1994-16 RESOLUTION NO. PC-94-16
RESOLUTION OF THE ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS AND CARLTAS COMPANY
AND OTHER OWNERS FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
ENCINITAS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
(CASE NUMBER 92-098 SP/EIR)
WHEREAS, the Carltas Company submitted a Specific Plan application pursuant to
Section 30.34.010 of the Municipal Code and General Plan I_and Use Element Policy 8.11 for
the purpose of implementing the Specific Plan designation on approximately 853 acres of land
located generally one mile south of La Costa Avenue and one-half mile north of Encinitas
Boulevard, between the I-5 Freeway on the west, and E1 Camino Real on the east. The Specific
Plan establishes development limitations, zoning regulations and development/design standards
for future development within eight Planning Areas designated within the Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, as part of the Specific Plan process, a Development Agreement has been
prepared pursuant to Chapter 23.80 of the Municipal Code and Section 65864 through 65869.5
of State Law;
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Development Agreement is appropriate for
the project and that the Agreement will provide for the orderly development of the property in
accordance with the objectives of the General Plan and Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, the Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning for the property, insure
attainment of maximum efficient utilization of resources within the City at the least economic
cost to its citizens, and achieve the provisions of public services, public uses, urban
infrastruCture and other goals promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the City and
its residents;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 8,
1994 and all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered without limitation:
1. The Planning Commission September 8, 1994 Agenda Report, with attachments;
2. The Final EIR for the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan and Leucadia Boulevard
Alignment Study, certified by the City Council on May 25, 1994, Resolution 94-
28;
3. The Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan as recommended by the Commission;
4. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to Section
23.80.110(D) of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has reviewed
the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report and errata dated March 1994 (certified May
25, 1994 by Resolution 94-28) and finds that they reflect the Planning Commission's independent
judgement as a recommending body to the City Council and that they have been completed in
compliance with CEQA and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared
for City Council action as the lead agency for three regionally significant impacts related to:
Biological Resources, Noise, and Air Quality (See Attachment B); and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Encinitas recommends approval of the proposed Development Agreement for the
2
Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1994 by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Bagg, Jacobson,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Rotsheck
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
'Sandra Holder
Secretary
Lanham, Patton
of the Planning Commission
3
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. PC 94-16
FINDINGS FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - SECTION 23.80.110(D)
OF THE ENCINITAS MUNICIPAL CODE
(CASE NO. 92-098 SP/EIR)
I. Section 23.80.110(D)(1)
The City Council shall not approve a Development Agreement unless it finds in writing that the
agreement is consistent with the following:
1. The goals, policies, objectives and general land uses and/or programs of the
General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.
Facts: The Agreement provides for Mello Roos and Revenue bond financing for the
infrastructure improvements, biological mitigation and golf course with the City having
no liability for the debt service or for securing the bonds; City operating costs to be
covered by the revenue of the project; golf course to be constructed and dedicated to the
City by the applicant; improvements to several Circulation Element Roads including
Leucadia Boulevard (on and off-site, including the I-5/Leucadia Boulevard interchange),
E1 Camino Real, Via Cantebria, Garden View, Quail Gardens Drive, Saxony Road, and
other off-site improvements; reimbursement for the acquisition of Indian Head Canyon;
construction and dedication of the Green Valley park; dedication of land in the Green
Valley Planning Area for a performing arts theater or similar use; dedication of 14.5
acres in the East Saxony Planning Area for community use (heritage museum, Quail
Botanical Gardens expansion, etc.); affordable housing provisions; relocation of fire
station; dedication of two reservoir sites; implementation of on-site reclaimed water
program; drainage improvements, and commitments to the School Districts.
Discussion: Attachment 4-A of the September 8, 1994 Agenda Report identifies the
various General Plan and Specific Plan goals and policies being implemented by the
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement implements several key
goals/policies of the City's General Plan/Local Coastal Program and the proposed
Specific Plan. These include: affordable housing, recreational, open space preservation,
agricultural preservation, protection of environmental resources, encouraging cultural
facilities, water reclamation, enhancement of water resources, economic, and provision
of public services and facilities.
The Agreement requires 10% of the total number of units built in the Specific Plan to
be affordable housing (low and very low income households). This will help to insure
that a variety of housing types for a variety of income levels will be made available in
the Specific Plan. The Agreement also requires the dispersal of the affordable units to
be established through the tentative map process. (Goal 1, Policy 1.4 and Policy 2.3 of
the Housing Element; Policy 13.2 and 14.2 of the Specific Plan.)
The Agreement requires the golf course (approximately 150 net acres) be dedicated to
the City which will preserve a significant amount of open space and provide a significant
recreational facility for future generations. The Agreement requires the owner to
reimburse the City for the acquisition cost of Indian Head Canyon property,
approximately 50 acres adjacent to the project site. This will not only provide
recreational opportunities for the community of Leucadia but will also provide significant
biological preservation, revegetation for off-site mitigation, and habitat linkage to
Batiquitos Lagoon (via open corridor along Saxony Road). The Agreement requires the
owner to construct and dedicate a neighborhood park in the Green Valley Planning Area
providing ball and soccer fields and associated parking. (Policy 1.4, 1,7, 1.8, 1.11, 1.12,
1.15, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and Goal 3 of the Recreation Element; Goal 3 and Goal 10 of
the Resource Management Element; Goal 8 of the Land Use Element; and Policy 1.2,
19.1 and Goal 18 of the Specific Plan.)
