HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-08; City Council; 16923 part 4 of 6; Draft Program Environmental Impact ReportPlanning Commission Minutes August 21,2002 Page 8
Commissioner Dominguez asked what he date was on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Fish and G~~~
letter. Ms. Hysong replied that they received the letter that morning, August 21, 2002.
Commissioner White asked how many oak trees may be lost in the process compared to the number of oak
trees on the property; why trees are being transplanted; and how that does or does not fit with the mitigation
for the loss of oak trees. Ms. Hysong responded that transplantation of oaks is not part of the mitigation for
this project; it's a requirement of the Landscape Plan, which is part of the Specific Plan. There will be
impact to 19 oak trees; 17 will be direct impacts and 2 indirect impacts. Where feasible, those oak trees
will be transplanted to the entry locations where the monument signs will be. There are approximately 686
trees in the Specific Plan area, so the impact is about 2.3% of the trees on the site.
Commissioner Whitton asked how many oak trees in the City of Carlsbad were transplanted and how have
they survived. Ms. Hysong replied there have been a number of locations that had a transplantation program
and she was told that in some cases, such as Aviara, it's been fairly successful. Mr. Wickham added that
a very large oak was transplanted in the Aviara Oaks school grounds. There's also a park on the corner of
Palomar Airport Road and Camino Vida Roble where about a half dozen oak trees were planted around the
entrance to that industrial subdivision and also around a water feature,
Commissioner Dominguez wanted to know if the alignment of the gravity sewer line would reduce the
replied that the trees being impacted are basically due to the Faraday Avenue alignment and didn't think
number of trees that would be affected if they went to the alternate through the roadway itself, Ms. Hysong
either alignment of the sewer would impact additional oaks.
Keith Merkel of Merkel and Associates. 5434 Rufh Road, San Diego, biological consultants on the project,
stated that there are two different issues being addressed regarding the oaks. One is the oaks as a habitat
and the other is oaks as a resource. The transplantation program addresses the oaks as a valuable
resource to the city; it's an aesthetic issue, moving the oaks that can be moved in the landscaping
component of the project. Movement of those oaks into a cultural landscaping setting does not mitigate the
adverse biological impacts of the habitat itself. Typically they would be moved into a turf area with other
landscape type plants, rather than the oak community habitats.
HMP which requires a creation component so that's there is no net loss of oak habitat. He said they
Mr. Merkel said they addressed the oak communities impacts in the context of habitat mitigation under the
included the requirement to do restoration of oak woodland, that includes transplanting nursery grown
container live oak plants into an area, along with the required understory vegetation to restore oak
woodlands where they have been lost. The downside is that oak woodlands grow very slowly; so much of
the mitigation for oak woodlands these days is being done by conservation, rather than creation. They
what's being required elsewhere. The mitigation for oak woodlands in this case, 1.1 acres of woodland,
included both in this case; the HMP required creation of woodlands and conservation at a ratio typical to
conservation ratio of 2 to 1. So for that 1.1 acres, we are conserving also on site within the open space 2.2
requires creation of oak woodland at a 1 to 1 basis using 10 oaks to every oak impacted, as well as a
acres. Specifically the conservation of oak woodlands would be in the oak riparian habitats as well as in the
oak woodland.
Commissioner Baker asked that since 'Faraday Avenue may be potentially put very close to many of the
oaks, would the road hasten the demise of oaks that would not otherwise be,lost. Mr. Merkel said that's
activities would occur within the drip line of those oaks. Indirect impacts are based on the oaks drip line
how they developed the direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts mean that the road and grading
within 25 feet of any grading activity. With indirect impacts we assumed, for all practical purposes in the
mitigation, they are fully lost as part of this project. Requirements are also built into the mitigation to cb
what is appropriate to try to conserve them in place. At .the time of grading an arborist would be brought in
who would trim the oaks back and make recommendations for minimization of impacts, with the expectation
that those measures would protect the oaks better than doing nothing, but we have made the assumption
that those additional oaks would be lost.
Commissioner Baker wanted to clarify if the 19 oak trees included any indirect impacts. Mr. Merkel said in
many areas roads are put in that occur up and under the drip line of oaks, and the oaks continue to persist.
Planning Commission Minutes August 21,2002 Page 9
The certainty Of the survival Of those trees is difficult to predict so we assume anything that occurs under a
the proposed grading of the road may Survive, but we consider them to be lost based on the analysis used
drip line is lost, so we consider that to be a direct impact. Some of the trees that are located at the base of
under the drip line.
Chairperson Trigas asked if there would be any other trees indirectly impacted. Mr. Merkel said that 2 meet
the criteria if the encroachment occurs outside the drip line, but within 25 feet of that line. There are a
number that may survive that we've called direct impacts because the ability at this scale to determine
whether they will or will not be impacted is not there. The requirement to do trimming and whatever can be
done during construction is a condition. There are 19 where there is a permanent activity that occurs in the
done around the trees but equipment ,will need to access between the trees to place the footings for the
area. There are about 4 or 5 additional trees that are along Agua Hedionda Creek where no grading will be
sewer bridge if the northern gravity sewer option is selected. They have not been identified as impacted
because no grading or land disturbance will occur in those areas, however, equipment will move through
there.
Commissioner Heineman asked him to address the possibility of transplanting mature oaks. Mr.
said it can be done successfully and it's extremely expensive. He said he's an advocate of doing it, but not
as mitigation because the context is lost when you move them into a cultural landscape. You ha& an
aesthetic oak that has minimal habitat values relative to being in the context of native habitats. Many
transplants have been SucCeSSfUl and many have been unsuccessful. You would have to do an analysis on
the health, size, how much material would have to removed, etc. to determine the probability of success for
each mature oak you intend to transplant. It's a risky business, so from an oak woodland mitigation
standpoint the biological community has moved away from that and moved more toward conservation.
success as stated in much of the correspondence they received from various groups. Mr. Merkel said it's
Commissioner Dominguez asked if he agreed that transplantation has less than a 20 percent chance of
probably true, as a general premise. He added that successlul transplantation is how much money you put
into it; you have to have the expertise and commit the resources.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the replacement trees he's suggesting at a ratio of 10 to 1 are native
species. Mr. Merkel replied that they are native oaks that would be grown from native collected acorns
grown in a nursery up to a 5gallon or greater size and then transplanted. That type of restoration is much
amount of root material is lost when you transplant a large tree. The problem is the length of time it takes
more successful because it's easier to handie and you're dealing with all the root material. A tremendous
for the trees to get to the size the biological community would like.
and where the oaks are that they are counting for conservation. Mr. Merkel pointed out on the map where
Commissioner White asked if he was planning to replace the oaks in the same area once Faraday goes in
they would be replaced and that it was in the context of the same location. He said the project has a
There are approximately 27 acres of oak riparian habitat and 5.5 acres of upland southern coast live oak
riparian oak system that runs along the La Mirada Canyon drainage and pinted out the areas on the map.
woodland being conserved on site.
Commissioner White wanted to know what would happen to the large oak that can be seen from the
extension of Faraday. Mr. Merkel said that it's a nice oak, 60 inches in diameter. healthy, and high quality,
however, most arborists would say they could not move it because of its size.
Commissioner White asked about the quality of the five oaks that are around the proposed sewer hridge.
Mr. Merkel said those are riparian oaks, all in good shape. The intent is to drive the equipment in and hoist
material across, drive back out, and not clear brush, so it.will be a low impact activity.
Commissioner Baker asked if the sewer pipe crosses the creek as a bridge at the northerly alignment and if
it would be more susceptible to vandalism or damage because of being exposed. Mr. Wickham replied that
it is a bridge but would not be more susceptibie to damage because it would probably be a solid steel unit.
Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 10
Commissioner Baker asked how far out the fill area at Faraday would have to go out to accommodate the
road. Mr. Wickham said it would go approximately 100 feet on each side.
Commissioner Baker asked how long a bridge over that area would have to be. Marshall Plantz replied it
would be approximately 380 feet.
Commissioner White wanted to know what problems might occur with the pump station on Lot 9. Marshall
Plantz stated the pump station in general is not a preferred alternative; typically, the gravity system is
that, not only in dollars but also by pollution created by the energy consumption. You also have to design
preferred. From an environmental perspective, pump stations require energy and there's an ongoing cost to
around features such as noise and odor control and potential for a spill, but they can design around that,
preventative measures would be put in place to keep that road from being used by off roaders or from being
Commissioner Baker asked if the northerly gravity system is used and there is a 12-foot road, what
from using some of the onsite native materials to create barriers, such as boulders. There are essentially
damaged. Mr. Plantz said there are a number of tools and mechanisms that could be put in place ranging
access points onto the surface road and there's only two. one on either end, so we would have to configure
those entryways to keep vehicles from getting access. He showed some sketches of how access could be
from another part of the site.
restricted, but he said he couldn't claim that type of access control would keep someone from coming in
Commissioner Baker asked if it would be possible to put locked gates every so often on the road to make it
unattractive to someone because of so many gates. Mr. Plantz said that's a good idea, they could put in
gates or barriers occasionally.
RECESS
Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 7:25 p.m
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 7% p.m.
Ted Tchang, representing the applicant, Techbilt Construction Corp. and property owner, Carlsbad Oaks
North Limited, 3515 Kenyon Street, San Diego, 92110 stated that his family has owned the property since
about 1976 and developed both the Carlsbad Oaks West and Carlsbad Oaks East Industrial Parks in the
with many interested parties through the last 6 years and made many modifications to the project. The
middo's. He said they have been actively working with the City on this project since 1996 and they met
major modifications made were the result of meetings with the City and their consultants and with the U.S.
eliminating all of the development on the south side of Faraday, except for one lot on the corner of El Fuerte
Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. The modifications included
Street and Faraday Avenue: creating a 300-foot open space buffer on the northern part of the property line as
a consideration to the Los Monos Canyon Preserve; as a consideration to the residents of Vista along the
eastern property line, creating a 150-foot building setback and the additional restriction that there not be any
truck loading areas on the eastern side of the buildings.
of Vista, he went before their City Council to express concern that a single-family detached neighborhood
Mr: Tchang said in the summer of 1990 when the adjacent residential development was approved by the City
adjacent to an industrial park could have some compatibility issues. At that time, then Mayor McClellan
asked what city his property was in. When Mr. Tchang told her that the propeny was in the City of
Carlsbad. she told him he came to the wrong City Council hearing.
Mr. Tchang staled the property is 51 percent undisturbed open space and they will be setting aside that
open space as well as funding to manage the property as open space in perpetuity. That is a preservation
of open space for biological purposes without the use of any public funds, especially the use of City funds.
Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 11
That's one of the major assets the City is getting as part of the development of this project, along with
completion of Faraday Avenue and the completion of the south Agua Hedionda Sewer reach.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there was any thought given to preservation of the two large oaks that
of balance; there were some impacts they considered unavoidable, Part of it was to move the roadway
approximate the entry areas into the loop road in the design phase. Mr. Tchang replied that it was a matter
farther to the south, At worst, 19 oak trees will be impacted out of approximately ,586, so we felt that was
an appropriate tradeoff. We avoided impacts where we could. When we're dealing with planning on this
scale, we may be able to avoid Some of those 19 oak trees when we start construction, but the absolute
worst case is impact to 19 trees.
Chairperson Trigas opened public testimony.
Bill Arnold, 3432 Don Ortega Drive, Carlsbad, representing the Rancho Carlsbad Homeowners A&ciation,
stated that the Agua Hedionda Creek flows through their community. About 50% of their community of 504
homes is in the 100-year flood zone. The City commissioned a study in 1995 or 1996 to determine how
they could take them out of the flood zone. Recommendations that were accepted were the construction of
four detention basins plus the Ongoing dredging of the creeks in their immediate area. Two of the detention
basins are being constructed with the College Avenue extension to El Carnino and the other two detention
basins are on the Agua Hedionda Creek. Melrose Avenue will construct one and the extension of Faraday
will construct the other. He urged the commission to approve the project because they need the detention
basins.
Patrick Richardson, 600 Eucalyptus Avenue, Vista, a Planner for the City of Vista, stated that the City of
Vista is concerned about the traffic impacts of the Carlsbad Oaks project within their city. He said they
actively participated in the environmental review process for the project. Prior to the issuance of the EIR a
Vista representative met with Carlsbad representatives to review traffic impacts and associated mitigation
measures for the proposed project. Following the issuance of the EIR for public comments, they provided a
letter dated May 29, 2002 on the analysis of the project's significant traffic impacts at four intersections
within the City of Vista, including the recommendations not to require mitigation for those impacts because
the mitigation is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad. The final EIR was issued and included the
recommendation not to require mitigation for traffic impacts within the City of Vista. He said Mr. Connelly
and his staff provided a detailed letter dated August 14, 2002 correcting and poviding clarification of
information included in the final EIR response to comment.
Mr. Richardson said he came to request that the Planning Commission require the applicant to provide
mitigation for traffic impacts of the Carlsbad Oaks project for two of the four intersections within the City of
Vista that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Those intersections are Faraday
Avenue/Park Center Drive and South Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue and South Melrose Drive. He
said it should be noted that the Faraday Avenue at South Melrose Drive intersection is a primary entrance to
the project and will accommodate 44 percent of the traffic from the proposed project, and therefore it is only
equitable to require the applicant to provide necessary improvements at these intersections. Improvements
needed at this intersection to mitigate the impacts of the Carlsbad Oaks project include an additional
dedicated left turn lane from eastbound Faraday Avenue to South Melrose Drive and a dedicated right turn
lane from southbound Melrose Drive to Faraday Avenue. In regard to the South Melrose Drive and
additional left turn lane on southbound South Melrose Drive at Sycamore Avenue, an additional dedicated
Sycamore Avenue intersection, the City of Vista is requesting that the applicant be required to construct an
right turn lane, and to restripe the outside lane to allow a split through right turn movement at the northbound
South Melrose Drive approach to Sycamore Avenue. Alternately, the City of Vista is requesting that the
applicant be required to make a fair share contribution for the construction of the required improvements to
Sycamore Avenue and South Melrose Drive. The improvements referenced for both intersections were
recently included in the City of Vista's Capital Improvement Program to provide a mechanism to ensure
implementation and mprovements consistent with the timing of the Carlsbad Oaks project.
occasions where cities have asked their neighbors to mitigate impacts. For example, when Vista's
Commissioner Baker asked if, in his experience as a Planner with the City of Vista, there bve been
business park was developed were they asked to mitigate impacts at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino
Planning Commission Minutes August 21,2002 Page 12
Real. Mr. Richardson replied that when the business park EIR was prepared in 1992 the document was
circulated for public review and he was not aware of any requests from surrounding jurisdictions requiring
mitigation, but he said he could follow up on that.
Commissioner Baker asked if it's been Vista's policy to require mitigation from surrounding cities, such as
San Marcos and Oceanside that might be impacting Vista. Mr. Richardson responded that on projects that
that arose from projects in the City of Vista that wili impact surrounding jurisdictions that they must be
are being proposed in the City of Vista, they indicated to' their project applicants that if there are impacts
share contribution.
prepared to either mitigate the impacts, whether they are inside or outside the City of Vista, or to pay a fair
within their jurisdiction. Mr. Richardson replied that he believes as long as the impacts are identified and
Commissioner Baker asked how a jurisdiction can require an applicant to mitigate something thays not
analyzed as part of the EIR and they are directly related to the proposed project, that those mitigation
requirements can be imposed on the project whether they are in the jurisdiction of the City of Vista or
surrounding jurisdictions.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the City of Vista has offered mitigation to surrounding cities that Vista has
impacted. Mr. Richardson said he could not speak with direct knowledge of past projects where the city
has provided mitigation, but is aware of projects they are currently processing where they are requiring
applicants to provide mitigation outside the city's boundaries.
Chairperson Trigas asked if Home Depot will be mitigating in Carlsbad. Mr. Richardson said they are
currently going through the EIR process and they have preliminarily identified some impacts offsite in the
City of Carlsbad and have been in discussion with Carlsbad's Staff as well as the project applicant to
indicate they should be prepared to provide either direct mitigation or fair share contribution for improvements
outside the boundaries of the city.
Chairperson Trigas said she assumed that when the city looks at the Capital Improvement Program they are
looking at approving projects that they are funding and from what she just heard, they are approving projects
that they expected others to fund. Mr. Richardson replied that they identified, in that particular vicinity in the
City of Vista, that there are both a combination of capital projects that need to be undertaken as well as
private development that's anticipated, not only in the City of Vista but the City of Carlsbad as well.
Therefore, they are programming and planning for those improvements for the future.
Chairperson Trigas asked if they are working out some sort of formula. Mr. Richardson said they are
the applicant, All they are asking for is that there be some type of fair share contribution if there are project
suggesting the methodology for the fair share contribution be negotiated between the two cities as well as
impacts from the proposed project. What that ultimate fair share contribution would be would be part of that
negotiation.
Commissioner Heineman said perhaps he opened up a real opportunity for the City of Carlsbad. There a
number of streets that are impacted by regional traffic and it may not be too late to get Vista, Oceanside.
and San Marcos to help: He asked Mr. Richardson if thah what he's suggesting. Mr. Richardson said
they are talking about project-specific impacts for proposed projects. Obviously there are projects that have
been developed in both cities, as well as San Marcos and Oceanside, that have adverse impacts on all the
they have another speaker from the City of Vista that Will provide some additional information on cooperation
communities, however they're talking about direct project impacts for a project being proposed. He said
agreements between various cities for cross-jurisdictional projects and how those can be mitigated.
Chairperson Trigas said she appreciates that but wasn't sure this was their purview to talk about cooperative
arrarlgements. She asked if August 14th. the date of the letter, was the first time they heard of this project
and its impact. Mr. Richardson said they have been involved in discussions with Staff since the EIR was
felt that those responses to Comment did not adequately address the issues that were raised in the August
released for public circulation. They responded to the draft EIR and received a response to comment. They
14th letter and subsequently wrote the second letter, which is procedural through the CEQA process. The
first letter was basically a response to the circulation section of the draft EIR.
Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 13
Jon Stone, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Vista. 600 Eucalyptus Avenue, Vista stated that there is a
policy in Vista to require, as part of the CEQA process, mitigation of traffic impacts that occur outside of its
jurisdictional boundaries. He said it's not true that the first letter they wrote was on August 74th. prior to
circulation and publication of the EIR. they were discussing this issue and mitigation of impacts with
planners of Carlsbad.
