix C to the Recirculated MND.
Additionally, the Applicant has provided responses, which were reviewed by staff to these specific appeal assertions and are included as Attachment 7. Therefore, all of the raised objections related to Environmental Justice were properly addressed in the re-circulated MND properly fulfilling the requirements of CEQA.
Regional Workforce Growth Projections
The appeal’s third basis is related to the regional workforce growth modeling utilized by the Applicant. The Appellant wrongly asserts the projections are incorrect and inadequate to address the impacts of the Project and as such , a full EIR should be prepared to adequately study them. Specifically, the appeal incorrectly asserts the job forecast fo r the Project represents 1.5% of the City’s projected growth forecast from 2016 - 2050. The Appellant feels an EIR would better study the cumulative impacts of such a large portion o f the workforce being provided by only one project. The Appellant goes on to assert the workforce needed to fulfill the jobs at the Project site will increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (“ VMT”) and the original MND did not adequately analyze the operational impacts generating a higher VMT baseline average.
As provided in the re-circulated MND, the projection of employees for the Project is indicated as 350 on the high end, not 600 as the Appellant asserts. The Project may not need as many as 350 jobs to properly operate once a tenant is secured for the site. Nonetheless, the 350 figure represents only .832% of the projected growth over the next 34 years and is speculative. The expected number of employees is based upon input from experts in the industrial properties leasing field . Additionally, by utilizing maps provided by SANDAG for VMT data and VMT Employee Screening, the re-circulated MND determined no significant impacts related to VMT exist relating to the Project. Therefore, the issues raised in the appeal related to growth projections and VMT are adequately addressed in the re-circulated MND and MMRP.
P a g e | 6
Transportation Analysis is Flawed
Finally, the appeal incorrectly asserts that the MND does not adequately study the VMT impacts as set forth in the City’s own Transportation Study Guidelines. The City’s guidelines state that absent substantial evidence to the contrary, a project will be presumed to have a less than significant impact if it is located in a VMT-efficient area. A VMT-efficient area is one where the average projected VMT is at or below the baseline regional average for the census tract in which it is located. The appeal asserts the MND was deficient in claiming the project is in a VMT-efficient zone and does not adequately reflect the number of trips associated with the associated truck traffic to and from the Project site. The appeal also asserts that VMT will be negatively impacted by requiring employees to travel long distances to work at the site. Finally, the appeal asserts the geometric design of the Project site does not adequately provide f or adequate room for large trucks to maneuver safely throughout the site.
As stated in the responses to the appeal provided by the Applicant (Attachment 7), the Applicant is marketing the Project site to San Diego-based industries and businesses that would “primarily serve businesses and operations located in the nearby NASSCO shipyards,” not to businesses located in more distant areas such as “Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the Victorville Inland Port Airport” as claimed in the appeal. The appeal responses go further in stating that pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.3, the vehicle trips to be studied in VMT analyses for environmental documents are to be those trips generated by automobile traffic and not heavy trucks servicing the Project site. The site was analyzed for the worst -case scenario and did not generate a significant traffic impact based on the VMT analysis. Truck traffic was further conditioned to adhere to the designated truck route areas to avoid overlap through residential communities. Additionally, CEQA does not expect lead agencies to engage in speculation as to where employees will ultimately come from to work at the site. T he expectation o f the Applicant is that the workforce will primarily come from the surrounding Chula Vista a nd South Bay communities. The appeal responses address how the above assumptions have informed the 15.32 VMT figure cited in the re -circulated MND and how it is below the VMT -efficiency threshold of 18.9.
The Project was reviewed by civil engineers as well as the Chula Vista Fire Department, and all turning ratios for truck traffic throughout the Project site must meet City standards . Therefore, the re-circulated MND adequately addresses the issues raised in the appeal related to Transportation.
Basis for Staff’s Recommendation
In accordance with CEQA, if a project is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA , the lead agency will conduct an Initial Study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
A lead agency for a project has the authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards established by case law (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994) 512 U.S. 374, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854).