The Agreement identifies financing through a community facilities district and revenue
bonds. This will implement key Circulation. Element roads. In addition, the various
improvements also implement policies that require development to pay their fair share
and to mitigate project impacts. The Agreement identifies a phasing of improvements
reflecting the impacts associated with each phase. The Agreement requires phasing of
improvements to meet project impacts (needs) and requires such improvements to be
completed prior to occupancy of the development. The Agreement also requires Phase
One to construct Leucadia Boulevard from E1 Camino Real to Sidonia Street on-site with
full improvements (on-site) and off-site prior to any additional development. (Circulation
Element map; Policy 2.4 and 4.2 of the Land Use Element; Policy 7.1, 7.6, 8.6 and
Goal 18 of the Specific Plan.)
A 15,000 square foot finished building pad within the regional commercial center is
required to be dedicated to a nonprofit performing arts group for the ultimate
construction of a theater implementing cultural resource policies. Should a performing
arts theater not be feasible, the parcel could be used for a heritage museum, library or
other city approved use. (Policy 7.4 of the Resource Management Element; Policy 19.3
and 19.1 of the Specific Plan.)
The Agreement requires that the Encinitas Creek Tributary be constructed (at owner's
expense) as per the Specific Plan consistent with other resource agencies (Army Corps,
and State Fish and Game). (Policy 9.2 of the Resource Management Element; Goal 18
of the Specific Plan.)
Land for two reservoirs (potable and reclaimed) are to be dedicated. Owner to also pay
their proportionate share of the cost of the reservoir. This will enhance the water supply
within the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the San Dieguito Water District.
The project will provide plumbing for reclaimed water through the various road and
5
infrastructure improvements for ultimate use for parkways/median landscaping, golf
course, agricultural uses, etc. (Goal 1, Policy 1.1, 1.3, 1.7 of the Resource Management
Element; Policy 6.4 and Goal 18 of the Specific Plan.)
The owner is required to pay for the relocation of a fire station and to provide for
temporary fire services during construction. This is to mitigate the fire service impacts
associated with the development consistent with a variety of goals and policies. (Policy
1.9 and 1.14 of the Public Safety Element; Policy 2.4 and 4.2 of the Land Use Element;
Goal 18 and Policy 19.1 of the Specific Plan.)
The Encinitas Union School District will be dedicated a 10 net acre rough graded site
with utilities plus statutory fees. The San Dieguito High School District will receive
funding through a community facilities district (Mello-Roos) for the residential
development and statutory fees for the commercial (non-residential) development.
(Policy 2.4 and 4.2 of the Land Use Element; Goal 18 and Policy 19.1 of the Specific
Plan.) In addition, the Commission has evaluated the consistency with General Plan
policies raised by the EUSD at their September 12, 1994 meeting and has found that the
Agreement is consistent as noted in the staff analysis provided, tiffed Planning
Commission Meeting Notes, September 8, 1994.
The Agreement requires a covenant limiting the land use for the AG zone to flower
business/agricultural uses, preserving the agricultural land uses. (Goal 11 and 12 of the
Resource Management Element; Goal 29 of the Specific Plan.)
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that approval of the Development
Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement, will not
adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas General Plan or the Specific Plan.
2. The agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of the community and that it will not adversely affect the orderly development of the
property.
Facts: The Agreement identifies a phasing of development and infrastructure consistent
with the environmental analysis. It requires all environmental mitigation identified in the
EIR and subsequent environmental documentation to be implemented by the project
proponents. The Agreement requires various road, drainage, park/recreation and the
like, as identified above. Affordable housing is required by the Agreement.
Opportunities for cultural facilities, such as, a performing arts theater, museum and
library are provided for in the Agreement. Financing for the various improvements
including biological mitigation are included.
The EIR prepared for the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan and Leucadia Boulevard
Alignment Study identifies three environmental impact categories which cannot be
reduced to a level of insignificance. Noise impacts can be mitigated to a level of
6
insignificance within the Encinitas Ranch by adoption of recommended mitigation
measures. However, off-site of the Encinitas Ranch, noise impacts will remain
significant for some portions of Leucadia Boulevard. Two categories cannot be mitigated
to a level of insignificance within the Encinitas Ranch: Air Quality and Biology. Since
the project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin which currently exceeds air
quality standards, any new development is considered cumulatively significant. Air
quality is a regional problem which cannot be mitigated to insignificance at the project
level. Biological impacts can be reduced by adherence to recommended mitigations.
However, reduction of biological impacts to below a level of significance cannot be
achieved without the elimination of Leucadia Boulevard through the bluffs and the
complete avoidance of all on-site southern maritime chaparral.
Discussion: The Agreement requires that all public facilities, services and utilities be
in place to serve the project when the impact/need occurs. All mitigation measures of
the EIR are required to be implemented along with the requirements of the traffic
analysis. The purpose of these requirements is to insure the health, safety, and welfare
of the community is not impacted but enhanced with the recreational and cultural
facilities and dedications, public facilities and services improvements/dedications,
water/drainage improvements, etc. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been
prepared for City Council action as the lead agency for three regionally significant
impacts related to: Biological Resources, Noise, and Air Quality.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that approval of the Development
Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement, will not be
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and that it will not
adversely affect the orderly development of the property.
The agreement complies with Government Code Section 65864 through
65869.5.