Mr. Stone said the City of Vista does not have a position as to whether or not the Carlsbad Oaks project
should be approved. They are merely requesting that if it is approved that measures be included 50 that the
traffic impacts occurring as a result of the project that are Significant at the intersections of Faraday and
Melrose and Sycamore and Melrose be mitigated. According to the EIR those two intersections, which are
The EIR identified street improvements that can be made to these intersections which will cause the traffic
gateway intersections for the project will be degraded to a level of service of "F" as a result of the project.
These conditions have not been included as part of the project to date. The reason is that the Carlsbad Staff
related impacts resulting from the project at those intersections to be reduced to a level below significance,
felt that they could not legally request the developer to make a fair share contribution to Vista for
construction of these improvements unless there is a program in place in Vista that would be equipped to
accept these contributions and convert them into the street improvements that would effect the mitigation.
That was communicated in writing to Vista and what precipitated the letter of August 14th and the actions
that preceded it. Thah where the City of Vista adopted a program designed to accommodate this legal
need, so at this point there's no legal barrier to effectuating the mitigation of the traffic related impacts
associated with this project.
the past and intends to provide. Prior to this EIR, the City of Vista circulated a Mitigated Negative
Mr. Stone stated that the mitigation that Vista seeks is similar to the mitigation that Vista has provided in
significant impacts in the City of Carlsbad. It called out for a mitigation measure which would require the
Declaration for the Home Depot project in Vista which identified that the project was going to produce
developer of Home Depot to make a fair share contribution to Carlsbad for the purposes of constructing
street improvements within Carlsbad. Prior to that. the City of Vista required the developer of the North
the unincorporated territory of the county to mitigate the traffic impacts resulting from the project in Vista.
County Square project to contribute $300,000 to the County so they could construct street improvements in
Cajon, Poway, Santee. Vista, and the County of San Diego have all participated in it. This project is now in
Mr. Stone said that cross-jurisdictional mitigation isn't unusual; San Diego, Chula Vista, Escondido, El
a position where it can mitigate the significant traffic related impacts at the gateway intersections to this
project. He said it's good for the project. legally required, and they believe it is sound planning and in the
regional interest.
Commissioner Whitton asked if he heard correctly that Vista has recently decided that this is a proper
course of action as a result of Home Depot and other things going in. He said this plan has been in process
since 1997 and all of a sudden we're talking about mitigating a road in Vista. Mr. Stone replied that this is a
new policy and prior to determining what type of mitigation is required under CEQA there has to be the
analysis, and that analysis came out in April. They commented within the review period, so there was no
opportunity for them to comment until the EIR was prepared and provided to them.
the plans were being developed that there could have been communication with the City of Carlsbad instead Commissioner Whitton said he heard the developer say that he talked to Vista. There was a lot of time while
of waiting until the EIR is out. Mr. Stone said he thought this is the process that is actually created and
contemplated by CEQA. He said he was not at that particular hearing where the late Mayor made the
comment that was attributed to her. Apparently, the concern that was expressed was that there might be
conflicts between the residential tse and this future industrial use; that exchange really didn't relate to
traffic. To determine what type of mitigation measures are appropriate and will solve a traffic impact requires
an analysis, and the EIR actually calls out for left or right turn lanes to cure the traffic problems. He said
they had no way of knowing what level of traffic would be generated by the project until the project was
proposed and analyzed. Almost one out of every two vehicles coming to or leaving this project is going to
go through the Intersection of Faraday and Melrose. This project is essentially converting this intersection
into a gateway. About one-half mile of the project is literally touching the boundaries of Vista. Under the
logic of not mitigating outslde the City of Carlsbad. iYs literally creating a situation where there's no
Planning Commission Minutes August 21. 2002 Page 14
obligation on the part of the developer to mitigate one inch beyond the boundaries of this project to the east,
The developer is being freed of the obligation to mitigate traffic impacts directly resulting from that project
and burdening taxpayers with the greater trafk or requiring the taxpayers to assume a burden that should
and requires a lead agency to take that into account and mitigate where possible, even if it requires
be properly borne by the developer. The whole purpose of CEQA is to look at the interests of all Californians
mitigation outside of its territory.
Chairperson Trigas asked if this isn't usually something that is planned ahead for future projects -cities get
together and form a JPA and organize; not come the night of the project approval to say they feel there is a
problem. Mr. Stone replied that there are many different procedures that can effectively address regional
jurisdictional impacts. The examples he gave with the other cities occurred without a JPA arrangement.
needs and maybe there should be a JPA. He =id that's not a common way to deal with these cross-
Sometimes it occurred in the scoping process for the EIR; there was agreement or recognition that there
would be a need for cross-jurisdictional mitigation. Other times there is nothing worked out in advance of
the EIR or during the scoping process and it subsequently occurs because there is a demand or request for
the mitigation. This was an issue raised by Vista and they made that request. The planning staff basically
said it would be taken under consideration and they didn't know it had been rejected until they received the
EIR in April and then they commented. He said he talked to environmental planners for cities throughout the
state and attorneys who represent them and nobody has heard of there being a program in place in an
adjacent city to accommodate for mitigation and then not a requirement to fulfill that mitigation. He said he
didn't feel there was a failure on the part of Vista to be upfront or to communicate fully and it's not
uncommon for these issues to arise as part of the EIR. What he thought was unusual is for an EIR not to
call out mitigation when it's so clearly a result of the project.
Commissioner Whitton said he couldn't help but feel his presentation was trying to make some things
retroactive. The developer has been into this for a long time and to come in now to suggest that he needs to
put money upfront to fund some of these things when this planning process has been going on for a long
time, there seems to be some lack of communication and thinks it best to leave it up to the City Council to
decide. Mr. Stone said maybe the best response would be to inquire of the Staff if there's been a failure on
the part of Vista. He thinks that Vista has been forthright in this and this is the proper forum; this is the
certification of the EIR. We couldn't possibly have anticipated that the mitigation measure be identified but
wasn't included as a requirement of the project.
not incorporated, The issue arose in April when the EIR was circulated with a mitigation measure but it
Commissioner Dominguez stated he doesn't feel this is the appropriate venue to discuss this. This is an
advisory body and the discussion smacks of intergovernmental agreements and some heavy legal stuff that
should be addressed at the City Council. Since we're Only recommending certification of the EIR to the
Council perhaps this discussion should take place at the City Council level.
Mr. Stone said if the Commission thinks it's a good idea to mitigate impacts such as this, they merely
request the Staff to look into it and explore how other agencies are doing it in the EIR process to see if it
would work in this circumstance.
Dianne Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside. representing Preserve Calavera. stated they would start
by showing a video of the Carlsbad Oaks North area produced by Mark Read to show why they care so
much about this area. Ms. Nygaard said their greatest concerns with this project are not only what the
developer is doing by bulldozing, grading, filling, and paving hundreds of acres, but also what the City is
doing with the public infrastructure of sewers and roads. The three major issues are with the wildlife
corridor, roads, and impact to oak trees, The destruction of the wetlands cuts across all three of these.
that Staff would say they have protected the area from run-off by BMPs, but there are no guarantees with
She talked about creeks that used to be seasonal and are now year round due to '"urban run-off'. She said
BMPs. She said the project hasn't avoided wetland impacts but there are choices that the next three
speakers would address.
other north county cities have been working with SANDAG for over 10 years to prepare a regional plan for
Loni Todorokl, 3550 Trieste Drive, Carlsbad spoke about the wildlife corridors, stating that Carlsbad and
habitat conservation. In order for the regional plan to work, large blocks of habitat, called core areas, and
Planning Commission Minutes August 21. 2002 Page 15
connecting wildlife corridors need to be preserved. The Carlsbad Oaks North area is one of the core habitat
areas and must be protected for the regional conservation plan to work. The existing wildlife corridor
parallels the southern tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek and the project proposes three crossings of the
creek and wildlife corridor, two for roads and one for the extended sewer line. She stated that the box
culverts the City proposes to use disrupt wildlife movement ad the natural watershed, and a much better
design is the bridge over South Melrose. Preserve Calavera believes the most damaging element of the
project is the extended sewer line. The area where it is proposed is currently protected by steep terrain and
dense plant cover and will be open to destruction by off road vehicles if a 20' wide easement is put through
for a sewer line. Their recommendations include reconfiguring the roads to reduce impacts, using a bridge
instead of Culverts for wildlife corridor crossings, and using the force main instead of the extended gravity
.feed sewer.
Stan Katz, 7721 Segovia Way, Carlsbad stated that in this rush to develop while interest rates are low, it is
the responsibility of government leadership to see how the infrastructure of roads will handle the additional
traffic. Long-term effects on limited open spaces and natural habitats must also be considered before they
are destroyed or significantly impacted forever. The extensions of Faraday and El Fuerte will result in
problems. He said the City of Carlsbad has not updated the Circulation Element of the General Plan since
or changes in the regional population growth projections. Both of the proposed roads traverse sensitive
1978 resulting in a roadway plan that is not properly integrated with changes made in the neighboring cities
native habitat in an area that Serves as a regional wildlife movement corridor, a violation of the Regional
the least damaging location as required by law. Preserve Calavera has several proposals: update the
Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. The road will cross Agua Hedionda Creek but the alignment is not at
Circulation Element instead of continuing piecemeal transportation planning, require developers to pay their
fair share to its traffic improvements regardless of what city they are actually building the project in, and
traffic sounds like a low grade and maybe our standards are too low. He questioned the fee programs
integrate public transit into developments. He suggested that the "D" standard considered acceptable for
wider. He said you can't mitigate environmental impacts such as air quality, and 22,000 trips a day is quite
mentioned representing mitigation and what the money would go towards when all roads cannot be made
a lot of traffic to add to an aiready busy area.
Karen Merrill. 4743 Live Oak Court, Oceanside, addressed the proposed removal of the Coast Live Oak
woodland habitat, including mature oaks up to 200 years old. She talked about the complex relationship
this habitat has with the wildlife and how studies have shown poor success rates in transplanted mature
oaks. She stated the oaks are also associated with riparian habitat and the destruction of them also
impacts the wetlands. Preserve Calavera is also concerned about the approximate 11-acre loss of highly
sensitive nuttall's scrub oak. Their recommendations for the oak woodlands are to revise the roadway
alignments to eliminate the loss of mature oaks and the oak riparian habitat, remove trees only as a last
resort, and add more specific requirements for long term monitoring and care for both transplanted trees and
any recreated oak habitat.
John Ziebarth, 800 W. Ivy Street, San Diego. commended the Staff and applicant on the thorough job they
did on the project. He was concerned about the traffic Faraday would be putting on at Melrose. He said the
City of Carlsbad has wisely decided to create a parallel road to Palomar Airport Road, which will relieve
some of the pressure on Palomar Airport Road, but it creates additionaPtraffic at Melrose. Part of that is
financing district. and it reflects the fact that the movement that goes southbound from Faraday onto
reflected in the fact that the Melrose and Faraday extensions are in some way being tied together with the
Melrose that goes down to Palomar Airport Road is a direct result of that coupling impact. He wanted to
express his concern at what that impact is going to be at that intersection as a direct result of creating this
parallel road to relieve the pessure on Palomar Airport Road.
Dr. Joshua Kohn, 4275 Pylon Point, San Diego, a professor of biology at UCSD and the faculty manager of
quality block of habitat remaining in the City of Carlsbad. IKs fair to say that when this project is done
Dawson Los Monos Reserve stated that this project takes the heart out of the area identified as the best
Carlsbad will be losing its last chance to preserve an area that's significant on any human scale for
residents of Carlsbad to get in touch with the natural diErsity of this area, which is recognized in textbooks
compare in human experience to what other cities have managed to do, e.g.. San Diego's Mission Trails
as a worldwide hotspot of endangered bio diversity. There is nothing in the City of Carlsbad that can
Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 16
Parks system, Penasquitos Canyon, where a person can spend a day without the pressures of urbanization
around them. Basically what We're saying tonight is that it is an activity that won't take place in Carlsbad,
He thought it was fair to say that the gravity feed sewer alignment goes through County of Sari Diego
property for which no permit for easement has been obtained. He said you see trails on the project maps,
but as he understands it, building of those trails is not part of the project. Regarding the management in
perpetuity of the remaining undeveloped land and the amount of money that the developer is donating
towards that cause, Dr. Kohn said that amount is not a matter of public record to his knowledge. He said it
to do the management, how it's going to be done, and what the actual costs of doing such management
doesn't appear in any document he's been able to see, and there is no plan to his knowledge who is going
are. He said he thinks it's incumbent upon the Commission to ask a few more questions.
Mark Mojado, P.O. Box I, Pala, of the San Luis Rey Mission Band Indians. was present to address the
cultural resources that will be impacted. He requested that there be monitoring during data recovery and
grading operations due to the possible impacts of burial sites being disturbed or human remains being
the ongoing movement or grubbing process to determine the possibility of more cultural resources being
recovered. He also requested that the artifacts be returned to the tribe. He requested that they be part of
turned up. He said he talked to the archaeologist who did the work and he had no problem with having
monitors out there. Mr. Mojado mentioned that archaeologists sometimes miss things, referring to another
would like to have a Native American on hand during the brush clearing and grading operations to actually
project where they went at after the archaeologist and discovered 14 more sites than were recorded. He
determine the sensitivities of the burials and sacredness of certain things. He requested that they get a pre-
excavation agreement with the developer for monitoring and to assist with the project.
Chairperson Trigas commented that she thought they already had a communication process with the
developer, etc. Mr. Mojado said they are working with the City of Carlsbad and the Situation is getting
better, but they are missing a lot of consultations at the beginning of things that they were unable to be part
of, so they are trying to catch up.
Chairperson Trigas asked if there has been no effort on this project for the agreement or sharing of his
concerns. Mr. Mojado replied they had no consultation on this project at all. Due to the fact that there are
a lot of sites within this area, there is great potential for cultural resources and human remains.
Chairperson Trigas asked him if he made efforts to contact the developer or the City on this project. Mr.
Mojado replied that he received a letter last week and he tried to contact the Planning Commission, but the
person was out of town and he talked another one.
Chairperson Trigas asked if he wasn't aware of this project until last week. Mr. Mojado said he heard about
it but wasn't able to keep up on the progress of it. The City doesn't require them to contact Native
Americans until they rind a burial, and then that's after the fact. If they could work with them from the
beginning it would be a smoother situation.
Chairperson Trigas said she thought they had discussed consulting them ahead of time in earlier projects.
Commissioner Dominguez said he thought they discussed the fact that there should be a standard pre-
excavation agreement that's readily available and that they be on the list to be informed. Maybe the Council
needs to address this as a policy.
to purchase it.
Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Mojado if they get a copy of the EIR. Mr. Mojado replied they don't: they have
Commissioner Dominguez stated the process should be, improved so that they are contacted as a matter of
course so the Luiseno Band is part of the process. He asked if they have any administrative funding for their
activities and a mailing address and some kind of structure. Mr. Mojado said they are a non-profit
organization with minimal access to funds: they do have a mailing address and structure. He added that he
has a meeting with the Mayor soon and he's going to address what's in Carlsbad. Mr. Wayne stated there
is a process for anyone to get onto a mailing list.
Planning Commission Minutes August 21.2002 Page 17
Karen Page, 2394 Brookhaven Pass, Vista, read a letter for her neighbor, Rae Merritt of 2391 Brookhaven
yard observing what nature has to offer and teaching their families the importance of nature. As a second
Pass, Vista, who was out of town. In her letter, Ms. Merritt described how they enjoy being in their back
grade teacher in the Carlsbad Unified School District their curriculum from the State is teaching the life
cycles; they teach the children to value nature and learn to preserve it. She wrote that their students from
grades one through six experienced the watershed program and how excited her daughter was to talk about
a field trip to Calavera. She wrote of an article about an employee with the City's'Public Works department
who saved a black-masked, long-tail California red weasel that was injured on Faraday Avenue and asked to
take into consideration all the wildlife that will be injured and killed if this street goes through. She
encouraged the Commission to sit in her backyard and enjoy nature, to visit her class and enjoy the
watershed program and the kaching of life cycles, to read the book, "The Great Kapok Tree" by Lynne
through. Most of all, she encouraged them to think of their children and grandchildren's future. Where will
Cherry, to think of the weasel that was hurt and all the animals that will be gone if Faraday Avenue goes
they be able to learn all of these things? The full letter is on file in the Planning Department.
Mr. Wayne read a letter from Stephen M. Geary of 2307 Brookhaven Pass, Vista. Mr. Geary expressed
concern about the negative impact the planned extension of Faraday Avenue will have on his neighborhood
that is currently very quiet and safe with virtually no traffic other than local residents. He was concerned that
thousands of cars turning onto Faraday Avenue from either Sycamore Avenue or Melrose Avenue. He said
any extension of Faraday Avenue will turn Brookhaven Pass into an alternative route for any of the
he expects a significant increase in traffic, particularly during commuter hours in the morning and
afternoons, but dso during the remaining hours of the day and night. The additional traffic and air and noise
pollution will negatively impact the safety of the residents as well as housing values. He does not believe
that additional stop signs will discourage use of Brookhaven Pass as a viable alternative. He suggested that
trees be planted at the intersection of Brookhaven Pass and Faraday Avenue to completely block entrance
onto Faraday. He said it's the Only way to force traffic to stay on the main arteries, and the only way to
preselve the high quality of life and safety currently enjoyed in their neighborhood. The full letter is on file in
the Planning Department.
Ron Rouse of Luce Forward, 7330 Aka Vista, Carlsbad. stated he has been the real estate development
counsel for the owners and family members for a number of years, and was involved when they developed
Carlsbad Oaks East and West in the '80s. To respond to some of the questions raised, he organized his
comments into three themes.
Mr. Rouse first talked about what this project is and what it's being required to do by way of mitigation. He
said that the project is the last large piece of industrial property in the City that provides job opportunities,
revenues, and will also be a critical component in completing the integrated circulation element, not just for
Carlsbad, but the entire region. For at least 15 or 20 years Faraday Avenue, Melrose, Palomar Airport
Road, Rancho Santa Fe Road and other streets that we talk about a lot in our city have been on the
Circulation Element of the City of Vista and other surrounding neighborhoods. The fact that Faraday exists
at the border of our city is evidence that the City of Vista has planned for a long time to have Faraday
connect. The fact that Melrose extends to their city boundary is evidence of the longstanding intent and
desire on their part to connect up this circulation system.