Further, prior to approving a project, the decision -making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and comments received) that there is P a g e | 7
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgement and analysis.
The results of the originally circulated MND, as well as those of the re -circulated MND, demonstrate there are no significant impacts to the environment created by the proposed Project in the categories of agriculture, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, energy, paleontology, biology, cultural resources, housing, mineral resources, and population. Both MNDs identified less than significant impacts in the categories of aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, energy, geology, greenhouse gases, hazardous materials, hydrology, land use, noise, public services, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal and cultural resources, utilities and service systems and wildfire. Staff analyzed both MNDs and determined the Applicant met the requirements of CEQA Section 21004 by creating an MMRP which is designed to mitigate identified impacts to less than significant effects on the environment. A limited amount of noise and dust is to be expected in association with construction activities ; however, the mitigation measure s, the Project’s conditions of approval, and the City’s performance standards offset and mitigate for such impacts. Therefore, there are no significant impacts resulting from the Project.
The proposed use meets the requirements of the CVMC as well as requirements of CEQA. CEQA Section 15064(f)(2) states:
If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole reco rd before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared.
The Project Site is privately owned and propos es an allowed use within the ILP zone. The Project provides an industrial development that will revitalize a vacant lot and enhance the local economy with up to 350 permanent jobs for residents of Chula Vista and the surrounding region. The Project is consistent with the vision of the General Plan in continuing to develop industrial land in order to provide a stable economic base.
The increased supply of land for non -retail employment promotes economic development that fosters job availability, economic revitalization and tax revenues.
The Project Site is easily accessible to the 805 freeway to the west and nearby major thoroughfares such as Main Street to the south. Concerns regarding proximity to residential use are mitigated by the fact that there is an approximate 50-foot setback with a grade d ifferential between the Project Site and the residential properties. The residential properties are located at a grade below the Project to the west and above the Project grade to the North. Additionally, the Project Site will include a 6-foot screening wall around the western perimeter of the property. Further, the Project is consistent with the applicable design standards for building, facade and roof articulation; materials and colors; landscaping; and trash enclosures & recycling.
P a g e | 8
Conclusion
In conclusion, city staff has determined that (1) the Applicant has met or exceeded the analysis burdens of CEQA with no unmitigated environmental impacts identified in the re-circulated MND and MMRP, (2) there is substantial evidence in the record that the Proj ect meets the findings for issuance of a Design Review Permit and MMRP, with legally appropriate concerns addressed through conditions on the Project, and (3) the Project design is consistent with City design standards.
Staff recommends the City Council deny the Appellant’s appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s certification of the MND (IS21-0006) and approval of Design Review Permit DR21-0032 to construct a one- story, 178,156 square-foot industrial building on a vacant 9.72-acre lot located at 517 Shinohara Lane.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City council members and has found no property holdings within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Consequently, this item does not present a disqualifying real p roperty-related financial conflict of interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18705.2(a)(11), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The appeal fee of $250 was paid by the Appellant and the processing of the appeal to City Council, and processing costs associated with the Project are borne by the Applicant. There are no current -year fiscal impacts to the General Fund or the Development Services Fund as a result of this action.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact t o the General Fund or the Development Services Fund as a result of this action. All processing costs are paid by the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Locator Map
2. Draft Planning Commission Minutes
3. Planning Commission Report
a. MND, MMRP, and Technical Studies
b. Project Plans
4. MND Planning Commission Resolution
5. Design Review Planning Commission Resolution
6. Appeal, dated 7/12/23 and Written Communication Received from Appellant, dated 7/12/23
7. Responses to Appeal Issues
8. Disclosure Statement from Applicant, dated 11/24/21
P a g e | 9
Staff Contacts: Oscar Romero, Senior Planner, Development Services D. Todd Philips, Planning Manager, Development Services Laura C. Black, AICP, Director of Development Services