HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter of Disapproval for Walmart Super CenterProtect Lakes £W.�e/
November 30, 2015 DECEIVED
The Honorable Mayor and Lake Elsinore City Council NOV 3 0 2015
C/o City Clerk, City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
�G1S N ►9U 30 9,� 10 35
Dear Mayor and Lake Elsinore City Council:
We respectfully request that the Lake Elsinore city council vote to reject proposed
Commercial Design Review No. 2013 -08; Conditional Use Permit No. 2015 -06 (for a 154,487
Walmart Supercenter, including outdoor garden center, arcade, and outdoor /seasonal display of
merchandise); Conditional Use Permit No. 2015 -08 (for fast food restaurant with a drive - through
on Outlot 2); and Conditional Use Permit No. 2015 -09 (for fast food restaurant with a drive -
through on Outlot 3); hereafter collectively referred to as the "Project".
Project Descri ti on
The Lake Elsinore Walmart Supercenter project located south of Highway 74 (Central
Avenue) /Cambern Avenue and north of 3rd street would consist of a retail center anchored by a
Walmart Supercenter and including an additional three freestanding retail /restaurant tenants
(outlots) on the undeveloped 17.66 -acre site that is zoned for C -2 (General Commercial) and
CMU (Commercial Mixed Use). The proposed retail anchor Walmart Supercenter would be
approximately 154,487 square feet (SF), including a 3,090 -SF seasonal outdoor garden center.
Development of the outlots along Central Avenue will consist of two alternative develop
scenarios, with individual land use configurations. Option A would be developed as a gas station
with 16 fueling stations, an approximately 3,100 SF convenience store, and a drive - through car
wash and two other buildings which would be developed as separate drive -thru restaurants
(3,700 SF and 3,100 SF). The total building area for Options A is 164,387 square feet. Option B
would consist of one outlot being developed with approximately 9,310 SF of retail and /or
restaurant space situated within two buildings, while the other two outlots will be developed with
drive -thru restaurant uses similar to the proposed development under Option A. The total
building area for Options B is 170,487 square feet.
A draft environmental impact report ( "DEIR ") was prepared and, after close of the
minimum required circulation period on October 13, a final EIR ( "FEIR ") supposedly
incorporating the information gathered during the circulation period, was issued only a few days
later. Two weeks later, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Project
with minor modifications.
Approval of the Project would be in error for several reasons.
Page 1 of 6
Pmtect Lakel E44w-re/
As an initial matter, you have the discretion to reject the conditional use permit for the
Project. A Planning Commission's recommendation does not tie your hands; it is both your duty
and your right to consider the application before you de novo as a fresh application. The
recommendation and findings by the Planning Commission do not compel approval of the
project. Similarly, a complete application meeting the bare standards of §§ 17.168.020 and .060
of the Municipal Code does not require approval of the conditional use permits. A significant
body of California case law establishes that the final decision - making body reserves the
authority, pursuant to its police powers, to reject a conditional use or similar permit on police
power grounds —that such action would not benefit or advance the health, safety, or welfare of
the public. A conditional use permit is inherently discretionary, and if in its discretion the City
Council does not believe the Project would meet the high standards necessary for this
entitlement, it should reject the application.
However, the Council has only one opportunity to exercise this discretion. A conditional
use permit is inherently discretionary,' but if a City fails to properly exercise its discretion when
it has the chance, an entitlement may be created and then the city's hands are tied —as we
discovered to our detriment in 1993.2 The Council should proceed carefully and with all
deliberation necessary. As the need for a conditional use permit itself suggests, the Project will
have a high impact. If there is a chance that the long -term impacts on urban decay, surrounding
property values, and net tax revenue will be at all detrimental, the Council should reject the
Project.
We live and work in Lake Elsinore and the project as proposed would have a significant
negative impact on local air quality, traffic, noise, light pollution, public safety, urban decay,
property Values and on overall duality of life for us and hundreds of neighbors, residents and
merchants. Furthermore, approval of the Project would not be harmonious with noise, traffic, and
light pollution elements of the General Plan. Therefore we would like the city council to reject the
proposed Project based on the following non - exhaustive issues.
Air Quality
1) The Project has the potential to conflict with, or obstruct implementation of the applicable
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The DEIR explicitly states that this impact is
significant and unavoidable (see Impact 4.2 -1 as discussed on Pages 4.2 -20 through 4.2 -22).
As an "unavoidable impact" the City should consider imposing appropriate mitigation fees,
to avoid granting a de facto subsidy to the Applicant to the detriment of existing and future
businesses.
2) The DEIR recognizes that implementation of the Project would result in long -term regional
emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors, that the Project will result in a
1 See e.g., Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 504 F.3d 803, (9th Cir. 2003) citing Breakzone Billiards v. City of
Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4t' 1205, 1224.
Z See Thompson v. City of Lake Elsinore (1993) 18 Cal.App.4`h 49.
Page 2 of 6
Protect Lak& E4,v�e/
significant and unavoidable impact on the additional emission of air pollutants in the region,
and that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen
or avoid these unavoidable impacts on air quality.