Facts: Government Code Section 65864 through 65869.5 identifies the policy/intent of
development agreements, authority to enter into an agreement, periodic review
requirements and good faith requirements, contents of the agreement, enforceability
provisions by either party, public hearing requirements before the Planning Commission
and City Council, consistency requirements with the General Plan and Specific Plan,
recordation requirements with the County Recorders office, Coastal Commission action,
and solution of conflicts with State or Federal laws.
Discussion: The proposed Agreement identifies the purpose of the Agreement reciting
the intent of State Law (Section 1.1 of the Agreement). The City of Encinitas and
private property owners are acknowledged as the appropriate authority to enter into the
Agreement. Periodic review of the Agreement is every 12 months consistent with State
Law (Section 4.4.2 of the Agreement). The Agreement requires cooperation between the
parties (Section 4.3, 4.19, and 4.20 of the Agreement). The contents of the Agreement
7
includes land use, density, financing provisions, terms, conditions and restrictions. An
enforcement provision is provided in Section 4.4 of the Agreement. Public notice has
been provided in a local newspaper (1/8th display ad), mailed to all property owners
within 300 feet of the site, mailed to all agencies, and posted on the site. A consistency
evaluation of the Agreement with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan has been
completed and found to be consistent. Within 10 days after both parties have executed
the ^greement, the Agreement is required to be recorded with the County Recorders
Office. The Agreement acknowledges that the Coastal Commission will require review
and approval of the Agreement (Section 4.6(d)). Should conflicts arise with the
Agreement and State or Federal laws, the Agreement identifies a process for both parties
to address this issue through modifying the Agreement.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that approval of the Development
Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement, complies
with Government Code Section 65864 through 65869.5.
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution PC 94-16
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ENCINITAS REGARDING THE CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, THE ENCINITAS RANCH SPECIFIC
PLAN, AND LEUCADIA BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT AND ANNEXATION
OF THE ECKE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The City Council of the City of Encinitas hereby makes the following Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations concerning the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR), identified as State Clearinghouse No. 93121012, for the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan,
the Leucadia Boulevard Alignment and the Annexation of unincorporated territory into the City
of Encinitas and into appropriate utility districts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act CCEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and its implementing guidelines,
14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.
I.
FINDINGS
Section 15091 of the CEQA guidelines provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
significant environmental effects of the project unless the public
agency makes one or more written findings for each of those
significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as 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.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
1. Findings Regarding Potential Significant Adverse Impacts Which Can Be
Mitigated.
The analysis presented in the FEIR determined that the potential significant
adverse impacts discussed below can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by adopting the
mitigation measures proposed. All mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City as
listed below and contained within the FEIR are hereby adopted and shall be incorporated into
the project as approved. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1), the City Council does hereby find that
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects listed below and identified in the
FEIR:
a. Geology and Soils.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies liquefaction or settlement
of alluvium and uncompacted fills, unstable cut slopes in Terrace Deposits and Torrey
Sandstone, expansion of clays and erosion of earth materials on-site, and reduced infiltration and
increased surface runoff as potential impacts associated with geologic and soil conditions within
the study area.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement adopted impact control measures by complying with Encinitas Municipal Code
Section 23.24.170 and 23.24.180 (grading ordinance), including preparation of subsurface soil
and geology investigations, by a registered soils engineer and certified engineering geologist, as
required by the City Engineer prior to site development, and incorporation in the grading plans
or specifications the recommendations of such investigations as approved by the City Engineer.
State registered geologist and engineers also shall conduct comprehensive geotechnical
investigations, including subsurface evaluations and implementation of control recommendations,
prior to site development and construction of the Leucadia Boulevard improvements.
b. Hazardous Materials.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies subsurface pesticides,
herbicides and copper in agricultural fields and plant refuse stockpile areas, pesticides, herbicides
and copper in water in Lagoons 1 and 2, petroleum products in contaminated soil stockpiles, two
abandoned underground diesel storage tanks, subsurface hazardous materials and vehicle
maintenance, chemical storage and greenhouse locations as potential impacts associated with
lO
hazardous materials in the study area.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall conduct,
using licensed and/or registered site assessors, site specific hazardous materials assessments at
certain locations specified in Section 4.2.3 of the FEIR, prior to site development and
construction of the Leucadia Boulevard extension. The project applicant shall implement all
remedial measures recommended in the site specific assessment as necessary.