Mr. Rouse said the owners of this 414-acre property are going to put aside 219 acres of their own property
into a permanent biologically driven habitat preservation program. The wildlife agencies will determine the
amount of the permanent endowment based on the biological mitigation plan and the last say will be the
City of Carlsbad and our wildlife agencies. 219 acres will then be conveyed in fee title to a recognized non-
profit environmental protection organization with a permanent endowment so that they are required by law
and required by the California Department of Fish and Game conservation easement that will go along Gth it
to manage that property for its biological purposes. This is far better than the property sitting with no
the same size of the Los Monos Preserde, this project is also being asked to set aside 171 offsite acres of
management and with no mitigation. In addition to putting aside over half of their property, which is about
biological habitat. Added together it's 395 acres of permanent managed and functioning wildlife habitat in
exchange for allowing a net 120 acres of employment land to be developed in this city, in exchange for
the obligations are imposed on this property lo fund a major road that's needed by the entire region.
allowing the opportunity to create jobs with perhaps 1.9 million square feet of industrial space. In addition,
Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 18
The second theme Mr. Rouse addressed was Preserve Calavera. He suggested that 90 percent of the video
preserved and there is no development whatsoever associated with the project, of Agua Hedionda Creek,
shown by Preserve Calavera was taken in the preserved areas of the property. All of the streams are being
The only disturbance is the offsite sewer. The only impacts to La Mirada Creek, other than enhancement
and restoration and reconstruction and a permanent endowment, is that circulation element, Faraday
Avenue, needs to cross it in two places. The road has been aligned, focused and studied throughout the
but there is much preservation and restoration. There is impact to 1.1 acres of oak riparian habitat that may
EIR, to locate it in the least damaging area. 2.8 acres of wetlands impact is the physical footprint of impact,
will be planted for each of the 19, whether they're lost or not. Even though they're not as big, he suggested
impact up to 19 oaks, but it leaves 667 on the property that are going to be permanently preserved. 10 oaks
that 50 years from now some of those existing trees wouldn't be there and if they didn't plant 10 more for
each one disturbed, then perhaps their children and grandchildren wouldn't have a live oak forest if the
mitigation, monitoring and preservation wasn't there.
Mr. Rouse spoke about cooperation from Vista as his third theme. He stated that back in 1990 or 1991
when the City of Vista was changing the zoning on the property adjacent to the subject property, Mr.
Tchang said he personally addressed the Council and told them of his concern because his family owned
the longstanding commercial industrial property. Mr. Rouse said, "1 guess it's cooperation when they have
their backyards set back up against the city limits with no buffer, yet they knew there was going to be
commercial/industriai in the future. They have no buffer from the wildlife that is now so important to them.
They have no buffer from Faraday Avenue that the City of Vista has put in right next to their homes. There's
600 or 700 acres of existing commerciallindustrial development in the City of Vista that borders San Marcos
and the City of Carlsbad. They built out more than four times what this project will possibly bring in terms of
new development, and yet where they have designed intersections in the middle of their industrial and
commercial that feeds into the surrounding cities, all of a sudden they see an opportunity for somebody else
to pay for their surface street improvements, when they have either under planned it or have failed to impose
on their own developers, on their own property owners, and perhaps on their city taxpayers, responsibility to
design their internal surface road system to accommodate the very regional traffic they planned for. Melrose
goes to the border of Carlsbad. Faraday goes to the border of Carlsbad. If they haven't been foresighted
enough to plan for the consequences of insisting and asking, as we all know they have for those
connections to be made, then I think that's a shortcoming on their part, and they should not expect it from
the surrounding city."
shows there might be a significant impact.
Mr. Rouse stated that CEQA has three possible findings that are authorized and can be made when an EIR
Identify mitigation and reduce the impact below a level of significance.
When mitigation is in another jurisdiction, i.e.. those intersections, it's the responsibility of the applicant
to identify the impact and it's the responsibility of those jurisdictions, Le., in their city. They're the ones
responsible for effecting the mitigation. That's not an excuse for mitigation, that's a recognition by . Mr. Rouse said it's his 29th year of doing land use work and development in the county and he has
CEQA that cities and other lead agencies have jurisdictional boundaries.
been involved in every single city on major master planned communities that Mr. Stone mentioned,
except for El Cajon, and the only cross-jurisdiction mitigation is where there is really a facility that is
shared by the two cities. The two cities had gotten together to coordinate how they were going to jointly
develop a shared physical facility well before the EIR. That's not what we have here.
Mr. Rouse said when he had a discussion with Mr. Stone last week, at the end of the discussion he
cooperative in allowing the connection of Faraday, because apparently there's a 2. 3, 4, or 5 foot gap
essentially said if the City of Carlsbad didn't see it the way that his city saw it, they might be not be
between the ending of the existing improvements in Faraday and the technical city boundary. Mr. Rouse
told Mr. Stone that he's heard for years that Vista has been pushing on Carisbad to Connect Melrose;
they're part of the same network, that's how it's all going to work together. It's the easttwest parallel to
Palomar Airport Road, and it's the northisouth parallel to Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real. It's
all going to work together. Mr. Rouse said he wasn't sure he got a response to that; he doesn't remember
what t was. Mr. Rouse said they had a third discussion and he absolutely disagrees with Mr. Stone's
Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 19
interpretation of CEQA and thinks it's right in the act itself. He said he thinks this is a situation where it's
why that finding is there.
inappropriate and quite frankly, beyond your scope of authority to compel mitigation in another city, that's
and down with the wildlife agencies, it's part of your Habitat Management Plan. The Carisbad Habitat
Mr. Rouse concluded by saying this project has been under review by the City for 6 or 7 years. It's been up
Management Pian is the prime sub-area plan within the regional MHCP and it has the authority and has the
approval from the wildlife agencies. It's consistent with MHCP, it provides the corridors, the linkages, and
out of 414 acres, they're going to impact about 165, they're going to develop privately about 120, and they
put aside 395 acres of permanently funded habitat and mitigation in the City of Carlsbad for the benefit of the
future. He asked that the Commission vote in favor of the project and recommend it to City Council
RECESS
Chairperson Trigas called a recess at 9:15 p.m
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Trigas called the meeting back to order at 9:21 p.m
Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony.
The following questions and concerns raised during public testimony were addressed by Staff and Mr.
Merkel:
the problem with this location is that if you put a bridge in we would have to build a berm next to the bridge
Recommendation by Preserve Calavera to use a bridge for the wildlife crossing. Mr. Wickham said
for the flood control element. The footprint of the bridge and the berm combined would be greater than the
proposed culvert crossing. We were trying to make the least amount of impact on that creek area. The
bridge crossing was considered but it actually impacts more habitat, so it's more of a negative impact. The
bridge alternative was included in the EIR.
Ms. Hysong added that the culvert had fewer impacts and that's why they proposed a wildlife crossing under
Faraday Avenue to the east of the 6 x 7' foot culvert that they're proposing in lieu of a bridge. The crossing
is a 12' high by 20' wide arched culvert under the road, so there are actually two culverts. A separate one
above the water line is proposed for wildlife crossing. The reason that Presewe Calavera was bringing up the
idea of using bridges in lieu of the wildlife crossings is because it offered a better habitat corridor connection
and it had fewer impacts. In fact, it doesn't have fewer impacts because of the need to create the flood
control.
Commissioner Baker asked if the section where they would be putting in the culvert is the part of Faraday
that will be raised. Ms. Hysong replied that the portion on the county property that Commissioner Baker is
referring to is separate and that's another area where there is an 8' culvert proposed as a wildlife crossing.
Need to update the circulation element that Preserve Calavera stated hadn't been updated since
General Plan in 1994 and it was quite extensively updated. There are a couple of important parts to that
1978. Mr. Wayne responded that the Circulation Element was part of the comprehensive update to the
update: The linkage between growth management and the Capital Improvement Program for circulation
facilities, so that effectively updates the element on an annual basis because the growth management
traffic through them and it's all based upon congestion management and all of the models we get run
monitoring reports are continuous. We're continuously monitoring the roads in this city and the regional
through SANDAG. The other important piece added to the Circulation Element in 1994 was the reference of
the goals of congestion management and the traffic demand management planning efforts which then goes
into improving, on a regional basis, air quality and reducing traffic congestion. This type of regional planning
looks at the general plans of Vista, Oceanside, San Marcos. and Carlsbad. All of them project the buildout
traffic through them and works on programs to ameliorate the impacts of all of that regional traffic on both
traffic congestion and air quality, so that was not a correct statement.
Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 20
Statement that the traffic standard may be too low and the annotation of the A, B, C, D ranking.
Mr. Wojcik said it could be 1, 2, 3, 4 or anything you want to call it. It's not just a standard that Carlsbad
jurisdictions have come up with the same standard of level of service "D."
has, it's a regionally adopted standard that most jurisdictions, including the county, have. Virtually all Ofthe
Concern about the eleven-acre loss of scrub oak and the mitigation for that. Mr. Merkel said the
wildlife agencies whether or not to call it southern maritime chaparral, which is a highly limited habitat, or
project would result in a loss of 11 acres of nuttall scrub oak habitat. There was a long discussion With the
call it scrub oak chaparral. We ended up using both, calling it southern maritime chaparral/nuttall scrub oak
phase. The reason for doing that is because nuttall scrub oak is a much more common species and
habitat. That is what we would typically consider to be maritime scrub oak, which is the coastal bluff type
communities. This separation and clarification was designed to recognize that there is more of it around.
However. there are actually many more pOpUlatiOnS of nuttall scrub oak communities and habitats that are
Mr. Merkel said there was a Statement made that this is one of the largest populations of nuttall scrub oak.
the project. It's being required to be mitigated in kind, in tier with the group I-habitat types and the current
much larger than this site. There is certainly a considerable amount of scrub oak that will be impacted by
anticipation is that it will be mitigated by either a southern maritime chaparral or scrub oak. If that is not
done, it will still be mitigated with a group 1, which is how the City has recognized the higher quality
habitats of oak riparian habitats, oak woodlands, and southern maritime chaparral.
Do we have an easement from the County for the sewer alignment? Mr. Wojcik said we do not yet
have an easement from the County. The reasons are you can't have an easement unless you know an
alignment and you can't have an alignment unless the environmental review is done and approved. They will
be dealing with the County to try to get the easement from them.
Are trails part of the project? Ms. Hysong said she described the southern trail along the existing sewer
access road during her presentation. It's Trail Segment 26 of the citywide trail system and will run from the
eastern boundary of the project to El Fuerte Street. From El Fuerte Street the trail will be in the right-of-way
up to Faraday Avenue and then it will go west in the Faraday Avenue right-of-way to the property boundary
and then the connection from there will have to be decided in the future.
Mr. Mojado's concerns about cultural resources, monitoring during grading, artifacts being
returned to the tribe, and a Native American being on hand during the operations. Commissioner
Dominguez pointed out that he came across the paleontological study in the EIR and it does point out that
it's a highly sensitive area for resources. Mr. Wayne stated that at this point it's not totally consistent with
Council policy, so the wording of the mitigation measure contained in the EIR is consistent with our
thinks it can be worked out. He said they have since put his group on their notice list. The reason he didn't archeological guidelines. Mr. Wayne said in the past we have accommodated Mr. Mojado's group and
get notice of this project upfront is because it has been in process so long. Technically, nothing needs to
be done other than the mitigation measure that is contained in the EIR, and there may be some latitude for
working out some of the details. A pre-excavation agreement would occur at or before the excavation and is
doable. It could be added as a recommendation for Council to consider.
Commissioner Dominguez commented that he was curious when Dr. Kohn spoke so he consulted with the
owner during the break and asked him if the University of California had ever approached the ownership on
any purchase of this site for the extension of Los Monos Reserve. The owner said he was never approached
by the University of California.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission
adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5244 recommending certification of
EIR 98-08 and recommending adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5245, 5246, 5247, 5275,
Planning Commission Minutes August 21. 2002 Page 21
and 5248 recommending approval of GPA 97-05, ZC 97-05, SP 211, SP ZOO(B) and
and 5252 approving CT 97-13, HDP 97-10, PIP 92-02, and SUP 97-07, also
LFMP 16(A), and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5249, 5250, 5251,
including the corrections as outlined by Planner Anne Hysong and also to include a
recommendation that negotiations go forward with Luiseno Tribe concerning a pre-
excavation agreement. These are based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
DISCSSUSSION
Commissioner White said she is concerned about the sewer line going across the northwest corner of the
property and would like to see serious consideration given to using a force main system. She is concerned
about seeing people leave the maintenance road to walk through the open space, and the possibility of
bikers doing the same thing. She thinks the City can gate the maintenance road so that SUV's and off
roads can't go though it, but-doesn't think they could prevent bikers or people from walking though the open
space and thinks that's a serious concern. Her biggest concern right now is to have the sewage go through
a force main system and go up Faraday to El Camino as opposed to cutting across the northwest corner of
the project.
Commissioner Dorninguez agreed and said he thinks the extra intrusion of the gravity line is added pain to
what is considered a very sensitive area. However, the owners have held this property since 1976 and have
done more than an adequate job of trying to mitigate the impacts. He said he thinks the gravity line
the road where it's already going to be disturbed.
alignment adds an unnecessary intrusion and hopes they can realign it to the alternative to carry it through
Commissioner Heineman agreed with Commissioners White and Dominguez and said it's a remarkable site.
Under the plans presented much of it will be preSeNed in a way that will be suitable to the Habitat
Management Program. He thought it was an excellent idea to recommend the force main sewer system
rather than the gravity flow. He felt there was a chance a great deal of invasion to the property would take
place if the 12-foot road goes in.
Commissioner Whitton said he agrees with all the recommendations as they exist and said he believes the
gravity flow of the sewage is a reasonable and practical approach and a reasonable solution. The fact that
others are going to use the maintenance road is just a fact of life. The area that is going to be set aside as
open space will be used by off road bikers anyway and this road will provide access for fire department and
other services that will be needed in the future. He said he thinks the developer did a great job in
conjunction with the City to mitigate problems that were cited and recommends approval as proposed.
Commissioner Baker thanked the speakers and Preserve Calavera for the alternatives they submitted. She
said she is in favor of the force main sewer system because she's concerned about problems with it being
out in the middle of nowhere that no one would see for a long time and the intrusion on the habitat. Her
second concern is the buildup of Faraday Avenue and would like to see if the possibility of a bridge is a
decent alternative.
Chairperson Trigas said she also is in support of the alternative pump station to legitimately preserve that
area. She suggested that perhaps an amendment to the motion is needed.
Commissioner Baker expressed her concern about the amount of fill that is going to have to be put in to
accommodate the Faraday Avenue extension. She said it's not only the fill to build the road up, but that fill
has to go out as well.
Commissioner Dominguez said he also is concerned about having a 64 curb-to-curb road and then having
twice that amount on the slopes on each side. He wanted to know if they ask for a bridge, would that
endanger the retention basin that was going to ultimately give protection downstream to Rancho Carlsbad.
that basin.
Mr. Wickham pointed out where the retention basin would beand said it would not damage the retentlon of
Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 22
Commissioner White wanted to darify if the tributary would be going underneath the part of Faraday where
there is going to be fill and the spread on either side. Mr. Wickham said that's correct; there's a 48 inch
concrete pipe to carry the drainage and there's also an afoot culvert proposed for an animal crossing at that
location.
Commissioner White asked if that culvert has no flow control function, whether there is a bridge or a culvert
there, would it make any difference as far as any water that might come down that tributary, Mr. Wickham
replied that both the culvert and bridge would be sized to carry the 100-year flow. There is no detention
facility proposed at this location.
Commissioner Heineman asked if this is the bridge the consultant said would be 380 feet long. Mr. Wojcik
said there are two crossings and two drainages and pointed out the crossing that the consultant said would
be approximately 380 feet long. It has a drainage crossing in it but is not the drainage crossing that is
impacting the flooding to the mobile home park.
Chairperson Trigas asked why 380 feet is needed and why it's necessaly to have that much fill, Mr. Wojcik
said it would be 380 feet if they didn't want fill in that area at all. If you're worried about fill over 50 feet then
the bridge would be less in length. The higher the fill, if you want to do away with it, the longer the bridge. If
you're okay with a 40-foot high slope then that would reduce the 380-foot bridge significantly,
AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
Motion by Cornmissioner Heineman and duly seconded to amend the original
motion to indicate the Commission's preference for the force main sewage system
as opposed to the gravity flow.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Heineman pointed out that if a pumping station is put in, the developer or the employees will
ultimately lose a lot for recreational purposes. Ms. Hysong stated that if a sewer pump station goes there it
probably wouldn't be acceptable to have an employee eating area there. She added that there is a parking
lot there that she thought they could retain and that would act as a trailhead where people could park to
enter the trail system. She said she hasn't seen the design of the sewer pump station and doesn't know if
there would be any remaining area that could be usable. For all intents and purposes, Lot 9 would be
considered lost as the passive employee recreation area.
Commissioner Dominguez commented it would be a small loss for a great gain to preclude that intrusion
into the habitat area. He added that today's technology allows for much less intrusion than the older pump
stations. Commissioner Heineman added that Mr. Wickham told them that everything is underground now
in the newer pumping stations except for one generator.
another action is final.' You are actually approving certain pieces of this project and if the sewer alignment is
Mr. Wayne stated that the Commission is taking several actions; one action is a recommendation and
Tentative Map. Mr. Wickham replied that both alignments are in the map. Mr. Wayne said that tentative
part of a piece that you're approving, you're not recommending it. He asked if tke sewer aiignment is in the
approval of the tentative map because both options could work. If they support option B as the sewer
map is being approved. Ms. Hysong stated that whichever option they support it wouldn't preclude their
system for the subdivision it would still operate the same, except there would be a pumping station on Lot 9.
Mr. Wayne said one of their actions is going to be final. If they approve the alignment in the street that's a
final action, That doesn't go on to the City Council; it's done here unless it's appealed so we need to be
clear on what we're doing.