3) The DEIR recognizes that operational emissions associated with the Project would exceed
the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for VOC and NOx emissions even with mitigation
and thus a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact would occur as identified on Page
4.2 -36 of the DEIR. Therefore the mitigation measures should be imposed or alternatives to
the project considered.
Traffic
1) The addition of project - generated traffic would contribute to unacceptable LOS E conditions
at Lakeshore Drive / Riverside Drive (SR 74) during the PM and Saturday mid -day peak
hours. While improvements described in Mitigation Measure TRA -7 may reduce impacts to
less- than- significant, the DEIR recognizes that the Project on its own cannot guarantee the
implementation of these improvements before construction and occupancy of the proposed
Project and identifies significant and unavoidable impacts at the subject intersection. The
significant and unavoidable impacts that the Project will have on Lakeshore Drive / Riverside
Drive will negatively impact traffic commute times, public safety and our quality of life.
2) The addition of project - generated traffic would contribute to unacceptable LOS F conditions
at East Lakeshore Drive / Diamond Drive during the AM, PM and Saturday mid- day peak
hours. While improvements described in Mitigation Measure TRA -8 may reduce impacts to
less - than- significant, the Draft EIR assumes that the significant impact will occur until such
time as the improvements are completed. There is no final timeline or date for when the
mitigation improvements will be completed nor further study of the impact the lack of
improvements will have on traffic, public safety and residents' quality of life in the potential
long interim from project construction and completion to the unsecured date when mitigation
improvements are completed.
3) The addition of project - generated traffic would contribute to unacceptable LOS E conditions
at Gunnerson Street /Riverside Drive (SR 74) to increase during the AM peak hour, and to
unacceptable LOS F conditions during the PM and Saturday mid -day peak hours. The
improvements described in Mitigation Measure TRA -9 may reduce impacts to less -than-
significant. However, the DEIR recognizes that the Project on its own cannot guarantee the
implementation of these improvements before construction and occupancy of the proposed Project
and therefore identifies significant and unavoidable impacts at the subject intersection. Mitigation
improvements at the subject intersection should be completed prior to approval of the project and the
issuing of building permits given the impact the Project will have on the LOS at this intersection.
4) The addition of project - generated traffic would contribute to unacceptable LOS E conditions
at 1 -15 Northbound Ramps / Nichols Road during the AM peak hour. The improvements
described in Mitigation Measure TRA -4 may reduce impacts to less than significant.
However, the DEIR recognizes that the Project on its own cannot guarantee the implementation of
these improvements before construction and occupancy of the proposed Project and therefore
identifies significant and unavoidable impacts at the subject intersection. Mitigation improvements at
the subject intersection should be completed prior to approval of the project and the issuing of
building permits given the impact the Project will have on the LOS at this intersection.
Page 3 of 6
Protect Lake/ E4�v�e/
5) The addition of project - generated traffic would contribute to unacceptable LOS F conditions
at 1-15 Northbound Ramps / North Main Street during the AM and PM peak hours. The
improvements described in Mitigation Measure TRA -5 may reduce impacts to less- than -
significant. However, the DEIR recognizes that the Project on its own cannot guarantee the
implementation of these improvements before construction and occupancy of the proposed Project
and therefore identifies significant and unavoidable impacts at the subject intersection. Mitigation
improvements at the subject intersection should be completed prior to approval of the project and the
issuing of building permits given the impact the Project will have on the LOS at this intersection.
6) The addition of project - generated traffic would contribute to unacceptable LOS E conditions
at 1-15 Northbound Ramps / Railroad Canyon Road. The improvements described in
Mitigation Measure TRA -10 may reduce impacts to less -than significant. However, the DEIR
recognizes that the Project on its own cannot guarantee the implementation of these improvements
before construction and occupancy of the proposed Project and therefore identifies significant and
unavoidable impacts at the subject intersection. Mitigation improvements at the subject intersection
should be completed prior to approval of the project and the issuing of building permits given the
impact the Project will have on the LOS at this intersection.
7) The addition of project - generated traffic would contribute to unacceptable LOS F conditions
at Summerhill Drive / Railroad Canyon Road during the AM, PM and Saturday mid -day
peak hours. The improvements described in Mitigation Measure TRA -6 may reduce impacts
to less- than - significant. However, the DEIR recognizes that the Project on its own cannot
guarantee the implementation of these improvements before construction and occupancy of the
proposed Project and therefore identifies significant and unavoidable impacts at the subject
intersection. Mitigation improvements at the subject intersection should be completed prior to
approval of the project and the issuing of building permits given the impact the Project will have on
the LOS at this intersection.
8) The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts to traffic on the
aforementioned intersections and on local roads surrounding the Project. The DEIR states the
impacts are cumulatively significant and recognizes that the recommended mitigation measures and
the timing for when they may be funded and implemented are largely unknown. Therefore, mitigation
improvements at the subject intersections and on local roads surrounding the project site should be
completed prior to approval of the project and the issuing of building permits given the impact the
Project will have on traffic, public safety and residents' quality of life.