c. Hydrology and Grading.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts in the
study area: (i) to hydrology and water quality due to increased runoff peak flow, varying from
2 percent to 26 percent, in tributary basins A, B, C, D, E, G, H, J, K and L, new or increased
urban nutrient pollutant sources, varying from 14 percent to 889 percent, in tributary basins A,
B, C, D, E, G, H, J, K and L, and sediment from new development in tributary basins A, B,
C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K and L; and (ii) to grading and flood plain encroachment due to graded
bank heights greater than 30 feet on 20.1 acres, and encroachment into the tributary drainage
channel and Encinitas Creek flood plain of 0.7 acres of commercial and mixed use development.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement adopted control measures to mitigate potential impacts to hydrology and water quality
by complying with Encinitas Municipal Code Section 23.24.140 (grading ordinance), which
requires a grading plan for grading operations, Sections 23.24.150 and 23.24.160 (grading
ordinance), which require interim and final erosion and sediment control plans for grading
operations, Section 23.24.380 (grading ordinance), which requires an erosion control system for
grading operations, Section 23.24.480 (grading ordinance), concerning drainage and graded bank
terracing to control run-off, section 23.24.510 (grading ordinance), concerning requirements for
planting of slopes, and Section 23.24.370, which controls wet season work. The applicant also
shall comply with all water quality and discharge guidelines and requirements of the State Water
Quality Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. The project applicant shall
conduct site specific comprehensive hydrology studies, including peak run-off, water quality,
erosion and sedimentation, as described in Section 4.3.3 of the FEIR, and shall implement
control measures recommended by such investigations as necessary. The project applicant shall
install: (i) flood detention basins; (ii) on-site urban pollutant filtration basins and/or bio-filters;
and (iii) on-site sediment traps/basins in the Quail Hollow East, North Mesa, Quail Gardens
East, East Saxony, West Saxony, South Mesa and Green Valley planning areas. The project
applicant shall also install on-site sediment traps/basins in the Sidonia East planning area. The
project applicant shall implement irrigation and fertilizer management programs for the golf
course in the Quail Hollow East, North Mesa and South Mesa planning area and the open space
recreational facilities in Green Valley. Graded banks shall not exceed 30 feet in height where
feasible for site specific development. All graded banks greater than 15 feet high shall be
contour, or land-form graded. Graded bank slope increments shall vary and banks undulate both
vertically or horizontally. Bridge structures for roadways to span the Encinitas Creek flood
plain shall be installed. The applicant shall prepare a site specific hydrology study and drainage
11
control plan, prior to development, and shall implement measures recommended in the plan to
minimize the effects of flood plain encroachment and channel relocation by providing an open,
soft bottom environmental channel with vegetative linings, drop structures and other energy
dissipating structures, taking into account necessary Green Valley off-stream urban pollutant and
sediment control measures. The Encinitas Creek flood plain encroachment by commercial and
mixed use development in the Green Valley Planning Area shall be mitigated through an
amendment to Land Use Element Policy 8.2 to allow flood plain intrusion for limited
reconfiguration of the floodplain to improve the overall storm water drainage system relative to
the E1 Camino Real section of the Encinitas Creek corridor.
d. Topographic Alteration and Visual Quality.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts: (i) to
landform alteration due to graded banks in excess of 30 feet in height on 20.1 acres of the study
area, and substantial modification of 25.5 acres of the Encinitas Creek flood plain and channel;
and (ii) to visual quality due to potential partial view blockage and scenic vista degradation from
Sidonia Street, the Sidonia neighborhood and Quail Botanical Gardens, possible degradation of
scenic vista from E1 Camino Real and Garden View, Mountain Vista and Amargosa
neighborhoods, visibility of the Leucadia Boulevard bluff grading and visibility of the Olivenhain
Municipal Water District Wanket Reservoir site.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement adopted impact control measures by complying the requirements of Encinitas
Municipal Code sections 23.24.450, 23.24.460 and 23.24.490 (grading ordinance) which
regulate cuts and fills and require rounding, blending and planting of slopes. Graded bank
heights shall not exceed 30 feet where feasible for site specific development. All banks
exceeding 15 feet in height shall be contour graded. Modification of the Encinitas Creek
floodplain shall be mitigated by amending General Plan Land Use Element Policy Lid 8.2 to
allow flood plain intrusion for limited reconfiguration of the floodplain to improve the overall
storm water drainage system relative to the E1 Camino Real section of the Encinitas Creek
corridor. The applicant shall mitigate possible partial view blockage and scenic vista degradation
by implementing the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Sections 6.5.2, 6.6.2, 6.7.2, 6.8.2 and
6.9.2 development standards concerning building height limits, specific standards, .site planning,
accessory structures, auxiliary structures/equipment, walls and fences, storage, parking and
landscaping. The applicant also shall comply with design guidelines and design review for all
development. Specific Plan General Planning Standards for the North Mesa planning area shall
be implemented for landscape screening around the water tank facility to visually separate and
screen tanks from surrounding areas.
e. Cultural Resources and Paleontology.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts: (i) to
historical resources due to possible degradation of the architectural character of the Groh House
by construction of a noise attenuation barrier/wall and possible destruction or disturbance of
12
historical agricultural equipment; and (ii)to paleontological resources due to the possible
destruction or disturbance of subsurface paleontological resources in Terrace Deposits and
Torrey Sandstone.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement the measures recommended in Section 4.6.3 of the FEIR, which are incorporated
herein by this reference. The noise attenuation barrier for the Groh House, if necessary, shall
be designed and constructed of materials complementary to the architectural character of the
building. Historical architectural equipment shall be relocated as necessary and, if not retained
by the present owner, donated and/or sold to an historical society or other interested party for
preservation and display. The applicant shall implement a monitoring program for grading
activities, conducted by a qualified paleontologist, which shall include the activities specified in
Section 4.6.3 of the FEIR, including the recovery and preservation of important fossils, if any,
exposed during development activities.
f. Land Use Compatibility.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts to
current and future land uses and community character compatibility due to possible conflicts with
adjacent residential, religious retreat and open space uses where other uses extend to common
boundaries in the study area.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant shall implement the
Specific Plan General Planning Standards, which require landscape buffering along the
perimeters of the Specific Plan area, including landscape buffers between proposed and existing
development in the Quail Hollow East, East Saxony and Quail Gardens East planning areas,
edge conditions in the Quail Hollow East planning area, blended transitional zones and buffer/
screen landscape treatments around the existing and future water tanks in the North Mesa
planning area, between the school site and existing and future residential development and in the
West Saxony planning area along on the north and westbound boundaries, as specified in
section 4.7.3 of the FEIR. The applicant also shall implement the Specific Plan Design
Guidelines, Sp~ial Treatment zone for high intensity land uses, including the regional
commercial, mixed use and multi-family areas, including the optional multi-family and hotel/inn
uses in the North Mesa planning areas.