Mr. Wayne clarified that the Commission is approving a map with an option and they're locking in that option
tonight. If anyone wants to appeal that option they would appeal it when the project goes forward to the City
Council. The motion that has been set in place approves the Tentative Map and it locks in the option for the
force main sewer line to go into Faraday.
Planning Commission Minutes August 21. 2002 Page 23
Mr. Wojcik pointed 'Out On the map the Portion of the line they would be eliminating if they go with the pump
station option.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT
VOTE: 5-1-0
AYES: Chairperson Trigas. Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and White
ABSTAIN:
NOES: Commissioner Whitton
None
of the fill. Mr. Wickham stated that there is an existing bridge m Cannon when you get to Faraday that's
Commissioner White wanted to reopen the discussion about the possibility of a bridge over Faraday instead
basically a 400-foot bridge that cost $4M. To build that kind of bridge in this location is a little Out of
proportion for this project. This is a $14M roadway and that would make it an $18M roadway, which is
pushing the limits. He said they could go to retaining walls or crib walls; they could try to do something to
bring that footprint in.
Commissioner Whitton asked what the impact of the fill is. Mr. Wickham replied that it's basically 100 feet
on each side of the road. That's what the 50-foot catch point would be. It's a very short area. He said they
could put a retaining wall in the short area and catch that a lot closer, 50 feet away from the road.
Commissioner Whitton asked what the benefit of having a bridge is if you have the culvert and the fill that's
minimal cost and the fill is not doing any harm.
Commissioner Baker said it's completely redoing the landscape and making it more difficult for animals,
creatures, and people to get through there. She said it's such a huge area to fill and she views the bridge
as being less intrusive on the landscaping and geography than the fill.
Mr. Wayne suggested that Mr. Merkel address what impacts it would have on wildlife because it's an
entirely different situation from the Cannon bridge. He said he thinks Staff understands Commissioner
Baker's concerns on landform modification and there's also a wildiife issue.
Cornmissioner Whitton asked if it would help to put in a bigger culvert for the animals and water to pass
through.
weigh their decision. The impact of going from the fill to a bridge, if you expand the entire length, it is about
Mr. Merkel said he couldn't help them with their questions but could give them some facts to help them
an acre of native habitat. It would be southern maritime chaparral and nuttall scrub oak habitat, a small
amount of sage scrub, and a small amount of wetlands. He said they have had discussions with the Army
Corps of Engineers as they had this same question, but when hey looked at it they said they wouldn't
expect us to bridge it because the magnitude is not there given the differences in cost, etc. There have
been various discussions about the wildlife corridor and the culvert for wildlife crossing through that area.
There are actually two culverts in that location; there is an extremely long culvert for hydrology which sits at
the base of the fill. There's also a shorter culvert stepped up to the side of the fill which is 8 feet in diameter
and is designed to provide for wildlife interchange between the areas to the south and north of the road. The
8-foot culvert was sized with the understanding and recognition of the types of wildlife species that exist in
that area which would readily use an afoot culvert. The expectation in terms of interchange is that we will
get the interchange necessary to maintain viability. It's not the ideal, but in this particular situation a bridge
is not required to meet the needs for biology.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if cribbing or retaining walls would significantly add to the intrusion into
some of the scrub oak and the possibility of adding another culvert on both sides of the riparian culvert. Mr.
Merkel said he would not focus attention on the culvert; it's going to be adequate for the resources they
expect to transport back and forth. Anything added in crib wall would cut down the footprint. He
recommended if they entertain a crib wall to do it at the upper end rather than the lower end of the slope,
because it would create a break in the slope that would make it impossible for animals to get to the upper
Planning Commission Minutes August 21. 2002 Page 24
portion. If you end up with a culvert above the crib wall, it would be a non-functional culvert. If you entertain
a crib walllslope combination. you would do the crib wall below the road and then have the slope below that.
You're starting to pull in the base of the slope by an incremental degree and it's a matter of threshold of cost
that you're considering.
Chairperson Trigas asked if there was further discussion on the original motion for Item #4
Commissioner Dominguez had a question regarding the letter received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services and California Department of Fish and Game that brought up several issues that they felt had not
been resolved yet. He wanted to know if these are the kinds of questions that would be resolved at the
Corps hearings. Ms. Hysong replied that what they're telling you is that during that permit processing, 404
and Section 7 consultation, they may identify additional mitigation requirements.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
6-0-0
Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez. Heineman, White, and
Whitton
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
Chairperson Trigas commented that she thinks the developer presented a project that's very sensitive to the
habitat and worked with the City well. She also thanked Preserve Calavera for giving their input and felt it
had an impact on the Commission's decision.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner White thanked the Staff for taking them out to look at the property.
Commissioner Dominguez commented that the tour of the property set some of the issues in perspective
and was really valuable to see what was going on there. He said if they had overlays of actual photos in the
future, it would be helpful for them to gain further perspective.
Commissioner Heineman said he thought it was a beautiful piece of land.
time.
Commissioner Whitton said it was a great tour of the land but would prefer to do it on horseback the next
Commissioner Baker thanked the Staff for the tour and added that she has a natural abhorrence for moving
on Monday night to start talking about what to do with the excess dwelling unit bank. She was appointed to
large quantities of dirt and will continue to bring that up. She said the Excess Dwelling Unit committee met
that committee along with former Commissioners Nielsen, Compas. and Monroy. She said they would be
meeting on Monday night for at least two months, perhaps longer.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
None.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes August 21,2002 Page 25
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
By proper motion. the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of August 21, 2002 was adjourned at
10:16 p.m.
GARY WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
Kathy Vande Voort
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
EXHIBIT 13
Final
Subsequent Program
Environmental. Impact Report
North County Square Specific Plan
Prepared for
City of Vista Planning Department
600 Eucalypbs Avenue, P.O. Box 1988
Vista, California 92083
Prepared by
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc.
5510 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, California 92121
(619) 458-9044
Septirnber 1992
Project No. U0801000
will provide adequate roadway capacity to accommodate General Buildout mffic
levels.
Addition of project traffic will cause the need for additional intersection
improvement at Sycamore Avenue/South Santa Fe. Implementation of the
mitigation measures listed below will reduce these impacts to below a level of
significance.
Mitigation
Short-Term Cumulative Traffic Impacg
Measures proposed by the Specific Plan that will serve to partially reduce impacts,
but not to a level of insignificance include:
D-1. University Drive shall be realigned to align with Lobelia Drive and
form a four-way intersection at Sycamore Avenue. University Drive
shall be improved to provide four to six lanes.
-
D-2. The four-way intersection of Sycamore Avenue and
UniversitylLobelia Drive shall be signalized.
D-3. The portion of Sycamore Avenue between SR-78 and the Vista city
limits shall be realigned and improved to provide six lanes of
roadway.
Additional mitigation measures that will partialiy reduce the impacts, but not to a
level of insignificance, include:
D-4. Lobelia Drive shall be improved to provide four travel lanes from
Sycamore Avenue to Planning Area 5 driveway, concurrent with
development of Planning Area 5.
D-5. The project applicant shall guarantee, to the satisfaction of the City
Manager, the contribution of its proportionate fair share towards the
cost of the planned improvement to South Santa Fe Avenue/Sycamore ~
4.D-66
, & I, *,..~.. .;liue wlinin ' . thc jn5s5cti-3~ of the Coun:.,. c~rreiltly scheduled for
construction in fiscal year 19941995. The proportionate conmbution
shall be based upon the projected daily trips generated by the North
County Square project upon the affected road segment as a percentage
of the existing daily trips and those from other projects which shall
contribute to traffic along the roadway. The project applicant's
contribution may take the form of right-of-way, traffic impact fees or
other project-related traffic improvements which are in excess of its
anticipated traffic circulation impacts.
D-6. The project applicant shall guarantee, to the satisfaction of the City
Manager, the contribution of its proportionate fair share towards the
cost of the City/Caltrans planned improvements at the SR-
'i8/SycamGre Avenue interchange. The proponionate contribution
shall be based upon the projected daily trips generated by the North
County Square project upon the interchange as a percentage of the
existing daily trips and those from other projects which shall
contribute to interchange traffic. The project applicant's contribution
may rake the form of right-of-way, traffic impact fees or other project-
related traffic improvements which are in excess of its anticipated
traffic circulation impacts.
-
D-7. The City shall cooperate with the County and Caltrans in an effon to
achieve installation of the planned improvements to South S2nta Fe
Avenue/Sycamore Avenge wihin the County jurisdiction and the SR-
78/Sycimore Avezve ict,erchange h order to accomplish the earlicsr
feasible completion of those improtxm.:n?s,
..I
D-8. With the addition of project traffic, the following additional
intersection improvement will *be required:
* At the intersection of Sycamore Avenue/South Santa Fe,
provide a northbound right-turn lane and convert a
norrhbound through lane to a shared through/right lane.
4.D-67
EXHIBIT 14
Land Development
Review Division
(619) 446-5460
LDR NO. 99-1094
SCH No. 200001 1053
SUBJECT: -ads Precise Plan, AMENDMENTS to the CITY OF SAN DJEGO
PROGRESS GUIDE AND GENERAL PLAN (GPA), PRECISE PLAN,
REZONE (RZ), VESTING TENTATRE MAPS (VTM), PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) PERMlTS, and RESOURCE
PROTECTION ORDINANCE @PO) PERMITS to amend the existing Progress
Guide and General Plan to rezone lands from IL-3-1 (formerly MI-A) and IH-2-1
(formerly M2-A) to AR-1-1 (formerly A-1-10), and adopt a Precise Plan for the
approximately 2,658-acre Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area (FUA).
Separate VTM, PRD, and RPO Permits are proposed for the development of the
following parcels: Montecito Subdivision (LDR No. 99-0295), and Sycamore
Estates (LDR No. 99-0899). The Montecito Subdivision proposes to grade 3.16
million cubic yards of earth on 153 acres and subdivide a 278-acre site into 317
lots to construct 277 single-family residences; create 36 open space lots totaling
125 acres; and preserve ai existing residence on a 1.7-acre lot. The Sycamore
Estates project proposes to grade 14.9 million cubic yards of earth on 590 acres
and subdivide a 2,132-acre site into 631 lots to construct 557 single-family
residences; construct 106 multi-family units on an 9.9-acre parcel; create two lots
totaling 13.9 acres to allow for future institutional uses; constmct a 4-acre
neighborhood park and 12-acre elementary school site; and create 11 open space
lots totding 1,498.6 acres. The project also proposes a Multiple Habitat Planning
Area ("A) Boundary Adjustment that would remove 35.6 acres of existing
"A lands and add 383.9 acres of non-MHPA lands to the MHPA (a 348.3-acre
net addition to the MHPA). The 2,658-acre precise plan area is located east of
Pomerado Road, west of the Sycamore Canyon County Open Space Preserve,
south of Beeler Canyon Road, and north of MCAS Mimar (Portion of the SE 9i
of the SE %, Section 26, and Portion of Section 25, Township 14 South, Range 2
West, and Section 19,20,21,22,28,29 and 30, Township 14 South, Range 1
West, Poway Quadrangle, San Bemadino Base Meridian). Applicants: McMillin
Homes II & Pacific Land Pr Investment Company, LLC.
DDATE:
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
Tempori?r+construction-related traffic would occur'throu~hout.the:~adin~ andcons&&, Dhases of
Roiect buildout. Haul trucks associated with:ihe,,eradin: omration: would not,occur'& the &tino
ublic street svstem.because'cut and'fi1l'is:aii'ti"ciuated to'be balanced on the..$ite. ''Cdnst&tion caffic
Lould consist of contractor emplovees &d &cks haulin; construction materids. ConStructibn traffic
would tmicallv occur durinz'off-Deak hours. In addition. temDorarv consiruction-related traffic
disruDtions would be knimized throuoh.standard traffic 'controls: thus%&acts &e"not,consid&d
siwificant. The ADT, volume associated with~rons&ction traffic WouId~e~SubSt~~allvlo~e~ than
the mT volume of the proposed Proiect at buildout and would therefore'have'lessei impacts f&j a
nafflc,.uerspective.
,: , , ..,.* ._..:_ -
4.6.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
The proposed Project would have significant direct and cumulative impacts on study area roadway
segments, intersections, CM? segments and freeway ramps.
\
4.6.4 MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM I
J .. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to below a level
of significance with the exception of direct and cumulative impacts to Pomerado Road, which would
remain significant and unmitigated.
The following measures are required of both the Montecito and Sycamore Estates sub-projects:
4.6-1: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the owndpexmittee shall assure the construction of
Pomerado Road from Spring Canyon Road to north of Legacy Road as a modified four-lane
major street with appropriate transitions, satisfactory to the City En,' meer.
4.6-2: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the ownedpemittee shall assure the construciion of a
traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho Encantada Parkway and Pomerado Road,
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
4;6-3: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the owner/pemittee shall assure the construction of a
northbound right-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Rancho
Encantada Parkway and Pomerado Road, satisfactory to the City En,' ameer.
4.6-4: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the owneripermittee shall assure the construction ofa
traffic signal at the intersection of Pomerado Road and Stonemill Drive, satisfactory to the City
-7 Engineer.
4.6-5: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the ownerlpemittee shall assure the construction of
an additional northbound left-turn lane and an additional westbound left-tum lane at the
intersection of Scripps Poway Parkway and Pomerado Road, satisfactory to the City Engineer.
4.6-6: Prior to recordation of cine first final map, the owneriperrnitree shall assure the construction of
~AVCHO ENCANTADA EIR (LLE No. 99-1094: SCZ No. 2000011053)
"-7
Draft: November 21. 2000; Final: June 28,200! Pass 46-38
EXHIBIT 15
-
sent BY: HP LsserJet 3100; 1 760 83Y 4313; Aug-21-02 10:54; Paqe
.-
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
Date: 8-20-02 Fax # 760-639-6120 I
To:
From:
John Stone
Jon Brindle
-
Phone: 760-839-4543
Se.nt By: HP LaserJet 3100;
CJpon approval of the proposed ERTC Specific Plan. tcntativc subdivision maps and site plans
will be reviewed prior to initiation of development. At this time. the telltative suhdivisiotl inap
will be processed concul-relitly with the Spccific Plan. The Planning Con?missinn and Citv
Council will rwiew the rentat.ivr subdivision map for approval in accordance wi~h (hi: Stare
Subdivision Map Act, the Ci-q of Escondido Suhdivision Ordinance, and the appru\:cd Specific
Plan. Following recordation of the Final Subdivision h?ap, any further parcel maps and
boundary adjustments will be subject Io approval of the Phmin.g Director. with appeal rights to
the Planning Commission and City Council.
General Plan Amendment and Rezone for Residential Use
Residential uses are proposed for approximately 22 acres and will be rezmed E with a
minimorn lot size of 20,000 square feet. This area dl not be incorporated with the ERTC
Specific Plan.
ENWR.ONRlENTAL ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVES
A summary ofthe alternatives and significance of impacts is pressnted in 'Table S-? 4
No Proiecth'o Develooment Alternative
The No ProjecA'o Development Alternative would leave the project site in its present. condition,
without 'project development or new construction. Implementaxion of the No Pioj~cC!'h
Development Alternative is considered environmentally supcrior IC thc proposcd projzct, six2
no new significant environmental impacts would resulr. Existing conditions for each
cnvironmentd resource would remain, and snvirb~uncntal impac.ls would remain a! existing
i I
. Escnndrdo Research and Technolop Cen1c.r EIR .~ ~ ... ..
5-1 5
Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100;
. .
\ i I I
i
i I
i
e
Sent BY: HP LaserJet 3100;
N 0;
c.
I
1. ... . ..
I. ... . ..
Se.nt By: HP LaserJet 3100;
1. . .
I* . .
Sent BY HP LaserJet 3100;
...... .'.
I. . . . . . I. I I I I
EXHIBIT 16
- ,I .
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4s RANCH:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.,'..
General Plan Amendment (GPA 96-01), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 95-01),
Rezone (R95-01), Tentative Maps (TM 5066, TM 5067)' Major Use Permit
Modificafion (P87-036d), Modification to Agricultural Pieserve #60,
Vacafion of Two Open Space Easements WAC 97-001, VAC 97-002)'
County Log No. 95-8-1
State Clearinghouse No. 95021002
..
, ., ..
,.
.. .. ..
,
Applicant:
4s KELWOOD ..
10840 Thornmint, Suite 11.0
San Diego, CA 92127 ..
Lead Agency:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
5201 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
Contact: LeAnn Carmichael
.. Prepared by:,,.
DUDEK &ASSOCIATES, INC.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Confacf: June Collins
6 FEBRUARY 1998
CERTIFIED NOVEMBER 4, A 998
t
TABLE 4.5-1 9
45 RANCH SEGMENT AND INTERSECTION MITIGATION PLAN
I structure. I I
A' . Rancho Bernardo Road from Bernardo RanchoBernardo Road betwssn Bsrnardo 3,q
Center Drive to 1-15; NB ramps. Csnter Drive and 1.15 NB ramps; expand I ..
B 1 Missing ssgmsnt of Camino del Norte 1 Camino dal NortslCamino San Bernardol 1 1 $2,910,000
I to B.lansfacility[including lnterssction 211
I. 1 from Camino San Bernardo to 451 (Intorsections 9' and 10'1 and constrwtl I
Ranch property boundary.
the 45 Ranch propsny. I
C lnterrsction#17CaminodslNortsll-l5 Camino del Nortell-15 Interchange 2
NB Ramps; lntsrssction #I6 Camino (Intersmtions 16 and 17).
del Nortell.15 SB Ramps.
$..~~~~q@oo
D Bernardo Centsr Drivsll-15 Bsrnardo Csnter Drivsll.15 Interchange 2 $730.000 I .- intsrchangs; lnturssction #3 14 and [lnlarrection gs 14 and 151.
