The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEIR 93-02; Green Valley; Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (8)MFlR 07 '95 12:43PM P&D TECHNOLOGIES - Memorandum To: Christer Westman From: Gary Wood and Tom Hagemen Date: March 7, 1995 P .2/5 Subject: Review of the April 5, 1994 letter from Kevin Johnson to Council re: Green Valley BR; revlew of notes May 3,1994 meeting with City Attorney; review of notes of City Council hearing April 5, 1994 re: Green Valley project and observations and suggestions regarding additional EIR wording, Overview There are a variety of observations by both the public comment and in Mr. Johnson's (referred to hereafter as KKJ) letter regarding alleged inadequacies in the analysis of Cumulative impacts, alternative project designlsiting, growth inducing impacts and unmitigated impacts". KKJ indicates that CEQA Guideline 151 68(bl(4), and (d)(2) requires analysis of "regional influences, secondary effects and cumulative impacts", He then goes on to observe that the EIR identification of other major projects in the area -- there are 10 identified -- is "relatively good", however, the EIR does not "proceed with any meaningful cumulative impacts analysis". r KKJ states that "one cannot tell" which (of the 10 projects) were considered/anslyzed in terms of specific impacts, and overall cumulative impacts In 11 categories, such as land form alteration, agriculture, biologjcal resources, cultural resources, atc. He states that it is not adequate to devote only two pages to cumulative impacts with no analysis. Both the public and KKJ indicate that traffic (cumulative impacts) is a major concern and inadequacy in the EIR document. KKJ makes repeated reference to the Encinltas Ranch project, and seems to assume it will be approved as submitted (as of the April 5, 7 994 d ate). For example, he states "..when the Encinitas Ranch project is approved...", avariety of terrible things will happen when combined with the Green Valley project. Specific reference is made by both KKJ and the public to "inadequacy" of response to comments "F39", which states, simply that "cumulative impacts of multiple projects in the vicinity ..." have been addressed. KKJ also does not like responses to comments "F10" and "F40". F10 discusses "reasonable alternatives" and the "rule of reason" applied. F40 refers the reader back to F10. i MRR 07 '95 12:43PM P&D TECHNOLOGIES c Christer Wesrrnan P .3/5 March 7, 1995 Page 2 of 4 KKJ presents his concerns regarding what he descrlbes as "multiple and troubling inconsistences" between traffic studies in Green Valley, Encinitas Ranch and the Home Depot project, It is not clear exactly what purpose this observation serves. It could be he wants the Green Valley EIR to rectify this conundrum to his satisfaction, whatever form that may rake. KKJ wishes that the Encinitas Ranch site undergo analysis as an "alternate site", and believes that the "no project alternative" should be discussed in light of public facilities impacts, His comments on "unmitigable impact" are somewhat unclear. He observes that although the Encinitas City Council made overriding findings on traffic impacts on the Home Depot, "consultants" found that there were unmitigable impacts. Apparently, he wonders how there could be unmitigable impacts on the 102,000 sq. ft. Home Depot project and mitigated impacts on the much larger Green Valley project. How or why Carlsbad's Green Valley EIR document might address andlor solve this is not clear. Wqested Changes CEQA Section 21061 (Definitions) states that "An environmental impact report is informational document which, ... shall be considered by every public agency to its approval or disapproval of a project.". Section 21 065M defines a "project" as "Activities involving the issuance to a Derson ,., entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." (our emphasis). KKJ's desires as far as what this particular EIR should be are just that, his desires. Most of the rhetaric, of both public and KKJ's is "desire b.ased" not necessarily CEQA based. When reduced to a CEQA based bonom line there are really only two items which should, in our opinion, be additionally addressed in the EIR, They are as follows: 1. Of the ten identified projects identified in the area, only two are not subject to the Carlsbad Growth Management Program and required LFMP analysis (school site excepted) -- they are, Encinitas Ranch and Home Depot, Section 6.3 of the EIR should include discussion regarding the required impact analysis of the Carlsbad Growth Management Program along the lines of the existing discussion in Section 6.4 Analysis of cumulative impacts and holding capacity is precisely what Carlsbad's Growth Management Program Is designed to do, in advance of the EIR process. It is important to realize that a reviewer of the EIR may not read the entire document but only specific sections. Therefore, if the cumulative impacts section can be made to be more of a "stand alone" discussion it would assist 8 reader in understanding the range of programs and policies that exist in Carlsbad to assure analysis of cumulative impacts. MQR 87 '95 12:43PM P&D TECHNOLOGIES c c Christer Westman r P .4/5 March 7, 7995 Page 3 of 4 There is a point which should be made about the ability to analyze a "project", and sequence of project review by a local government. It appears that KKJ wants Carlsbad to analyze the Eminitas Ranch project in an EIR-like manner prior to the permitting jurisdiction --this is inappropriate and premature for Encinitas Ranch. Carlsbad is not the "lead agency" as portrayed in CEQA Section 21080.1. This should be clarified in 6.3, 6.4 and F10, F3B and F40. There is no doubt that there is jurisdictional "gray area" between a community which has a very detailed public facilities impact review process, and one which does not. However, just because one has a more complete process, does not transfer CEQA responsibility to the more thorough jurisdiction. KKJ seems to want a "master EIR" for the entire region. The Green Valley EIR is a "program EIR" because of the simple recognition that the application is for "policy type" documents (e.g., general plan, LFMP, Master Plan). Before construction can be undertaken, more specific plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City. How one would characterize the Encinitas Ranch process in this context is unclear. Since the property itself is not currently within the jurisdiction of the City of Encinitas, and therefore, has no general plan status, how would one make fundamental assumptions regarding what the City of Encinitas may or may not be likely to approve? And, since the currently County of San Diego jurisdiction general plan does not allow the "project", and no County GPA has been submitted, what is the project? The presumption clearly is that: the property will eventually be annexed to Encinitas after a review by LAFCO. What further changes to the project will occur as part of this remaining process are unknown. 2. The traffic analysis funded by Carlsbad Partners, and currently under way should be introduced as an addendum to the EIR document, A general description of this effort, including background, should be provided. The analysis should be in the appropriate "traffic" section, with reference in the cumulative impacts, alternative praject designlsiting, growth inducing impacts and unmitigated impacts sections, Reference sho3d also be made in the response to comments section (F10, F39 and F40) as notes of clarification. In reviewing the notes of the May 3, 1994 meeting with the Clty Attorney on this issue, Ron Ball observed "the community and the decision makers must be brought along with the vision of the project". Modifying the words in the EIR probably will not eccomplish this. Also observed was the need to portray the level of intensity proposed by Encinitas Ranch, We believe the supplemental traffic analysis will help do this, and there should be no hesitation to convey this in the EIR. MAR a7 '95 IZ:~~PM P&D TECHNOLOGIES - .. L Christer Westman f- P .5/5 March 7, 199s Page 4 of 4 Ron Ball also stated that the cumulative impacts must be addressed by "both sides". We now know that Encinitas does not want to participate in this effort, so Carlsbad should not be shy about pointing out the facts of the analysis, end emphasizing the "protection" of Growth Management. Ron also stated that conveying why the "land use is appropriate" is very important. Again, this is not as much an EIR task as it is a public information effort. The staff report to the Council on the initiative provided a good first step in this direction. GW/TH:be