g. General Plan Consistency.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts to the
following elements and/or policies of the General Plan: (i) Land Use Element impacts due to
inconsistencies with Policy 8.2 as a result of intrusion into the 100-year flood plain by the multi-
family and regional commercial center structures in Green Valley, with Policy 8.6 as a result
of associated fill significantly redirecting flood flows and requiring modifications to the
floodway, and lack of full preservation of significant natural features, and with Policy 8.8 as a
result of traffic' generation (68,037 ADT) in excess of the 25,000 ADT ceiling; (ii) Housing
13
Element impacts due to inconsistencies with Policy 3.11 as a result of intrusion into the Encinitas
Creek flood plain in Green Valley; Circulation Element impacts due to inconsistencies with Goal
5 as a result of portions of Leucadia Boulevard exceeding the 85-foot wide major roadway right-
of-way, and inconsistencies with circulation plan classifications for Leucadia Boulevard (major
roadway), Via Cantebria (major roadway) and location of the Garden View Road extension;
(iii) Resource Management Element impacts due to inconsistencies with Policy 4.9 as a result
of flood plain intrusion in the Green Valley planning area, with Policy 9.9 as a result of
changing the natural drainage channel; and (iv) Noise Element impacts due to inconsistency with
Policy 1.6 as a result of unmitigable or partially mitigable noise levels along portions of
Leucadia Boulevard.
· Facts in Support of Findine: The project applicant shall rectify
certain inconsistencies with policies of the Encinitas General Plan by proposing amendments to
the following elements of the General Plan, as specified in Section 4.8.3 of the FEIR: amend
the Circulation Element to reclassify Leucadia Boulevard to an augmented major roadway, to
reclassify Via Cantebria to an augmented collector roadway and to relocate Garden View Road;
amend the Land Use Element Policy 8.8 and the Circulation Element Policy 2.23, Goal 5,
Policy 5.3 and page C-26 concerning Leucadia Boulevard improvements; amend the Noise
Element Policy 1.6 concerning roadway projects noise mitigation measures where feasible.
Intrusion of the Encinitas Creek floodplain shall be mitigated by amendment to Land Use
Policy 8.2, as specified in Section 4.8.3 of the FEIR, to address encroachments in the flood
plain.
h. Agriculture.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts due to
real or perceived conflicts with adjacent residential and community uses where agricultural
operations extend to common boundaries in the study area.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant shall comply with
Specific Plan General Planning Standards by installing a landscape buffer, as described in
Section 4.9.3 of the FEIR, between Specific Plan areas designated and classified for agricultural
uses and adjacent urban uses.
i. Traffic.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts in the
study area due to: (i) deficient conditions in long range intersection ICH values for the
intersections of E1 Camino Real at Olivenhain Road, E1 Camino Real at Woodley Road, Saxony
Road at La Costa Avenue, E1 Camino Real at La Costa Avenue and E1 Camino Real at Calle
Barcelona; (ii) deficient conditions in interim year intersections of Saxony Road at Encinitas
Boulevard, the northbound ramps of the 1-5 interchange with Encinitas Boulevard, E1 Camino
Real at Olivenhain Road, the commercial district access road at Leucadia Boulevard and Saxony
Road at La Costa Avenue; and (iii) deficient access roads to the commercial center.
14
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall mitigate
long range intersection deficient conditions by payment of project share fees through the citywide
transportation improvement program and by implementing a public facilities financing plan
(development agreement) which shall include provisions for payment of the applicant's fair share
of costs for traffic improvements required because of the Specific Plan. The project applicant
also shall construct the traffic improvements specified in Table 4-24 of the FEIR, including
construction of Via Cantebria in the Specific Plan area, participating in construction of the
northward extension of Via Cantebria, construction of a new intersection of Via Cantebria at
Leucadia Boulevard, adding a northbound free right-turn lane on E1 Camino Real at Olivenhain
Road, and adding a shared northbound left/through-lane for E1 Camino Real at Woodley. The
applicant shall mitigate interim intersection deficient conditions by implementing a public
facilities financing plan (development agreement) which shall include provisions for the
applicant's payments for its fair share of costs for traffic improvements required because of the
Specific Plan. The project applicant also shall construct the improvements specified in Table
4-24 of the FEIR, including construction of a segment of Leucadia Boulevard adjacent to the
Specific Plan area, installation of a traffic signal for the access road at Leucadia Boulevard, add
northbound left-turn lane, a second southbound left-turn lane and separate southbound right-turn
lane, a third southbound through-lane and dual westbound left-turn lanes for E1 Camino Real at
Olivenhain Road, construct a west leg of the new intersection and add southbound right-turn lane
for E1 Camino Real at Woodley, and add a third westbound through-lane for Saxony Road at
Encinitas Boulevard. The applicant shall mitigate the deficient access to the proposed
commercial center by configuration of the access drives for Leucadia Boulevard, E1 Camino Real
and Via Cantebria/Garden View Road as specified in Table 4-25 of the FEIR. The project
applicant also shall develop with the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad a joint fair share formula
in which the project applicant shall participate on a fair share basis, for additional improvements
to intersections located in the City of Carlsbad on Saxony Road at La Costa, E1 Camino Real
at La Costa, and E1 Camino Real at Calle Barcelona.