I 1 Montanoso. 1 Roadl betwssn Black Mountain Road and 1 5B 1
Source: BRW Inc.. Dscsmber 1996 and County of San Dingo. Septsmbsr 1096.
i
-
, . "3; jl
4.54 Unacceptable LOS on Offsite Segment of Carmei Valley Road - Buildout ofthe &$
Carmel Valley Road to six-lane major or prime arterial without dedication oft\No ofi
transitand/orhighoccupancyvehicleswouldreducetheimpacttolessthansignific~"~
requiretheCityofSanDiegotoamendtheirCeneralPlan,Iimitfutirredrivewayacce~~~~~
optimal spacing of future signalized intersections. However, the County does~.tiG *a
mitigation feasible due to the requirements imposed on anotherjurisdiction. There($
density project which avoids this impact is discussed as Alternative 3 in Section J,~, 4
4.5-b Substantial ADT Contribution to Rancho Bernard0 Road and Camino del Noee-~62
mitigation package would fully mitigate impacts to the affected roadways. :.c.*, ';.{
4.5-c Substantial Project Contribution to Unacceptable LOS at Six Offsite Intersections- 3:
.1 .. '~ ."
!~ .
.._.a I .*I .
:..1- .. ,...*
mitigation package would fully mitigate impacts at the affected intersections. ;;4 .,.
4.5-d Unacceptable Delays and Queuing at 1-15 Ramps in the Project Specific Study
agency study team including Caltrans, thecity oiSan Diego and thecounty ofsa
considered to implement upgrades to the 1-15 corridor as a means to improve t~g?,
transportation network. Transportation Demand Management CTDM) strategies an&$-,,,
transit improvements beyond those already planned may have to be irnplemented't$&
improve freeway performance. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOW bypass lanes and'#(
queued vehicles on arterial approaches and/or ramp facilities may be considered. A$%,
approaches would require participation by multiple jurisdictions in addition to the ap$@
the County of San Diego. Mitigation of the identified impact by the applicant has$$$
determined to be feasible by the County due to the multiple agencies and jurisdictions in::
addressing overcrowding on 1-15. Therefore, a No ProjedNo Action alternative which88
project's contribution to overcrowding on 1-15 is discussed as Akernative 7 in Se$ifg$
Alternatives.
Sipificance After Mitigation - 2,891-Acre FUDA Specific Plan Amendment ~,,:v,:2.2$
"~I.r
,,,.!,a,,,.;,
..q: .,i.,sq; ;:.;,:::;$y .,l.,.
Impact Level
Impact ID Description Before Mitigation
.?,B9l.Acre FUDA Specific Plan Amendment !::::.:4 .;.:::.a
4.5-a As discussed above, the measure which would mitigate the identified
major, has been determined to be infeasible since it would require the City
impact, buildout of the offsite portion of Carmel Valley Road as a six-lane
of San Diego to amend their General Plan; imposing a requirement on
another jurisdiction. Please refer to Alternative 3 in Section 7.0,
Alternatives, for discussion of a reduced density alternative that would
avoid impacts to the offsite segment of Carmel Valley Road.
Significant
EXHIBIT 17
d'
DRAFT
SUPPLErvlENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
' FOR THE PROPOSED
DALEY ENTERPRISES ROCK QUARRY
Mup 84-108W
LOG NO. 84-19-32 .. ..
Prepared by:
COUNTY'OF $AN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B
San Diego, Califorria 92123
..
Applicant: Environmental Consultant:
DALEY ENTERPRISES LETI'IERI-MCINTYRE &.ASSOCIATES 2400 Murphy Canyon 'Road 1551 Fourth Avenue, Suite 430
San Diego, CA 92123 San Diego, CA 92101
..
,Rack Quany Draft EIR Traific
The specific haul route is Otay Lakes Road from Highway 94
to the Chula Vista City Limits.
Provide an annual cash deposit, for the first five years, in the
amount of $15,000.00 to secure an estimated cost of repairs to
the above-identified road that is necessary for the hauling
operation. Fifteen thousand dollars is to be provided each year
for five years to establish a maintenance fund of $75,000.
After the first five years of operation, $75,000 is to be available
for said repairs at all times. after five years, any portion of
the $75,000 is utilized, said funds are to be replaced until a
fund of $75,000 is available. This replacement shaU be annually
to a maximum of $15.000.00 increments.
Grant an irrevocable offer to dedicate real property for public
highway to ninety-four feet (94'), plus slope rights and drainage
easements for the ultimate alignment of Otay Lakes Road
(SF1396) across the project site from west to the east boundary
of the project.
Improve Otay Lakes Road with a pedestrian and bicycle
travelway across Jamd Creek adjacent to the existing dip
section located approximately 200 feet west of the western
project boundary to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works.
Install W.51 signs warning of slow trucks facing both eastbound
and westbound trafEic on SR-94 at the Otay Lakes Road
intersection to the satisfaction of Caltrans.
Contribute a fair share contribution fee (to be determined by
Caltrans up to an equivalent to $200,000, and which may
include right of way dedication) to provide a future passing lane
along the south side of SR-94, between PM 21.8 and PM 22.4
and a climbing lane along the north side between PM 23.5 and PM 24.5.
Execute an "Agreement to Secure Maintenance of Citv . of-
yista Roag for the trkk haul routes on County roads, to the
satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The specific haul route is Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph
Daley Rak Quany Ddt EIR Traffic
Canyon Road from the easterly boundary of the Chula Vista
city limits to Interstate 805.
Provide an annual cash deposit, for the first five years, in the
amount of $15,000.00 to secure an estimated cost of repairs to
the above-identified road that is necessary for the hauling
operation. Fifteen thousand dollars is to be provided each year
for Eve years to establish a maintenance fund of $75,000.
After the first five years of operation, $75,000 is to be available
for said repairs at all times. If, after five years, any portion of
the $75,000 is utilized, said funds are to be replaced until a
fund of $75,000 is available, This replacement shall be annually
to a maximum of $15,000.00 increments.
4.3.3(1a) Upon completion of mitigation measure 43.3(1), the applicant may
construct and operate the rock crushing facility; however the maximum
number of outbound tiuck loads per day shall be 150. The rock
crushing facility shall cease operation if the following -conditions are
not implemented within a 12-month period following commencement
of rock crushing operations:
Improve Otay Lakes Road (SF 1396) from the main entrance
of the project westerly to the-Chula Vista Cin, limits to thirty- two feet (32’) overall width of asphaltic concrete pavement over
approved base and an asphaltic concrete dike and spillways
along the low point of the road. The graded width of the road
shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public
Works.
Improve Otay Lakes Road from the easterly boundary of the
Chula Vista City limits,as of the date of approval of this Major
Use Permit Modification, westerly for approximately three
thousand feet (3,000’) (to where it joins the existing wider
section) to thirty-two feet (32’) to thirty-four feet (34’) overall
width with asphaltic concrete payment over approved base,
asphaltic concrete dike, and spillways along the low points of
the road. The graded width of the road shall be subject to the
approval of the City of Chula Vista, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
Provide horizontal sight distance of 550 feet along SR-94 from
Otay Lakes Road and dedicate 50-feet of right of way from
February 10, 19p1 a
Dalcy Rock Ouw Ddt EIR Trmc
centerhe along the south side of SR-94 and provide any
additional clear space easements in order to maintain the Line
of sight. If grading within native slopes and/or native
vegetation is necessary to implement the line-of-sight
improvements, subsequent environmental review and any
associated mitigation measures shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Land Use prior to
approval of the Caltrm encroachment permit and final
improvement plans.
Where the existing alignment for Otay Lakes Road includes
curve radius' of less than 700', provide additional pavement for
the traveled way to assure that trucks can negotiate the curves
while remaining in the travelway, as approved by the Director
of Public Works.
Lmprove the east side of SR-94 at Hillsdale Drive to provide a
bus turnout which ensures passenger safety to the satisfaction
of Caltrans, the Director of Public Works and the Jamul-
Dulnrra Union School District.
Grant slope rights and drainage easements along Otay Lakes
Road between the project site and SR-94, where necessary, for
construction of bicycle facilities.
Install safety lighting at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road
and SR-94 to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
4 4.3.3(2) Upon satisfaction of mitigation measures 4.3.3(1) and 4.3.3(1a) and
prior to construction and operation of the concrete facility and the
asphalt concrete facility, the following is to be completed:
Improve the dip section on Otay Lakes Road'(SF1396) to the
satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
Improve westerly bound Otay Lakes Road west of the existing
dip section approximately two hundred feet (200') west of the
western project boundary for a passing lane with appropriate
transitions with asphaltic concrete payment and appropriate
base twelve fe,et (12') wide and twelve hundred feet (1,200')
long to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
. ..
*
4
4.3.3(3)
4.3.3(4)
Improve the. proposed access points on Ot2y Lakes Road
(SF1396) with acceleration, deceleration, and left-turn lanes to
the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public
Works.
Intersectional sight distance along Otay Lakes Road (SF1396)
shall be five hundred fifty feet (5507, or shall be based on
prevailing approach speed, to the satisfaction of the Director of
the Department of Public Works.
Improve Otay Lakes Road (SF1396) with appropriate overlays
as determined by a deflectometer test to be performed by the
County of San Diego. The limits of the overlays are from the
eastern boundary of the site westerly to the Chula Vista City
Limits. Overlays shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of
the Department of Public Works.
Upon satisfaction of measures 4.3.3 (1, la and 2), truck operations
shall be limited to no more than 450 outbound loads for 50 calendar
days per year and 350 outbound loads for all other operating days of
the year. Truck loads shall be limited to between the hours of 6:OO
am. and 1O:OO p.m. weekdays, and 7:OO am. and 500 p.m. on Saturday
and Sunday. Trucks travelling to and from the east shall always use
the primary project entrance. No more than 75 outbound loads per
day, and a maximum of 8,000 outbound loads per year, may go east;
all others must .go west.
The applicant shall provide the necessary funding for DPW to prepare
and provide a report addressing traffic safety problems resulting from
the increase in truck trafEic from the project. This report shall be
submitted annually ytil two years after the PCC batch plant and
asphalt concrete facility are in operation. After this period, the report
shall be submitted every other year for the life of the permit.
If the Board of Supervisors, based on the information provided in said
repOrt(s) regarding trafEc safety problems resulting from the increase
in truck traffic from this project, finds that the safety level has declined
to an unacceptable level to the detriment of public health, safety and
welfare, the Board may require specified road improvements which
shall be completed at the expense of the applicant, and with the
specified time period;to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. If said improvements are not completed as specified above,
.- *
Daley Rock QUT Ddi EIR Traffic
the Board may initiate proceedings to consider appropriate
modification to, or the revocation o& the Major Use Permit.
4 4.3.3(5) Street lights are required. Prior to the approval of street improvement plans, the applicant shall:
Deposit with the County of San Diego, through the Department of
Public Works, a cash deposit su€ticient to:
Energize and operate the street lighting system until tax
revenues begin accruing from the development for those
purposes.
Pay the cost to process lighting district administration of this
project. After granting of the Major Use Permit, the
development shall be transferred without notice or hearing to
Zone "A of the Lighting District to operate and maintain the
system.
4 4.3.3(6) Before any use or occupancy of the new premises, pursuant to this Major Use Permit, the applicant shall: ,
Obtain a construction permit from the Department of Public
Works for work in the County right-of-way.
Furnish'the Director of the Department of Planning and Land
Use, along with their request for final inspection, a letter from
the Director of the Department of Public Works, stating
Conditions 4.3.3(1), 4.3.3(1a), and (2) have been completed to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
4.3.4 Level of Significance
The potential, project-related impacts, would be mitigated to acceptable levels with the
roadway improvements identifed in Mitigation Measures 4.3.3(1), 4.3.3(1a), and (2) dong
with the operational measures contained in 4.3.3.
EXHIBIT 18
FANITA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
T'EI"'ll4"TIVE MAP,AND OTHER RELATED
ACTIONS
Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
Citv of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee? CA 92070
December 1998
REGON
.
<I
!
" D
7 -
Lr
I
EXHIBIT 19
Final Environme.nta1 Impact Report
for the
Horn~e Depot - East Main Street Project
SCH No. 9811106~~
Preoared roc.
Cify ofE1 Cajon
Depariment ofCommum?y Development
zoo East Main Street
El Cajon, CA 92 02 0
Contact: Barbafa Ramirez
Phone: (Gr9) 441-1741
David Evans andAssociates, Inc.
Prepared br
7G.GHazard Center Drive, Sde 880
San Diego, CA 92108
Contact: ffiren Ruggds, Manka Lundstedt Phone: (Gr9J 2Go-3420
ne Home Depot
project Pro.mne&
3800 West Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 9.2868
Contact: Rid Manners
Phone: f714) 940-3614
WY 1999
E' e: i~
',.
Section 4: Environmental Impact Analyxif(continued)
The addition of project-related traffic to the exisringplus cztrulative condition would lead to an increase in
delays at the study intersections. Comparing the results of this analysis to existing LOS reveals that all
intersections within the study area would still operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak periods,
with the exception of the intersections of East Main Street'Greenfield Drive and East Main StreedSydney
Terrace. The intersection of East Main StreeVGreenfield Drive hrther degrades int.0 LOS D during the PM
peak hour (average intersection delay increases f?om 28.4 to 35.6 seconds) with the southbound left tum
movement degrading to LOS EIF (see Appendix D for detailed turning movement volumes). The East Main
StreetBydney Terrace intersection degrades to LOS C and F during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
This is considered a significant adverse impact and would require mitigation.
1
~ ... / ,!
Impact 4.2-1: When considered with existing and cumulative project trafic, the project would add trafic to
the East Main StreetIGreenfield Drive intersection. The intersection of East Main
Slreet/Greenjield Drive further degrudes into LOS D during the PM peak hour wit11 the
southbound lefr turn movement degrading to LOS E/F. 7his is regarded as a signijcant
impact.
To improve the LOS of the East Main StreeVGreenfield Drive intersection, the project would restripe East
Main Street to provide dual left turns from southbound East Main Street to Greenfield Drive. These dual left
tum lanes would increase stacking capacity for left turning vehicles and prevent obstruction of and delays on
the through lanes on East Main Street. In addition, striping in a right turn lane for northbound East Main
Street to Greenfield Drive would improve the PM intersection LQS to C (see Exhibits 4.2-6, Lane
Configuration). These roadway modifications would also require modifications to the existing traffic signal,
as well as removal of some on-street parking on East Main Street at the intersection. The removal of on-street
parking will require the approval of the City of El Cajon's Traffic Commission and City Council.
The Greenfield Drive westbound 1-8 entrance ramp currently experiences periods of severe congestion during
the AM peak due to the ramp meter rates currently used by Caltrans. The City of El Cajon's staff is currently 1 working with Caltrans to increase the meter rates slightly to reduce backups and delays at the ramp meter, and 1 Caltrans will soon be restriping Greenfield Drive to better accommodate through traffic. The proposed Home
I Depot project would produce very low traffic demands for this ramp during the AM peak hour. Calculations
reveal that project traffic would add only 10 vehicles per hour to the AM peak hour traffic volume at the 1, ramp, which is approximately one percent of the existing demand volume for the kmp. (The project's trip
generation has a peak from 10 AM to 2 PM and its AM peak hour trips would consist mainly of local hips
that do not utilize the 1-8 freeway.) Thus, the existing congestion at the ramp is not caused by the project, nor '1 will the project add any significant traffic impact on the 1-8 ramp.
I Impac! 4.2-2: When considered with exisiing and cumulative project traflc, the project would add traflc to
the East Main Street/Sydney Terrace intersection, lowering the levels of service at this
intersection. The East Main Street/Sydney Terrace intersection degrades to LOS C/F. This is
regarded as a significant impact.
Home Depot - East Main Street Project; SCH No. 9811 IO69
Final ElRfor the
June 15, I999
3.2-14
Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis (continued) - -
..
', The East Main StreedSydney Terrace intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour
1: without a traffic signal. With the proposed project, this intersection will meet the signal warrants for ': minimum vehicular volume and interruption of continuous traffic. Thus, a traffic signal is warranted at this
1; intersection. If only a traffic signal was installed without roadway improvements, the intersection would still
,,'. operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. To improve this LOS, as part of the project, East Main Street
i', along the project property kontage would be widened and restriped to add one through lane in each direction.
'1 This would result in two through lanes in each direction, with dedicated left turn pockets in both directions at
:j the intersection of Sydney Terrace. This improvement would match the roadway configuration south of the
j. project site and transitions to one lane in each direction would be provided on East Main Street north of the :t ii._ project site.
b!, ,
'::" The main project driveway on the site at this intersection would also be striped with one lane for ingress and
;~. , wo lanes for egress, with the left lane dedicated for left-turn out only. With these roadway widening and
5 signalization improvements, the LOS at this intersection improves from LOS C and F to LOS B and C during
L,. .:.: the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Therefore, significant impacts would be mitigated with
r.: u; implementation of these measures.
.;::I .~.. .., The analysis of study area roadway segments reveals that all roadway segments within the study area would
,i operate at acceptable levels of senice, assuming the improvements to the East Main StreedGreenfield Drive 3~ intersection and widening and improvements to the section of East Main adjacent to the project,site as
i: _., . detailed above have been completed. Table 4.2-5, Roadway ADT pnd LOS with Project, provides the
k ... "., roadway segment analysis for the existing plus cumulative plus project condition. As shown, the roadway
j! segment of East Main Street, between Pepper Drive to Sydney Terrace would improve operation from LOS E !! to LOS A due to the addition of a second lane in each direction proposed as part of the project. East Main
.::' Street would remain.a 2-lane roadway within the unincorporated area, approximately 1,800 feet to the north.
.: Appropriate transitions into a two-lane roadway would be provided to the north of the project site.
:!' The segment of East Main Street, from Sydney Terrace to Los Coches Road (which is mostly in the
unincorporated area), would remain at LOS E, as it is under existing conditions. Under the County General
1 Plan Circulation Element, East Main Street north of the project site is planned for two lanes in each direction.
When this roadway widening project is implemented, the LOS at this roadway is expected to improve from
' the existing LOS E to LOS C (or better). There is no plan to widen this County segment at this time, so the
timing of these improvements is unknown.
The segment of East Main Street from Broadway to Greenfield Drive is a designated CMP roadway. Based
on Highway Capacity Manual calculations, this roadway will continue to operate at LOS D (northbound) and
:. LOS C (southbound) during the AM and PM peak hours, with the proposed project. The peak dour LOS for
.' Greenfield Drive was not calculated due to the short roadway segment, resulting in the LOS being controlled
by the intersection LOS. The Greenfield/-8 westbound ramps are projected to operate at LOS C and the
: eastbound ramps would operate at LOS B/C.
. .~
I
:..
Y", ;I,. :....
??,I
~.