9) The DEM acknowledges that the Project will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact on levels of service along the 1 -15 Freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions and
for intersections along Central Avenue (SR 74). The DEIR also states it is unlikely that the
interchange improvements would be in place prior to the Project's Opening Year. Therefore,
mitigation improvements should be completed prior to approval of the project and the issuing of
building permits.
10) The proposed 155,000 square foot shopping center and fast food restaurants will attract
thousands of new daily vehicle trips and large delivery truck traffic on local roads that are
adjacent to an established residential neighborhood and schools. This dramatic increase in
traffic trips in the area will delay commute times for us and numerous others as well as
negatively impact public safety by creating more vehicular and large delivery truck traffic on
our streets.
Page 4 of 6
Protect Lak& E4ivw-rev
Noise
1) The DEIR recognizes that even with implementation of recommended temporary noise barriers
(MM N0I -1), the noise level impacts due to mobile equipment activity will still exceed the 60 dBA
Lmax noise level threshold for construction activity with a duration of 10 days or more at nearby
single - family residential homes, and therefore, represents a significant and unavoidable noise impact.
Additional mitigation measures should be implemented to lessen the impact the Project will
have on nearby residents and merchants.
2) The proposed Project will generate significant vehicular traffic and require numerous
deliveries be made at all hours of the day and night by large semi - trucks which will generate
significant noise pollution for nearby residents.
Light Pollution
The proposed Project will create significant light pollution obstructing residents' views of
the night sky and blinding nearby residents when numerous lights attached to the various
proposed businesses and parking lot turn on and flood the night sky. Furthermore, we and other
residents do not believe that many of the proposed walls and berms for the project will
adequately contain impacts like light from oncoming vehicle headlights and glares from the
proposed gas station and/or fast food restaurants from visibly obstructing residents' peace and
tranquility at night.
Public Safety
We and others are concerned about the negative impact on public safety that alcohol
sales, a 24 -hour Supercenter, and fast food restaurants will have on a well - established residential
neighborhood and schools surrounding the proposed site. Furthermore, the proposed Project will
create significant additional traffic and will require numerous deliveries be made at all hours of
the day and night by large semi - trucks which will pose a danger to public safety.
Urban Decav
1) The proposed Project will negatively impact existing businesses near the Project and
throughout the city of Lake Elsinore. We would like the city to consider the negative
cumulative economic impact that the closure of several small businesses would have on the
local economy should the Project be approved. Newly vacant storefronts will not easily
attract new tenants and may stay vacant for some time thus attracting blight, vagrants, crime,
mischief and graffiti.
2) If the Project is approved, Walmart will close their existing big box store in Lake Elsinore at
31700 Grape Street. Once vacated the existing large building on Grape Street will be blight
and attract vagrants, crime, mischief and graffiti. We therefore request that the city condition
approval of the Project on Walmart finding a suitable tenant for their existing store within
one years' time and be required to pay the city's police department or a private security firm
for supervision and security of the vacated site for the aforementioned reasons.
Page 5 of 6
Pratect Lakel E46n.owe/
3) An economic impact study, conducted by a consultant chosen by the City but paid for by the
Applicant, should be completed prior to approval. Such a study could be completed in a
fairly short time period and empower the City Council to adequately determine what
mitigation measures are necessary. Studying economic impacts is critical because urban
decay can cause serious and sometimes intractable problems for land use planning, as black
holes of economic activity drag down surrounding commerce and cause a downward spiral
that require ever -more incentives and city resources to combat. This is why urban decay is a
relevant area of study for an EIR in the first place.3
4) Impose appropriate impact fees, including to help finance maintenance of "dark sites," retail
facilities lost, and potentially to mitigate costs to homeowners of increased noise, light
pollution and trash. It is critical that enough study, particularly of economic impact, be
conducted now so as to ensure any impacts imposed can survive - judicial scrutiny. This is a
"measure twice, cut once" situation. Mitigation impact fees require enough evidence in the
record to survive a challenge.4 A full economic impact study at this point is therefore critical.
Property Values and Quality of Life
The cumulative impact that the proposed Project will have on the surrounding
neighborhood and area (increased air pollution, traffic congestion, noise, light pollution, public
safety and urban decay) will make the residential and commercial property near and surrounding
the proposed site less desirable to future property owners and tenants and thus drive down
property values and impact ours and others overall quality of life.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully ask that the Lake Elsinore City Council reject the
Project as currently proposed until such time as proper impact studies and mitigation measures
can be implemented, and more appropriate project alternatives considered that would not have as
significant an impact on our community and quality of life.
Sincerely,
DcbLic' A.
A-o4 eA La, k�P- E l l i n ore
F-e 114 carc -40,
L akf. l✓ Islnore,j CA, q2532—
(a Sl) 1(. y— 5-a 7 -7
hwee CplA:�
Psi �o ke O *Dt
354;4 SaoWle brill ".
( zor) 51� ll--13
3 See e.g., Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Cl of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.
° See for example City of San Marcos v. Loma San Marcos, LLC (2015) 234 Cal.App.41h 1045,1058-1060.
Page 6 of 6