j. Noise.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts due to
excessive noise levels: (i) from short-term construction activities encroaching into properties
occupied by sensitive receptors; (ii) along circulation element roadways of the Specific Plan
which encroach into the properties of sensitive receptors; (iii) from commercial, office, school,
community and active recreational uses which encroach into properties of sensitive receptors;
and (iv) along the section of Leucadia Boulevard to be improved, which encroach into the
properties of sensitive receptors.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement adopted impact measures by complying with Encinitas Municipal Code
Section 9.32.140 (noise ordinance), to regulate construction noise, and Section 23.24.320
(grading ordinance) to regulate the time of grading operations. The applicant shall conduct
comprehensive acoustical studies, using a qualified acoustician, prior to site development
involving sensitive receptors along circulation element roadways, commercial, office, school,
15
community and active recreational uses adjacent to sensitive receptors, and prior to construction
of Leucadia Boulevard improvements along the existing section. The applicant shall implement
recommendations of such studies as necessary for noise level attenuation, such as walls, earth
berms, woodcrete, or combinations thereof, as well as mechanical equipment enclosures and
insulation.
k. Public Facilities and Services.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts: (i) to
water service due to implementation of planned domestic water supply distribution facilities of
the San Dieguito Water District, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the San Elijo Joint
Powers Authority, the siting and implementation of reservoirs planned by the San Dieguito
Water District and the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the extension of pipelines and
additional improvements; (ii) to sewer service due to the study area being outside the Leucadia
County Water District current service area, sewer demand greater than the Encinitas Sanitary
District and Leucadia County Water District projections, implementation of planned sewer
transmission facilities and the extension of pipelines and additional improvements; (iii) to fire
protection services due to implementation of planned fire operational resources of the Encinitas
Fire Protection District needed as development occurs in the study area, including the siting of
an Encinitas Fire Protection District station in the Green Valley planning area; and (iv) to school
services due to anticipated demand in excess of the planned permanent facility capacity of the
Encinitas Union Elementary School District and the San Dieguito Union High School District.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant shall prepare a
hydraulic analysis of precise plans and/or individual entitlements (e.g., tentative maps and use
permits), prior to development, as required by the San Dieguito Water District, Olivenhain
Municipal Water District and San Elijo Joint Powers Authority. A water reservoir site shall be
selected by San Dieguito Water District and Olivenhain Municipal Water District as necessary
prior to development of the golf course in the North Mesa planning area. The Leucadia County
Water District shall annex portions of the Specific Plan in its current service area prior to
providing sewer service. The applicant shall prepare a flow analysis of precise plans and/or
individual entitlements, and shall pay all required fees and install all required improvements
within the planning areas, prior to their implementation, as required by the Encinitas Sanitary
District and the Leucadia County Water District. The applicant shall pay fire protection fees
as required by the Encinitas Fire Protection District prior to implementation of individual
entitlements. A fire station site shall be selected by the Encinitas Fire Protection District as
necessary prior to development of the Green Valley planning area. The applicant shall enter into
a development agreement with the Encinitas Unified Elementary School District and the San
Dieguito Union High School District for fees, or for land for a school site, to offset school
facility impacts. The applicant shall work with the school districts to develop a school facility
financing plan as necessary. The Encinitas Unified Elementary School District shall approve
an elementary school site prior to development of the East Saxony and South Mesa planning
areas.
16
2. Findings Regarding Unavoidable Impacts Which Cannot Be Mitigated
Below a Level of Significance.
The analysis presented in the FEIR determined that three impacts cannot
be mitigated below a level of significance after feasible mitigation measures have been adopted
for the proposed project: (1) Biological Resources; (2) Noise; and (3) Air Quality.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City Council finds
that, although changes, alterations or conditions have been incorporated into the project which
will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, the three
significant effects listed below cannot be mitigated to fully acceptable levels and specific
economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures or the project alternatives
identified in the FEIR infeasible as a means of diminishing or avoiding the potential
environmental harm. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, balancing the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks, is set forth .in Section II below.
a. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts for which the City
Council hereby makes the finding of Section 15091(a)(3), and the mitigation measures
incorporated into the project, are as follows:
(1) Biological Resources.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts
due to: loss and disturbance of Diegan sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, southern willow
riparian woodland, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, disturbed wetland, southern willow
scrub, and mulefat scrub; fragmentation and isolation of a large block of bluff scrub and
chaparral habitat by the extension of Leucadia Boulevard; the loss and disturbance of Nuttall's
scrub oak; the elimination or interruption of wildlife dispersal across a large block of bluff sage
and chaparral habitat by the extension of Leucadia Boulevard; the localized division of bluff
habitat from Encinitas Creek riparian habitat by development; and the disturbance of habitat by
artificial lighting and intrusion by humans and domestic animalsl
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
prepare, prior to development, an impacted sensitive vegetation and sensitive species replacement
and/or acquisition plan, which shall consist of two parts: an overall concept and strategy for the
entire development site, which shall by completed prior to any on-site disturbance of identified
impacted resources; and particular requirements for individual sectors of the site, which shall
be completed on a sector by sector basis prior to on-site disturbance of identified impacted
resources in each respective sector. The plan shall satisfy the mitigation requirements specified
in Section 4.5.3 of the FEIR. The applicant shall implement the mitigation measures of
Section 4.5.3 of the FEIR, including: replacement of Diegan sage scrub on-site by restoration
of disturbed open space areas and off-site by acquisition and restoration of disturbed areas or
acquisition of existing scrub and placement in permanent open space; off-site acquisition of
17
southern maritime chaparral and placement in permanent open space; replacement of southern
willow riparian woodland, southern willow scrub/mulefat scrub/freshwater marsh/disturbed
wetlands, on-site in the Encinitas Creek environmental channel/flood plain open space of existing
southern maritime chaparral with substantial populations of Nuttall's scrub oak and placement
in permanent open space; construction of a wildlife bridge over the Leucadia Boulevard
extension through bluff located where wildlife movement occurs; and installation of a wildlife
corridor along the north boundary connecting bluff and riparian habitats in Green Valley. The
applicant also shall implement Specific Plan General Planning Standards requiring minimum
width rear yard and wall or fence at edge of open space in residential areas and with Zoning
Ordinance Sections 6.7.2, 6.8.2 and 6.9.2 Development Standards requiring shielding of outdoor
lighting.