~ ,. ,. . .,.
/
Find EIR for the
Home Depot - Easr Main Street Project; SCH No. 95111069
Jme IS. 1999
4.2-16
Roadway Segment ADTLOS
East Main Street
Oakdale-Broadway 15,300B
Broadway-Greenfield 23,OOOB
Greenfield-Pepper 15,OOOB
Pepper-Sydney Terrace 18,700B
Sydney Terrace-Los Coches 14,300E
Greenfield Drive 1) East Main-1-8 I 23,600lC I
1-8 Freeway-Bemluda 181300B
Source: RCE, March 1999. R
East Main Street is planned as a major four-lane arterial street designed to handle traffic as an alternate to th&q
1-8 Freeway between Los Coches Road and Greenfield Drive. SANDAG indicates that at buildout, East Main:$
Street would cany 28,000 ADT. Based on buildout conditions in the project area and assuming East Main.$
Street is built to provide two lanes in each direction, this roadway would be operating at LOS C, which is an$
acceptable LOS. Discussion of buildout traffic conditions is provided in Section 6, Cunnrlative Inrpncts, of$
this EIR. .p.v
,q
.', /,
-<.a
0 Traffic Diversion
Concerns regarding the diversion of traffic through the residential neighborhood located on the west side
~
East Main Street at Pepper Drive. were raised in response to the previous environmental documentation.
prepared for the project. To address this issue, the potential for diverted trips has been studied as part of the!%
traffic study summarized in this section. Adjacent residents have expressed concern regarding the potential.
for project-generated traffic to take 3 "short-cut" through the bncho Arboleda residential neighborhod3
between Pepper Drive and East Main Street, via Sydney Terrace to Jasmine Street and Chatsbury Streef:>&
Jasmine and Chatsbury Streets are residential streets; parking is allowed on both sides, and both streets havex
relatively steep grades. Currently, there are 1,300 ADT on Sydney Terrace, with 800 trips going eastbound 06
Jasmine Street and 500 trips going westbound on Jasmine Street. Jasmine Street is a residential collector
street with a roadway capacity of 4,500 ADT. Based on the traffic analysis conducted for the project, the
project would generate approximately 80 trips on Sydney Terrace, a six percent increase over existing:
volumes and two percent of the capacity of this roadway. The addition of 80 trips to existing traffic volumes
on Sydney Terrace (1,300 ADT) would result in 1,380 ADT, which is well within the design capacity ofthis,:
roadway. ..em$ .. @
Timing mns were performed on the three possible routes through this nearby neighborhood: 1. East Main;
Street to Pepper Drive; 2. Sydney Terrace to westbound Jasmine Street; and 3. Sydney Terrace 10
eastbound Jasmine Street to Chatsbury Street. The runs showed that, currently, the East Main Street t{
Pepper Drive route can be driven approximately 10 seconds faster than the other two routes. Based on these,
factors, it is anticipated that if traffic flows are kept at an'acceptable level (LOS D or better) on East M3iP.
Street and Pepper Drive, no significant traffic diversions are expected.
.3;
..7
. , ,< -, . n
c.3 .~ . ..
Finn1 EIRfor the
Home Depot - East Main Street Projecr: SCHNo. 95111069
June IS, 1999
4.2-17
..iC
.~..i. .:. ..A
Lq
>,I.
,.::a
#$'$
Home Depot -East Main Street Project; SCH No. 9811 1069
Final EIR forthe
June IS, 1999
4.2-1s
MM 4.2-la:
MM 4.2-lb:
"4.2-2:
The applicant shall restripe East Main Street at the Greenfield Dnve Interse'
dual left turn lanes !?om southbound East Main Street to Greenfield Drive and a right turn
lane from northbound East Main Street to Greenfield Drive. This will require modifications .I'
to the existing traffic signal and removal or reconstruction of the existing raised medians at '';
the intersection, :>
-
. ~,
.~ ~#: .~ ..
The applicant shall pay its fair share as determined by the City for a new traffic signal system ,::
to be installed at the East Main StreetiSydney TerraceProject driveway intersection. The ,.:
signal warrant analysis shows that the signal will meet warrants and should be constructed :j
with the development of the project. ., .i
..
, Ir: .a' '.L
I.
_,
4.2.5 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Imparts
A project would normally have a sipificant effect on the environment if it would cause an increase in traffic $
which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The City of.El,:$
Cajon has established LOS D as the acceptable standard for roadways and intersections. With the $
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project's impacts on traffic and circulationo;i
circulation impacts are expected after mitigation.
.. ..,.
. ../
,:;i
would not lead to area congestion or reduce service levels to below LOS D. I No significant traffic
Home Depot - East Mairi Street Project; SCH No. 98111069
Final ElRforthe
June 15. 1999
4.2-21
Section 4: Environmentd Inzpacr.4nalysis (continued)
The applicant shall widen East Main Street to meet City standards a1
This widening will match the existing street configuration to
[OhIE DEPOT - EAST MAIN STREET PROJECT
ITY OF El. CAJON .~ . -~ .
NJRCE: David Evans and Associaler, 1999
SURROUNDING LAND USES
EXHIBIT 20
...,
GENERAL PROVISIONS Ch. 2.6
:,. i.; i .
,'.,2..?:,>~.!
~ .., ,~,,. ~,,
. .. ~, . ,~. . . ..~ , , , , ~ li/ 5 21081 g<.:C:..:;,;
Historical and Statutory N&&Y?! !~~,:2; ..'.~,.4 i . ,~ ..
Section 4 or Stats.1995. c. 660 (A.B.733). pro- "Moreover, no reimbursement is required hy
vides in part: this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XI11 B
pursuant to Section or Anicle xIII of extent that this act imposes a mandated cost on ,.No'reimbursement is required by this act of the California Constitution because to the
public water systems, that cost is not reirnbursa- Calirornia Constitution because a local agency ble by the Stale hecause BCt applies tq
or school district has the authority to le9 ser- public water systems generally, not just to pub.
pay for the Program or level of sewice madat- agencies. This finding is consistent with the
vice charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to lic water systems owned or by local
ed by this act, within the meaning of Section decision in the case of County of L~~ hgeles ",
17556 of the Government Code. State of California. 43 Cal.3d 46."
6 21081. Necessary findings where environmental impact report identifies
effects
Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1, no public
report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the
agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact
both of the following occur:
environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless
(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with
respect to each significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment,
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other agency.
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report.
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding
(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh
the significant effects on the environment.
(Added by Stats.1976, c. 1312, § 9. Amended by Stats.1993, c. 1131 (S.B.919). 8 6;
Stats.1994, c. 1294 (A.B.314). 8 2, elf. Oct. 4, 1994.)
Historical and Statutory Notes
~~~SectionlZof.Stais.lg93,cVilprauides ..~_Legisgs,~ecl~a~ns~andt~
sembly Bill 1888 [Stats.1993, c. 11301 is enacted Historical and Statutory Notes under Public Re-
"This act shall become operative o"~). if A~. relating to Stats.1993. c. 1131 (S.B.9191, see
and takes eflect." sources Code § 21080.
Cross References
Feasible, see Public Resources Code § 21061.1 Significant effect on environment, see Public Resources Code § 21068
Code of Regulations References
Department of water resources, application for funding, see 23 Cal. Code of Regs. 5 483 et seq. Review ai environmental [actors, starf and agency assessment, see 20 Cat. Code of Regs 5 1742
361
§ 21081 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Site approval; required linding for air quality, see 20 Cal. Code ol Regs. § 1730.
Div. 13
Law Review Commentaries
Environmental review after Goleta. Timothy Transportation congestion and growth man. A. Tosta. Judy V. Davidoff & Douglas A. Potts, agement: Comprehensive approaches to resolv. 21 Sw.U.L.Rev. 1079 (1992). ing America's major quality of lire crisis. Rob. Judicial development of the California Envi- ert H. Freilich and S. Mark White, 24 Lay. ronmental Quality Act. Daniel P. Selrni. 18 L.A.L.R~". 915 (1991). U.C.Davis L.Rev. 197 (1984).
the for certainty: Significance thresholds mitigation under CEQA. Robert A. Johnston
Using the county general plan to guide habitat
for CEQA. 22 Ecology L.Q. 213 (1995). and Mary Madison, 34 Santa Clara L.Rev. 81
25 Pac.L.J. 658 (1994).
Reconciling environmental protection with
Review of selected 1993 California legislation.
Library References
Health and Environment § 25.10. WESTLAW Topic No. 199. C.J.S. Health and Environment §§ 64 to 90, 115 to 124.
WESTLAW Electronic Research
See WESTLAW Electronic Research Guide lollowing the Preface.
Notes of Decisions
New findings 25 Alternatives
Environmentally best 6 No project 7 Closely related projects, cumulative impacts la
Cogeneration facilities 20 Construction and application with other laws
Cumulative impacts 12-14
.-
1
Closely related projects 14 Reservation of findings 13 Visual impacts 12 Economic and social considerations 16 Environmentally best alternatives 6 Failure to make findings 4 Findings
Form of 23
Failure to make 4
Inconsistent 24 New 25 Requirements, generally 3 Reservation of cumulative impact findings
Written 23
Sufficiency of mitigation findings 11
Farm of findings 23 General plan amendments 17
Inconsistent findings 24
Implementation of mitigation measures IO
Land nse change 19 Mitigation findings, sufficiency of 11 Mitigation measnres Generally 8 Analysis of alternatives and mitigation
Implementation 10
13
measures 5
Mitigation monitoring program 9 Municipal airport 21
No project alternatives 7 Overriding considerations, generally 15 Reservation of findings, cumulative impacts
Significant effect on the environment, defined
Source of information 22
Social and economic considerations 16
Subdivision maps 18
Sufficiency of mitigation findings 11
Supplemental environmental impact reports
Visual impacts, cumulative impacts 12 Written findings 23
13
2
26
___
1. Construction and application with other
Timber companies were not freed from re-
reports on timber hamesting operations carried quirement of submitting environmental impact
on pursuant to Forest Practice Act (5 4511 et seq.) on theory that that Act was "functional equivalent" of California Environmental Quality
Y. Arcata Nat. Carp. (App. 1 Dist. 1976) 131 Act. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
CaLRptr. 172, 59 Cal.App.3d 959.
2. Significant effect on the environment, de-
lea an the environment" means a substantial, For purposes of this section, "significant ef-
or potentially substantial, adverse change in en- vironment, and means effect on environment ol persons in general and not particular persons such as resident of condominium located adja-
laws
fined
GENE1 Ch. 2.6
cent LO
City Cou
1982) It
3. Find
ranmenl For e?
one or n substant that cha in, or i
avoid o
agency that an<
andJ'Jr t considc~ sures 01 environ: City Ass Dist. IS
1011, rc
jcct arc Public
pats a] and Sur ronmen agency environ
adopts
riding
No Slo
standin
241.
2 Dist.
Whcr
errelect c
that a
lhat th,
gale th. or alte.
are wit
and ca specific
ations vlterna
Sa" B,
Cal.Rp San Br
4. Fa:
C0"r
on isla
ations
contaii
ed Sor should ronme formal Costa
App.4t (APP.
LLITY
liv. 13
h man-
. Rob- resolv-
!4 Loy.
shnston
habitat
Rev. 81
4 to 90,
.5 irnpacb
defined
6
reports
2
ith other
from re- al impact
GENERAL PROVISIONS Ch. 2.6
cent to proposed condominium. Markley Y.
City Council of City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist.
1982) 182 Cal.Rptr. 659, 131 Cal.App.3d 656.
3. Findings requirements, generally
For each significant effect identified in envi-
ronmental impact report, agency must make one or more of Sollowing findings, supported by substantial evidence in administrative record:
in, or incorporated into, project that would
that changes or allerations have been required
agency lacks jurisdiclion to make change, but
avoid or substantially lessen effect; that lead
that another agency does have such authority;
and/or that specific, economic, social, or other
sures or project alternatives identified in final
considerations make inieasible mitigation mea-
environmental impact report. Sacramento Old
City Ass'n v. City Council of Sacramento (App. 3
Dist. 1991) 280 Cal.Rptr. 478, 229 Cal.App.3d
101 1, rehearing denied, review denied.
Public agency findings as to impacts of pro-
ject are required only for environmental im-
pacts and are no1 required Sor policy decisions, and Surther. once required findings as to envi-
agency may still adopt' project with adverse ronmental impacls have been made, public
environmental consequences, provided it either
adopts mitigation measures or finds that over- riding considerations justify project notwith-
standing unmitigated adverse consequences. No Slo Transit, Inc. Y. City of Long Beach (App. 2 Dist. 1987) 242 Cal.Xptr. 760, 197 Cal.App.3d 241.
thal a proposed project will have a significant
When environmental impact report identifies
effecl on the environment, this code mandates
thal the lead agency make finding that changes
or alterations have been required which miti-
gate the significant eflects or that such changes
and can be adopted by that agency. or that
are within the responsibility of another agency
specific economic, social, or o~her conSider- aliens make the mitigation measures or project
allematives identified in the EIR infeasible.
San Bernardino County (App. 4 Disl. 1984) 202
Sun Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc., Inc. Y.
Cal.Xptr. 423, 155 Cal.App.3d 738.
4. Failure to make findings
5 21081 Note 4
Agency cannot fuISil1 its duties under Califor-
sidering environmental impact report before ap- nia Environmental Quality Act simply by con-
proving project; if agency decides to approve project despite its significant adverse impacts, agency must issue findings which specifically state how agency has responded to significant impacts identified in report. Sacramento Old City Ass'n v. City Council of Sacramento (App. 3 Dist. 1991) 280 CaLRptr. 478, 229 Cal.App.3d
101 I, rehearing denied. review denied.
failed to make findings adopting or rejecting
City did not comply with this section when it
proposed mitigation measures far environmm-
tal impacts identified by environmental impact
which contained wetlands. Citizens For Uuali.
report regarding development of 35-acre parcel
ty Growth Y. Cily OS Mount Shuna (C.D.M.S.) (App. 3 Dist. 1988) 243 CaLRptr. 727, 198 Cal. App.3d 433.
consider impact of cumulative eEms of past California Departmenl OS Foresuy's failure to
logging activities, combined with proposed har- vesl, on ecology of grove of proposed limber hamest. or its consideration of such effects un-
when it authorized lozging of 75-acre grove of der erroneous conception OS cumulative impact,
old-growth redwoods, some OS which were over
a thousand years old, was prejudicial abuse of
discretion. Environmental Protection Infarma-
tion Center, Inc. Y. Johnson (App. 1 Dist. 1985)
216 Cal.Rptr. 502. 170 Cal.App.3d 604.
quirea' construction of improvements to miti-
That draft environmental impact repon "re-
gate traffic impacls relative to project, while, at
substituted in city's findings on project did not developer's request, the word "assured' was
eliminate requirement that traffic facility im- provements be constructed therefore, city did not fail to fallow mandate of this section prohib-
significant environmental effects unless specific
iting approval of project where EIR identifies
findings are made as to such elfects. City of Poway Y. City of San Diego (App. 4 Dist. 1984)
202 Cal.Xp1r. 366, 155 Cal.App.3d 1037.
Where environmental impact report in con-
nection with proposal to reclassify 190-acre par-
residential contained finding of potentially sig- cel from permanent agricultural to agricultural-
nificant adverse environmental effects, the Sac-
§ 21081
environmental impact report concerning pro.
Note 4
ricultural area, was prejudicially erroneous. posed commercial development in primarily ag.
Cleary v. Stanislaus County (App. 5 Dist. 1981) 173 CaLRptr. 390, 118 Cal.App.3d 348.
College trustees' omission to make findings
that necessity of athletic stadium project out-
render its determination invalid, since trustees' weighed adverse environmental facts did not
then existing law, given fact that provision of failure to make findings was consistent with
this section governing necessary findings where environmental impact report identifies effects
could only he considered prospectively because it did not by its terms provide for retroactive
trustees revealed more than ample consider- application; moreover. proceedings before
atian of all environmental consequences of go-
ing forward with project. Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees of California State University and Colleges (App. 3 Dist. 1979) 152 CdRptr. 585, 89 Cal.App.3d 274.
sue permit for proposed motel development
County zoning administrator's decision to is-
was defective under Environmental Quality Act (§ 2iOOO et seq.) in view of administrator's
failure to give environmental impact reporl a
significant role in considering use permit appli.
cussion concerning, economic or social values cation, and in absence of evidence of, or a dis-
in proposed project overriding the adverse ef- fects disclosed by environmental impact report. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (App. 1 Dist. 1977) 139 Cai. Rptr. 214, 71 Cal.App.3d 84.
5. Analysis of alternatives and mitigation mea-
alternative to real estate developer's proposed City council's rejection of decreased density
project, on ground of infeasibility, was not abuse of discretion: project as proposed cam- plied with all general plan, zoning and develop- ment policies and there was no showing that
approved density would have specific, adverse
Hills Homeowners Aea'n Y. City of Oakland impact upon public health or safety. Sequoyah
(W.P.N. Associates) (App. 1 Dist. 1993) 29 Car.
Rptr.2d 182, 23 Cal.App.4th 704.
Where city carefully considered, and rejected as infeasible, numerous project alternatives. ap- proval of project which would allegedly have negative impact on California Tiger Salamander was proper. Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (Shappell Industries of Northern California) (App. 6 Dist. 1990) 271 CaLRptr. 393, 222 Cal. App.3d 30, rehearing denied and modified, re- view denied.
significant impacts relating to a proposed pro-
If there is evidence of one or more potentially
ject. the environmental impact report (EIR) re-
Sure*
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Div. 13
quired pursuant to this division must contain
measures which would avoid or lessen such meaningful analysis of alternatives or mitigation
impacts. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (GWF Power Sysiems Co., Inc.) (App.
5 Dist. 1990) 270 CdRptr. 650, 221 Cal.App.3d
692, rehearing denied and modified, review de.
nied.
environmental impact repon prepared pursuant An inadequate discussion of alternatives in an
to this division constitutes an abuse of agency discretion. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (GWF Power Systems Co., Inc.)
App.3d 692, rehearing denied and modified, re- (App. 5 Dist. 1990) 270 Cal.Rptr. 650, 221 Cal.
view denied.