(2) Noise.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts
due to excessive noise levels along both sides of the segment of Leucadia Boulevard, from I-5
to Saxony Road, encroaching into the properties of sensitive receptors. Noise attenuation
measures also will be inadequate for any second story outside balconies within the noise impact
contour.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant shall conduct
comprehensive acoustical studies, by a qualified acoustician prior to site development, and shall
implement recommendations of the studies as necessary. Adequate noise attenuation measures
will be of doubtful effectiveness and may be aesthetically unacceptable because necessary
barriers along the roadway must be at least eight feet high to achieve meaningful noise
reductions. In addition, there will be gaps in the barriers as a result of driveways connecting
lots directly to the roadway, which will degrade barrier noise attenuation. Noise barriers of a
height necessary to achieve adequate attenuation generally are considered visually unpleasant,
particularly along a long corridor with stretches of intermittent walls and no walls.
(3) Air Ouality.
· Significant Effect: The FEIR identifies potential impacts due to
excessive levels of PM 10 in fugitive dust from short-term construction activities, excessive levels
of CO and Nox from vehicles in "cold start" modes of operation and excessive localized
pollutant levels from traffic congestion.
· Facts in Support of Finding: The project applicant shall
implement adopted control measures by complying with City of Encinitas Municipal Code
Section 23.24.400 (grading ordinance) to control dust from grading operations. The project
applicant shall comply with State Implementation Plan and the Regional Air Quality Strategy
requirements. The project applicant also shall implement the mitigation measures for potential
impacts due to traffic which are specified in Section 4.10.3 of the FEIR and are incorporated
here by this reference.
18
b. The project will result in significant adverse impacts on biological
resources, noise and air quality after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. The
chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or avoidance of environmental harm. Alternatives and
mitigation measures fulfill the same function of diminishing or avoiding adverse environmental
effects. When a significant impact remains after implementation of mitigation measures, a
reasonable range of alternatives must be analyzed and either adopted or shown to be infeasible
as a means of reducing or preventing harmful effects on the environment. Section 15364 of the
CEQA Guidelines defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner,
taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors."
(1). The FEIR analyzed six design alternatives, four alternative
development sites and the no project alternative in addition to the proposed project. The
following summarizes the feasibility of these alternatives as a means to reduce or avoid the
significant unmitigated impacts associated with the project:
(a) Biological Resources.
Although the significant impact has been reduced to
the extent feasible by the design considerations and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR
and incorporated into the project, the impact on biological resources cannot be mitigated to an
acceptable level.
The City Council finds that, although the project's
effect on this impact could be avoided by the no project alternative, such alternative is infeasible
because it would not attain the project objectives and would not provide .the City with the
benefits of the project described below. Neither project alternatives nor mitigation measures are
capable of avoiding this impact. The City Council further finds, however, that the Reduced
Effects on Sensitive Resources Alternative may substantially lessen this impact and adopts this
alternative as the project. The City Council further finds that, although the strict adherence to
Encinitas General Plan criteria and County jurisdiction alternatives may lessen this impact, such
alternatives are infeasible because they would not attain the project objectives as presented in
the Specific Plan proposal and would not provide the City with the benefits of the project
described below. The significant impact is acceptable when balanced against the mitigation
measures adopted to reduce project specific impacts and the facts set forth above and in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
(b) Noise.
Although the significant impact has been substantially
reduced to the extent feasible by virtue of the design considerations and the mitigation measures
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the project, impacts related to noise remain.
The City Council finds that, the no project alternative
cannot avoid this impact, and that such alternative is infeasible because it would not attain the
project objectives and would not provide the City with the benefits of the project. The
remaining project alternatives which involve development requiring the extension of Leucadia
19
Boulevard also would result in essentially the same impact. Neither project alternatives nor
mitigation measures are capable of avoiding this impact. The significant impact is acceptable
when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
(c) Air Quality.
Although the significant impact has been substantially
reduced to the extent feasible by virtue of the design considerations and the mitigation measures
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the project, the impact on air quality cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The City Council finds that, although the project's
effect on this impact could be avoided by the no project alternative, such alternative is infeasible
because it would not attain the project objectives and wOuld not provide the City with the
benefits of the project. All other alternatives evaluated in the FEIR result in essentially the same
impacts as the proposed project, except the strict adherence to Encinitas General Plan criteria
and County jurisdiction alternatives. These two alternatives would result in substantial
reductions in traffic volumes and resulting impacts on air quality, reducing it to a level of
insignificance. The City Council finds, however, that these alternatives are infeasible because
they would not attain the project objectives and would not provide the City with the benefits of
the project. Neither project alternatives nor mitigation measures are capable of avoiding this
impact. The significant impact is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
(2) The FEIR presents an evaluation of six design alternatives,
four alternative locations and the no project alternative to the proposed Specific Plan. These
include:
(a) Reduced effects on sensitive resources;
(b) Different Leucadia Boulevard alignment;
(c) Reduced effects on Encinitas Creek flood plain;
(d) Different uses and use configuration;
(e) Strict adherence to general plan criteria;
(f) County jurisdiction;
(g) Different locations; and
(h) No project.