6. Environmentaily best alternatives
Rejection of a project is not mandated under this division because an alternative exists which would avoid an environmental impact identified in an environmental impact report (EIR); envi- ronmentally best alternative need not be pur- sued if through imposition of feasible mitigation measures environmental damage from imple- menting original proposal can be reduced to
nomic, social or other considerations make al-
acceptable level, or if agency finds specific eco-
ternatives infeasible. Kings County Farm Bu- reau v. City of HanEord (GWF Power Systems Co.. Inc.) (App. 5 Dist. 1990) 270 Cal.Rptr. 650, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, rehearing denied and mod- ified, review denied.
7. No project alternatives
There war good faith, reasonable, and sub- stantial compliance with requirement under
ing no project alternative with respect to project California Environmental Qualiiy Act of discuss-
dhich approved demolition of registered histor- ic monument, where retention of monument maintained existing environment, environmen- tal impact report included that option and four
considered alternatives in several coniexts. Du- of stated alternatives, and agency thoroughly
sek v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (App. 4 Dist. 1985) 219 CaLRptr. 346, 173 Cal.App.3d 1029, review denied.
8. Mitigation measures, generally
Mitigation measure proposed in environmen- tal impact report io be incorporated in general plan need not be literally incorporated into plan. Twain Harte Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Tuolumne County (App. 5 Dist. 1982) 188 Cal. Rptr. 233. 138 Cal.App.3d 664.
9. Mitigation monitoring program
Mitigation monitoring program under Califor-
required to be contained in environmental im- nia Envirmunental Quality Act (CEQA) is not
pact report (EIR) or circulated with EIR to
GENERAL PRC Ch. 2.6
concerned citizens
made after conside: must be adopted L
ward Ministry v. C. Dist. 1993) 16 Cai.:
31.
10. Implernentatic
Environment4 ir
fill expansion proje
proposed mitigaiio~
mented by setting tion measures had or during specified christward Minis1 (App. 4 Dist. 1993: App.4th 3 1.
1 I. Suficiency of
Mitigation findii ment building, lis city's official regi? city's environmen
sion of conventio substantial widen, men& of Californi report provided t
gressive program ment housing for men1 building ar housing to be bud found to be ink Ass'n Y. City Co Dist. 1991) 280 ( 101 1, rehearing d
Substantial evil
supported city's 1
would have on tI
cant effects that
would be reducer mitigation meast related to prepa
agement plan, pr
mento Old City promotion of altr
mento (App. 3 1 229 Cal.App.3d denied.
University wot off campus resei cation of propel where there was university's find port that enviror lies would be n Ass'n of San Fr, vcrsity of Califc
of rehearing. 47 Cal.3d 376, 7
Environmenti
potential envirc
versiw science
364
:n 13
tain
tion
xch
y of
IPP. p.3d
' de-
uant n an
ency
Inc.)
City
I, re- Cal.
nder
Xied
rhich
envi-
ation pur-
nple- :d to
;e al-
L Bu- ;terns
mod-
650,
eco-
mder sub-
roject
listor-
lment
men- I four
D"-
;cuss-
UghIY
IPP- 4
PP.3d
,men- zneral I into
8 Cal. nc. v.
alifar- is not
a1 im
XR to
GENERAL PROVISIONS ' Ch. 2.6
concerned citizens and agencies. but merely
must be adopted when required findings are made after consideration 01 final EIR. Christ-
ward Ministry v. County of San Diego (App. 4
Dist. 1993) 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 435, 13 Cal.App.4th
31.
10. Implementation of mitigation measures
Environmental impact report (EIR) for land-
fill expansion project adequately specified when proposed mitigation measures would be imple- mented by setting forth which specific mitiga- tion measures had to be implemented prior to or during specilied stages of expansion project.
(App. 4 Dist. 1993) 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 435, 13 Cal. Chrisward Ministry v. County of San Diego
App.4lh 31.
11. Suffkiency of mitigation findings
Mitigation findings for demolition of apart-
ment building, listed as priority structure on
city's oilicial register of historic properties, in
city's environmental impact report for expan-
sion of convention center were supported by
substantial evidence and complied with require-
ments 01 California Environmental Quality Act;
report provided that city would establish a,n-
grcssive program to locate appropriate replace-
ment housing for tenants displaced from apart-
ment building and would cause replacement housing to be built il relocation of building was
found to be infeasible. Sacramento Old City Ass'n Y. City Council of Sacramento (App. 3 Dist. 1991) 280 CdRptr. 478, 229 Cal.App.3d
101 1. rehearing denied, review denied.
Substantial evidence in administrative record supported city's finding that potentially signifi-
would have on traffic, circulation, and parking
cant effects that convention center expansion
would be reduced below level 01 significance by
mitigation measures LO extent those measures
related to preparation of transportation man- agement plan. provision 01 satellite parking, and
promo~ion of alternative transportation. Sacra- mmto Old City Ass'n Y. City Council of Sacra-
menlo (App. 3 Dist. 1991) 280 CdRptr.' 478. 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, rehearing denied, review denied.
off campus research lacility, pending its certifi- University would be allowed to continue using
cation of proper environmental impact report where there was substantial evidence to support university's finding in otherwise insuificirnt re-
lies would be mitigatrd. Laurel Heights Imp.
port that environmental effects 01 present activi-
Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. Y. Regents of Uni-
versity of Calilornia (1988) 253 Cal.Rptr. 426,
of rehearing. 47 Cd3d 376, 761 P.2d 278. modilied on denial
Environmental impact report's finding that
potential environmental effects of moving uni- versity scicnce research unit to off campus
36
5 21081
Note 13
building would be mitigated was supported by
substantial evidence; studies showed lack of
harmhl effects at unit's current location, daily
traffic at new location would decrease from that
engendered by its current use, and specific mea- sures were proposed to handle radioactive rub- stances used by unit. Laurel Heights Imp. Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. Y. Regents of Uni-
versity of California (1988) 253 CdRptr. 426,
of rehearing.
47 Cal.3d 376. 764 P.2d 278, modified on denial
California Department 01 Forestry's response to public objections to proposed timber harvest- ing plan, addressing sufficiency of measures to mitigate damage to Native American archaeo-
logical rite located in harvest grove, was inade-
quate, where response contained no analysis of
tained no specific incornration to communicate issues of protection of archaeological siir, cuu-
basis for rejection of objection, and referred to
draft repart relied upon by unknown archaealo-
gists, one hired by logging company and other employed by very agency whose actions had
able. Environmental Protection Information been questioned, but did not make report avail-
CaLRptr. 502, 170 Cai.App.3d 604. Ccntcr, Inc. Y. Johnson (App. 1 Dist. 1985) 216
12. Cumulative impacts-Visual impacts
impact, when approving developer's proposed City council's findings as to cumulative visual
real estate project, were adequate; city council found that any dwelopment on site would una- voidably affect visual resources and that adverse
by approving project ut proposed density to impact was outweighed by benelits to be gained
increase supply of available housing in city.
Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Aos'n v. City of
29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182, 23 Cal.App.401 704. Oakland (W.P.N. Associates) (App. 1 Dist. 1993)
13. - Reservation of findings, cumulative
Resenetion of discussion in environmental
impact report of one conceptual cumulative im-
pact to time when severity of that impact and its
likelihood of occurrenc~ would be known more
specifically did not render environmental im-
pact report inadequate. Schaelfer Land Trust
v. San Jose City Council (CB & CB Develop-
ment Corp.) (App. 6 Dist. 1989) 263 Cal.Rptr.
813, 215 Cal.App.3d 612.
rezoning of former school property to permit
Study of school amendment, which concerned
school property to be used for high density
residential, neighborhood community coiimer-
cial, and private recreation andior public park
and opcn spacc, and of golf course property's approved use as industrial park as distinguished from partial use as industrial park and partial
use consistent with mixed use overlay, ade- quately discussed cumulative impacts of two
5
impads
9 21081
projects to satisfy this division. Schaeffer Land
Note 13
Trust v. San Jose City Council (CB & CB Devel-
opment Corp.) (App. 6 Dist. 1989) 263 Cal.Rptr.
813, 215 Cal.App.3d 612.
14. - Closely related projects, cumulative
In omitting from its calculations and analyses
of cumulative impacts other closely related pro-
jects that were currently under environmental
review. local planning commission which issued
environmental impact reports for constxuction 01 high-rise office buildings applied unreason- ably narrow interpretation of guidelines imple-
Act (this section et seq.) and, in so doing, mrnting the California Environmental Quality
sonable Growth v. City and County of San Fran- abused its discretion. San Franciscans far Rea-
cisco (App. l Dist. 1984) 198 CaLRptr. 634, 151
Cal.App.3d 61.
15. Overriding considerations, generally
icant environmental impacts only if it finds such Public agency can approve project with signif.
effects can he mitigated or concludes that un-
avoidable impacts are acceptable because of
overriding concerns. Sierra Club v. Contra
Costa County (Chartered Land and Cattle Co.)
(App. 1 Dist. 1992) 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 182, 10 Cal.
App.4th 1212.
cerns concerning project with significant en- Public entity's statement of overriding con-
vironmental impact must be supported by
substantial evidence contained in the final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) andior
v. Contra Costa County (Chartered Land and other information in the record. Sierra Club
Cattle Co.) (App. 1 Dist. 1992) 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 182, 10 Cal.App.4th 1212.
When an environmental impact report stated
that no mitigating measures were available to
prevent loss of wetlands caused by proposed project to develop 35 acres within city, city was required by this section to weigh feasibility of identilied alternatives to project, rather than simply adopting a statement of overriding con- siderations asserting justifications for proceed-
Y. City of Mount Shasta (C.D.M.S.) (App. 3 Dist. ing with project. Citizens For Quality Growth
1988) 243 Cal.Rptr. 727, 198 Cal.App.3d 433.
16. Social and economic considerations
Statement of overriding considerations an is- sue of mitigation of housing loss, in relation to
pact report for construction of elementary school district's subsequent environmental im-
school in primarily minority, low-income urban area, was adequate, as there was adequate ex- planation why housing loss would remain un- mitigated and why further mitigation measures
would not be feasible, and sufficient basis lor
finding that impacts on housing were accept-
impacts
3t
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Div. 13
able in light of overriding social, economic, and other benefits arising from construction of new elementary school. Concerned Citizens of
School Dist. (App. 2 Dist. 1994) 29 Cal.Rptr.2d South Cent. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified
492, 24 Cal.App.4th 826.
support of its adoption of amendment of coun. Findings of county board of supervisors, in
ty's general plan, were inadequate in failing to
discuss environmental impact report alterna-
lives other than "No Development" alternative
was mentioned was economically infeasible.
and in failing to explain why alternative that
Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. Y. Board of Sup'rs of Orange County (App. 4 Dist. 1987) 185 Cal.Rptr. 41, 134 Cal.App.3d 1022.
the California Environmental Quality Control
Defendant city did not abuse discretion under
Act in rejecting as infeasible various alternatives
to community planning area project proposed by plaintirf cily, since defendant city considered and reasonably rejected the project alternatives as infeasible in view of social and economic realities in the region. City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (App. 4 Dist. 1982) 183 CaLRptr.
898, 133 Cal.App.3d 401.
17. General plan amendments
Environmental Quality Act generally and
pact reports in particular compel agencies to
standards for preparation of environmental im-
assess environmental impacts of proposed gen-
pod with the actual physical conditions in the
era1 plan amendments by comparing the pm-
formation Council of Western El Dorado Coun-
affected area. Environmental Planning and In-
ty, Inc. v. El Dorado County (App. 3 Dist. 1982) 182 CaLRptr. 317, 131 Cal.App.3d 350.
18. subdivision maps
identified with respect to tentative map of sub- If significant adverse environmental effects
division relate to design of or proposed im- provements of subdivision, local agency may not approve the map under this section. 68 0ps.Atty.Gen. 108, 5-17-85,
19. Land use change
Change in land use from open space to resi-
for which specific finding was required in order
dential was not significant environmental effect
report. Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass'n Y.
to approve developer's environmental impact
Dist. 1993) 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182, 23 Cal.App.4th City of Oakland (W.P.N. Associates) (App. 1
704.
20. Cogeneration fafilities
Environmental impact report (EIR) prepared
in connection with proposed cogeneration facil- ity did not adequately present data regarding alternative of using naiural gas as the fuel rath-
56
GENE1 Ch. 2.6
er than ,
noxide a ized red?
use 01 nz sufficien
competir
City of I?
App.3d view den
21. Mu
Resolu menls 01
tion of n
(5 2100c
pal aiipr
that city
environr decision adverse either di or were
inlerest
weighed
ment. (
2 Dia. 1 1062.
22. so,
Envirt connecti molish 1 landmar
retail 01
virtue ol
by devel
discuss
Francis'
County < CaLRptr
23. Fot
quired I
Local
support alternati acres of
partial E co me
equivale
quireme
Agency
(App. 1 App.3d ;
24. In<
Cily < threat tc oil drill
in same
(APP. 5 1
acceptal
ALITY
Div. 13
nic. and
, of new
tens of
Unified
Rptr.2d
,f coun- sors, in
tiling to alterna- %native
.ve that easible. . Board
t. 1982)
1 lander Control 'natives .oposed sidered natives onomic
il.Rptr. Y. City
:tal im- y and
cies to :d gen-
Le pro- in the tnd In- Coun- 1982)
effects ,f sub-
Y may
:d im-
2. 68
o resi- effect order mpact ;s'n v.
.PP- 1 2p.4th
pared
lrding fad-
rath-
GENERAL PROVISIONS Ch. 2.6
ized reduction in sulphur dioxide, carbon mo- er than coal; comparison tables mischaracter-
noxide and particulate matter emission through use of natural gas and generally did not provide
sufficient data to allow for comparison between
competing fuels. Kings County Farm Bureau Y.
(App. 5 Dist. 1990) 270 CaLRptr. 650, 221 Cal.
City ol Hanford (GWF Power Systems Co., Inc.)
App.3d 692, rehearing denied and modified, re- view denied.
5 21081
Note 26
gram might not be successful; moreover, any apparent inconsistency in city council's finding could be resolved by reference to contempora- neously enacted ordinances. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (Occidental Petroleum Corp.) (App. 2 Dist. 1987) 242 CdRptr. 37, 196
Cal.App.3d 223, review denied.
Finding of city council under this section that environmental risk of fire presented by oil drill- ing project would be mitigated partially to a
21. Municipal airport
Resolution 01 city council satisfied require- ments of California Environmental Quality Act
tion of master plan for development of munici- (5 21000 et seq.) so as to permit implementa-
pal airport, whew resolution contained findings that city council had reviewed and considered environmental impact report prior to making decision on master pian for development. that adverse environmental effects of development either did not exist, were 01 short-term duration.
or were able to be mitigated, and that public
interest in proceeding with development out-
weighed any unmitigated impacts of develop- menl. City of Lomita Y. City of Torrance (App.
2 Dist. 1983) 196 CaLRptr. 538, 148 Cal.App.3d
1062.
22. Source of information
Environmental impact report prepared in connection with application lor permit to de- molish building designated as state historical landmark and COnStNCt new building for use as retail outlet was not rendered inadequate by
by developer: nor did the report [ail to properly virtue of fact that it was based on data supplied
discuss the alternatives. Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City and
CaLRptr. 401, 106 Cal.App.3d 893. County of San Francisco (App. 1 Dist. 1980) 165
23. Form of findings
Local agency formation commission was re- quired to make adequate written findings in support of its rejection of partial annexation as
acres of agricultural land to city: discussion of alternative to proposed project annexing 74
partial annexation followed by vote of the LAF- CO members did not constitute functional equivalent of satislying the written findings re- quirement. Resource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Com'n of Santa Cruz County
App.3d 886, review denied. (App. 1 Dist. 1987) 236 Cal.Rptr. 794, 191 Cal.
24. Inconsistent findings
City council finding under this section that threat to slope stability caused by exploratory
acceptable level was not nullified by reference oil drilling project could be mitigated to an
in same finding that proposed dewatering pro-
36
level of insignificance by several measures in-
inconsistent. and triai caurt erred in concluding cluding placement of a new fire station was not
clarify whether council intended immediate that matter had to be returned to city council to
placement of a fire station. No Oil, Inc. Y. City of Los Angeles (Occidedal Petroleum Corp.) (App. 2 Dist. 1987) 242 Cal.Rptr. 37, 196 Cal. App.3d 223, review denied.
25. New findings
with approval of addendum to original environ- New findings were no1 required in connection
mental impact report, and county board of su- pewisom' readoption of its original findings was in compliance with requirements of this divi- sion, where significant effects found in original report had been addressed by findings, and ad- dendum did not raise new important issues but rather, clarified, refined, and made minor modi- fications and updated information. Fund for Environmental Defense Y. County a1 Orange (Nichols Institute Reference Laboratories) (App. 4 Dist. 1988) 252 Cal.Rptr. 79, 204 Cal.App.3d 1538.
26. Supplemental environmental impact re-
required supplemental environmental impact California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
report (SEIR) for state university's long range development plan to consider ultimate physical changes in environment from projected impact of plan on school district's elementary school enrollment, including construction of new school facilities, new bur schedules and changed lraffic patterns, but SEIR did not have to show how to alleviate projected increase in
pacity. Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of enrollment or how district should increase ca-
University of California (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 110, 37 Cal.App.4th 1025.
Supplemenml environmental impact report
ment plan set forth sulficient range of alterna- (SEIR) for state university's long range develop-
tives to mitigate or avoid potential significant rffects on physical environment from incrcascd enrollment resulting lrom plan, including in-
schools, adding portable classrooms and build- creasing class sizes, instituting year-round
ing new classrooms. Goleta Union School Dist.
v. Regents of University of California (App. 2
ports
87
9 21081 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIW Note 26 Div. 13
Dist. 1995) 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 110. 37 Cal.App.4th
1025.
s 21081.5. Feasibility of mitigation, measures or project alternatives; basis
for findings
21081, the public agency shall base its findings on substantial evidence in the
In making the findings required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section
record.
(Added by Stats.1984, c. 1514, 5 5. Amended by Stats.1994, c. 1294 (A.B.314). 5 3, eff. Oct. 4, 1994.)
Library References
Health and Environment P25.10(8).
WESTLAW Topic No. 199.
C.J.S. Health and Environment §§ 78, 122
@ 21081.6. Findings or negative declarations: reporting or monitoring
(a) When making the findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
paragraph. (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements
Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to
shall apply:
c.hanges made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or
monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated
into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having
jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency
submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents
or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its
decision is based.
(b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid signifi-
cant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit condi-
tions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be
or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public
set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures
tion, or project design.
project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regula-
impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a
(c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental
public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project,
shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance
objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects
on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having
368
project changes: effect on environment; conditions
GENERAL I Ch. 2.6
jurisdiction 1
Any mitigatic
agency to a]
shall be limi
an agency h
subject to the
jurisdiction c
Compliance
shall not lin
lead agency,
jurisdiction o
or any other 1
(Added bv Sta
:
Slats.l99?, c.
1994: Stats.19
Section 24 of
provides:
ate Bill 919 [Stat "This act shall
Regular Session
and takes effecr."
Section 17 of S
"Section 8.5 o ments to Sectio sources Code prc [Seclions 8 and Resources Code
Code § 21081.6
§ 21080.6 was nm
shall only becorn#
enacted and beca
ary 1, 1995, (2 21080.6 01 the PI
this bill is macle
Section 21080.6 t
as amended by A only until the o
which time Sectk
or AB 314 (c. I.
25 Pac.L.J. 664 (1
Review of S&CI
Review of selecl
26 Pac.L.J. 202 (1
Implementation o
8 21080.32 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
authorired by this division or the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.) or to any state or federal requirement that is imposed for the protection of the environment.
finding that there is a fiscal emergency caused by the failure of agency revenues to adequately fund (d)(l) This section applies only to actions taken after the publicly owned transit agency has made a
agency programs and facilities, and after the publicly owned transit agency has held a public hearing to
within 30 days at a regular public meeting to suggestions made by the public at the initial public hearing.
consider those actions. A publicly owned transit agency that has held such a hearing shall respond
Those actions shall be limited to projects defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 21065 which initiate or increase fees, rates, or charges charged for any existing public service, program, or activity; or reduce or eliminate the availability of an existing publicly owned transit service, facility, program, or activity.
agency, means that the agency is projected to have negative working capital within one year from the
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "fiscal emergency," when applied tO a publicly owned transit
Working capital shall be determined by adding together all unrestricted cash, unrestricted short-term
date that the agency makes the finding that there is a fiscal emergency pursuant to this section.
investments, and unrestricted short-term accounts receivable and then subtracting unrestricted accounts payable. Employee retirement funds, including Internal Revenue Cade Section 467 deferred compensa-
tion plans and Seetian 401(k) plans, health insurance reserves, bond pqment resemes, work€!m' compensation reselves, and insurance reserves, shall not be factored into the formula far working capital.
(Added by Stats.1996, e. 500 (S.B.1899), § 1.)
9 21080.33. Emergency projects to maintain, repair or restore existing hizhways; application of division; exceptions
This division does not apply to any emergency project undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public
except for a highway designated as an official state scenic highway pursuant to Section 262 of the Streets agency to maintain, repair, or restore an existing highway, as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code,
and Highways Code, within the existing rightof-way of the highway, damaged as a.result of fre, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide, within one year of the damage. This section does not exempt from this divlsion any project undertaken, carried out, or approved by a publie agency M expand or widen a highway damaged by fre, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, 01 landslide.
(Added by Stats.1996, c. 825 (A.B.29631, 5 6.)
Historical and Statutom Notes
1996 Legislation
Stats.1996, e. E25 (AB.2963), see Historied ad Statutory Legislative findings. deelslxtians and intent reiating to
Notes under Fish and Game Cade 5 1601.
Library References
Logal Jurisprudenees Treatises and Prncti~e Aids
Cal Jur 9d Pollut B 494. Witldn, Summary (9th ed) Real Prop 5 59k
§ 21080.35. Carrying out or approying a project; definition
carrying out or approval of a plan for a project that expands or enlarges an existing publicly owned
For the purposes of Section 21069, the phrase ''carrying out or approving a project" shall include the
airport by any political subdivision, as descxibed in Section 21fi61.6 of the Public Utilities Code.
(Added by Sta.ts.2001, c. 534 (S.B.244). 5 1.)
5 21081. Necessary findings where environmental impact report identifies effe'cts
Notes of Decisions
Alternatives
Cumulative impacts 12-14
Feasible alternatives 5.5
Feasibility 5.5
Noise 12.5
Noise, eumulvtive impact9 12.5 ___
3. Findings requiremcnts, generally
Additions or changes indicated by -; deletions by aslerisks * *
112
CODE
q.) or to
:iy fund' made a
aring to respond hearing. initiate . reduce activity.
om the
transit
section. &term
XOUOtS ipensa-
orke'm'
:spital.
ion of
public
treets Code,
,f the flood,
I& or uake,
the ned ,de.
lor
is m-
I
effects. Las Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of La& concern is with feasible means of reducing environmental
Angeles (App. Z Di~t 1997) 68 Cal.Rptr.Zd 367, 68 Cat Applth 1019. reheoine denied, reiimv denied.
Development agency, in environments1 impact report
ible and that benefits of project outweigh unmitigated iEIR), must fmd both that mitigation memms are infeab-
&leas on environment; it is not suiflcient me& to find that benefits outweigh effects on enviranment. Los Ange. les United School Dist Y. City af Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 1997) 68 Cal.Rptr.Zd 367. 6s Cal.App.4th 1019. re- hearing denied, review denied.
6.5. Feasible alternatives r& of pester than i:1, which included' hbh &site and offsite mitieation. City of Camel-By-The-Sea Y. US. Deut. ofTrahso.. C.A.9 iCa1.11997. 123 F.3d 1142.
Additions or changes indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks * * *
113
§ 21081 Note 7 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE j I
ment of Water Resources (App. 3 Dist. 2000) 100 Cd.
rehearing, review denied. Rptr.Zd 173, 83 Cal.App.4th 892, modified on denial of
A '"no project" desczlption contained in 8" environmen- tal impact repport (EIR) prepared under California Envi-
vides the decision makers and the public with specific ionmental Quality Act (CEQA) is nonevaluative; it prc-
information about the environment if the project is not
approved. and is B factually-based forecast of the emiran-
provides the decision maken with a base line against mental impacts of prer-ng the status quo, which thus
which they can measure the enilrwmental advantages and disadvantages of the project and nltematiTees to the project. Planning and Consemation League Y. Depart- ment of Water Resources (App. 3 Dist. 2000) 100 Cai.
rehealing, review denied. Eptr.2d 173, 83 Cal.App.4th 892, modified on denial of
8. Mitigation measure, generally
Adenuate envimnmental hmact ~toort (EIRI must re- spond & specific suggestions for mitigating iieifleant environmental impact unless snggested mitigation is fa- cially infeasible; while response need not be exhaustive, it
Angeies Unified School Dist. Y. City of Los Angeles (App. should wince good faith and reasoned analysis. Los
2 Dist. 1997) fi8 Cal.Rotr.2d 367. 58 CaI.Aoo.4th 1019. rchew-ing denied. revier; denied.
11. Suffieieney of mitieation findinm
..
plan was not supported by substantial evidenee,-as re- qeed by California Envbmmental Quality Act (CEQA);
whether mitigation mesmres would ever be funded or im-
city acknowledged that there was great uncertainty as to
demented. did not reauire that such measures be imole-
Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2000) 100 Cal.Rpb.2d 301, 83 Cai. tion of Hillside and Canyon Associations V. City of Los
AppAth 1262.
exceed demand estimated in envkonmental impact repo~% City's finding that, in 10 years, ita water supply would
(EIR) concerning amendment to city's general plan was supported by substantial evidence, as required by Califof
that growth permitted under the general plan would cause
nia Environmental Qu$ity Act (CEQAh city determined
significant effects on the water supply requiing mitiga-
tion, then eoneluded that mitigation measuxs, ineluding conselvation prawams, infrastructure improvements, and development of alternative water supplies would avoid OF subsuntially reduce the significant effects. Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations Y. City of Lor Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2000) 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 301. 83 Cal.App.4th 12.52.
unmitigatable but adapting statements of overriding con- ' t sideratiois regarding those impacts. Fab-ivieiv Neighbars
Y. County of Ventura (App. 2 Dist 1999) 82 Cal.Rpb.2d 436, 70 Cal.App.4th 213, as madifkd, mview denied.
It is improper for led agencies, in drafting envirp mental impact report (EIR) pumuant to California Envi- ronmental Quality Act (CEQA), to defer formulation of possible mitigation programs by simply requiring future studies to see if mitigation may be feasible. Fainriew Neighbors Y. County of Ventura (App. 2 Dist. 1999) 82
denied. Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 70 CalApp.4th 238, DS modified, review
~~
It is improper for led agencies, in drafting envirp mental impact report (EIR) pumuant to California Envi- ronmental Quality Act (CEQA), to defer formulation of possible mitigation programs by simply requiring future studies to see if mitigation may be feasible. Fainriew Neighbors Y. County of Ventura (App. 2 Dist. 1999) 82
denied. Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 70 CalApp.4th 238, DS modified, review
~~
Program enilronmental ""pad report (PEiR) issued by : city and county complied with thek California Envimn. mental Quality Act (CEQA) obligatione to zindyze impacteta :
significant discussion of environmental impacts of project,
of residential community development project by ineluding
by setting forth required findings about whether thoe impacts were mitigatable or were supported by overtiding
project approwal process until completion of regional eon- consideratons, and by specifically finding that deferral of '.
senration planning progrms WAS not feasible. Chapanal
Greens Y. City of Chula Vista (App. 4 Dist. 1996) 58 ,'. Cal.Rptr.2d 152, 50 Cal.App.4ih 1134, review denied.
Record did not sumort claim that it was tw eariv to :I
of noise on residences. Las Angeles Unified School Dist.
Y. City of Loa Angeles (App. 2 Dist 1997) 68 Cal.Rptr2d 367, 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, rehenring de$ed, revim denied.
§ 21081.6. Findings or negative declarations; reporting or monitoring project changes; effect on environment: conditions
Historical and Statutory Notes :j
1994 Legislation Member Sher: dated Aug. 29, 1994, regarding A.B.314 The Assembly Jauinal for the 1993-94 Regula Session. (Stats.1994, e. 12941:
p. 9134, contained the follo%ing letter from Assembly
EXHIBIT 21
agency shall, in the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the
(g) When recirculating a revised EIR. either in whole or in part, the lead
revisions made to the previously circulated draft EIR.
15089. Preparation of Final EIR.
contents of a final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of these guidelines.
(a) The lead agency shall prepare a final EIR before approving the project. The
(b) Lead agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the final EIR by
EIR should focus on the responses to comments on the draft EIR.
the public or by commenting agencies before approving the project. The review of a final
15090. Certification of the Final EIR.
(a) Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that:
(1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(2) The final EIR was presented to the decisionmaking body of the lead agency
final EIR prior to approving the project; and
and that the decisionmaking body reviewed and considered the information contained in the
(3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.
local lead agency, that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency's elected
(h) When an EIR is ceflified by a non-elected decision-making body within a
decision-making body, if one exists. For example, certification of an EIR for a tentative
subdivision map by a city's planning commission may be appealed to the city council.
Each local lead agency shall provide for such appeals.
15091. Findings.
been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant
findings are:
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
evidence in the record. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall he supported by substantial
the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible (c) The finding in subsection (a) (2) shall not be made if the agency making
mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a) (3) shall describe the
specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
(d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(l), the agency shall
required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen
significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through
permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
114
document its decisic
(0 findings r
15092.
(e)
(a) under Sec
the projec
(b) an EIR w.
(1) environm
(2) (4 environm
to be un: P,
described
agency st
it determi
provide a
15093.
(4
economic
unavoida
outweigh
specific e
may be CI
(b) of signif substanti;
overridin
action ba
(4 should bl
notice of
to, findin
15094.
after app: (a)
and its IC ( 1:
(?
(3:
(4.
(4
will have
ad
he
he
3Y la1
CY he
a
.d
:il. ve
las
:ct mt
)le
he
as
of m
Ike
ial
ns,
ng
the
ble
all
ner
;en
Igh
documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the
its decision is based. (0 A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the
findings required by this section.
15092. Approval.
under Section 15091, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or cany out
(a) After considering the final EIR and in conjunction with making findings
the project.
an EIR was prepared unless either:
(b) A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which
environment, or
(1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the
(2) The agency has:
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the
environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and .
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found
described in Section 15093.
to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to ovemding concerns as
(c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, the public
it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure available that will
agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if
provide a comparable level of mitigation.
15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project
may be considered "acceptable."
of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its
action based on the final EIR andor other information in the record. The statement of
overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the
to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition
15094. Notice of Determination.
after approval of the project by the lead agency. The notice shall include:
and its location.
(a) The lead agency shall file a notice of determination within 5 working days
(1) An identification of the project including its common name where possible
(2) A brief description of. the project.
(3) The date when the agency approved the project.
(4) The determination of the agency whether the project in its approved form
will have a significant effect on the environment.
115
EXHIBIT 22
Text of Adopted Amendments with Statement of Reasons
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines
Administrative Code is amended to read: 1. The title of Chapter 3, Division 6, Title 14 of the California
CHAPTER 3. GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT 08/1978.
Discussion of Chanqe in Title
The change in the title is a technical change to match the change in the
title of the statute. Originally, the name given to the CEQA statute was the
"Environmental Quality Act of 1970". This was still the name of the Act \hen the guidelines were first adopted in 1973. The name of the statute was changed
by the Legislature in 1976 to the "California Environmental Quality Act" to
match the commonly used name for the statute. This amendment brings the title
of the guidelines into conformity with the title of the statute.
2. Ar.ticle 1 of Chapter 3 is amended to read:
Article 1. General
project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
significant environmental effects of the project unless the public aqenc.v
makes one or more written findinqs for each of those siqnificant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each findinq. The possible findinqs are:
15091. FINDINGS. No public aqency shall approve or carry out a
II). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the siqnificant
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public aqency and not the aqency makinq the findinq.
adopted by such other agency.
huch changes have been adopted by such other aqency or can and should be
infeasible the mitiqation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR,
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
The findinqs required by subsection (a) shall be supported bv
substantial evidence in the record:
The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the aqenc,y
makinq the findinq has concurrent jurisdiction with another aqency to deal with identified feasible mitiqation measures or alternatives.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference:
Sections 21002, 21002.1, and 21081, Public Resources Code; Laurel Hills
of Stanislaus, 118 Cal. App. 3d348.
Homeowners Association v. Council, 83 Cal. App. 3d 515; Clearv v. County
Ermection 15088.
Discussion of Section 15091
J
This section brings together statutory, regulatory, and case law
requirements dealing with findings which an agency must make before approving a project for which an EIR was prepared. The statute in Section 21081 is not
clear as to whether a separate finding must be made for each significant effect. Section 15088 in the existing CEQA guidelines required that a
separate finding be made for each significant effect because the findings may be different for each effect and because the facts to support the finding
would probably be different for each effect. This approach was recently
Section 15088 also provides that the so-called "buck-passing finding"
upheld in the case of Cleary v. Countv of Stanislaus, cited in the note.
contained in Subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has authority to deal with the significant effect. This provision is
added in order to prevent agencies from deferring to each other, with the
result that no agency deals with the problem. This result would be contrary to the strong policy declared in Sections 21002 and 21002.1 of the statute.
55
SuSst?,ntial evidfnce to s::pport ths findings apcsars to b? required tn implement the legislative in.:ent of this section. The Legislature wanted
courts have often drawn the distinction between quasi-adjudicatory findings agencies to dsal directly with the facts presented in the EIR. Although tile
which must be supported by substantial evidence and. quasi-legislative findings which need not be supported by substantial evidence, the Legislature has blurred this distinction by requiring all agencies to make these findings in response to specific facts in an EIR without regard to whether the decision
could be classified .as legislative or adjudicatory. In requiring this
pigeon holes and required agencies to grapple with the facts as presented in finding, the Legislature appears to have removed the partition between the two
the EIR.
Where the courts have required agencies to make findings, they have
re uired three elements. First, the agency must make the ultimate finding ca 4 led for in the statute. Second, the finding must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Third, the agency must present some explanation to supply the logical step between the ultimate finding and the facts in the record. Section 15091 requires that all three elements must be. addressed. This section iqlements many court decisions interpreting the
City Council of the City of Rollinq Hills Estates,T1~9~App.d 869; findings requirement. The decisions include City of Rancho Palos Verdes v.
Ibuntain Defense Leaque v. Board of Supervisors, (1977) 65 Cal. App. 3d 723; ilia e La una of Laquna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Su ervisors, (1982) 134 Cal. &$i"% & ne many court demons fbcusing + on ina equate findings show the need for additional guidance to agencies on how to make findings.
15092. APPROVAL. After considerinq the final EIR and in conjunction with making findinqs undl decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project.
for which an tlK was prepared unless either: A public agency shall not decide to approve or carr,y out a project
the environment, or (11 The project as approved will not have a siqnificant effect on
The aqency has:
jA-) Eliminated or substantially lessened all siqnificant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in findinqs under lection 15UY1, and ~*L"im- rn ng s 1 qn Tfrcarit -. .. . ..
environment found to be unavoidable under Lection 15091 overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. are acceptable due to
With respect to a project which includes h0usin.q development, the ousinq unjts as a
56
EXHIBIT 23
EXHIBIT 24 I
Pacific
Ocean
SOURCE: CBA, inc., 2001
?Norm Figure 3- I
E! 0
r"Li
700V Regional Location
Ca,-lsbrrd Onks Norrh Specific Plnn Cip of Cdsbad
Draft PI-ogranl EIR 3-4 April 2002
EXHIBIT 25
i
Source: CBA. Inc.. 2001
111 Exiriing Road
Proposed Rood
EXHIBIT 26
30' min. Fire Suppresim
Setbock [from propern/ line]
7S - 150 Building Setbock .----7 60 Min. Landscape Butter
ra landscape Setback lines
0
Figure 3-4
Land Use Plan- I NOflh NO Scale Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park
Cnrlsbnd Ools NOI'lh SpccificPln~r CirJ' 0jCo1'1~60d
DroJ? Program EIR 3-10 ,dpril 2002
EXHIBIT 27
EXHIBIT 28
EXHIBIT 29