20
The City Council hereby makes the finding of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(3) as set forth above for the three significant unavoidable impacts and provides
the following facts in support thereof concerning the above alternatives:
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
A. Reduced Effects on Sensitive Resources (EIR Section 5.1)
This alternative would redesign the project to withdraw from sensitive Diegan sage
scrub and southern maritime chaparral and to reduce steep slope encroachment, primarily in the
Quail Hollow East and North Mesa planning areas. In these planning areas, the golf course and
single family development would be pulled back further from the finger canyons in the northwest
sector and away from the eastern bluff edge. There would be an increase in open space of
approximately 39 acres, most of which would be natural area. The golf course would be
reduced in size by 21 acres, while there would be an increase of a few acres of agricultural land.
The purpose of this alternative is to reduce effect on sensitive resources.
The City finds that this alternative would substantially reduce steep slope
encroachment, with a 55 percent reduction in encroachment into slopes with gradients of
25 percent or steeper. Steep slope encroachment at 8 percent would be within the 10 percent
allowance for the site. Landform alteration also would be considerably reduced, particularly in
the Quail Hollow East planning area where high banks would be reduced in area and
encroachment of steep finger canyon areas lessened. The City Council further finds that this
alternative would considerably lessen direct impact to sensitive biological resources, with a
16 percent reduction in impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub, a 10 to 12 percent reduction in
total impacts to southern maritime chaparral, and elimination of impacts to southern riparian
scrub. Total impacts to sensitive plant species also would be reduced.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures outlined in
the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, except the impacts concerning biological
resources, air quality and noise. The City Council further finds that this alternative will not
mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. However, this alternative meets project
objectives and considerably lessens project impacts on sensitive resources. Except for the no
project alternative, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to all other alternatives
and is the preferred alternative. For those impacts which cannot be mitigated to below
significance, the City Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
B. Different Leucadia Boulevard Alignment (EIR Section 5.2)
This alternative would redesign the alignment of the Leucadia Boulevard
extension. The FEIR considered four different alignments identified as follows: (i) Encinitas
21
Road Standards; (ii) Scheme I; (iii) Scheme II; and (iv) Scheme III. The first three alignments
would be located to the south to maintain a larger continuous block of habitat north of the
roadway to Batiquitos Lagoon; the final alignment would move the roadway slightly to the north
to reduce impacts to sensitive plant species, particularly Encinitas baccharis.
The City Council finds that the first alignment, which is based on exact
compliance with Encinitas public road standards, would require extensive grading for a diagonal
bluff cut and would result in considerable loss of sensitive Diegan coastal sage scrub and
southern maritime chaparral, as well as numerous sensitive plants. Schemes I and II, which are
in general compliance with City standards, would reduce disruption to the bluff and would be
responsive to localized biological constraints by being sited to minimize grading and avoid
sensitive plants and habitat to the extent feasible for a functional roadway. With Schemes I and
II, the golf course would be relocated, the regional commercial center would have a different
configuration and there would be a substantial reduction in dwelling units. Scheme III would
be similar to that in the Specific Plan, but would be located slightly to the north to reduce bluff
grading' and to avoid Encinitas baccharis. The City Council considers Scheme III to be
environmentally superior to all other alternatives and is the preferred alternative.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and' the adoption of the mitigation measures outlined in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts concerning biological
resources, air quality and noise. The City Council further finds that, although Schemes I and
II would result in fewer dwelling units which in turn would generate lower traffic volumes and
reduced vehicle emissions, this alternative will not mitigate the impacts to biological resources,
air quality and noise to a level below significance. For impacts which cannot be mitigated to
below significance, the City Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations
below.
C. Reduced Effects on Encinitas Creek Flood Plain (EIR Section 5.3)
This alternative would redesign the project to withdraw from the flood plain in
the southern portion of the Green Valley planning area. This alternative would relocate two
small commercial buildings, together with an additional building, adjacent to E1 Camino Real
on each side of an additional access road crossing over Encinitas Creek, and would eliminate
the recreational sports fields in order to leave the flood plain open in that location. The purpose
of this alternative is to reduce effects on the Encinitas Creek flood plain.
The City Council finds that this alternative would lessen intrusion of the flood
plain, would be consistent with Encinitas General Plan Goals and Policies pertaining to flood
plain preservation, and would result in considerable modification of the flood plain and channel
in the northern portion of the Green Valley project area.
The City Council finds that this alternative is impractical due to the fact that the
22
drainage channel south of the point where Encinitas Creek enters the Specific Plan Area provides
drainage runoff from urbanized areas, the channel has been adversely impacted by past attempts
to place the channel into concrete swales, and the channel may be bridged to provide access to
developable areas outside the 100-year flood plain but closer to E1 Camino Real; thereby
increasing adverse visual impacts. In addition, the drainage channel is not currently capable of
containing 100-year flood plain storm runoff which impacts existing improvements to E1 Camino
Real and the safety of its use to motorists. The improvements proposed by the Specific Plan
would redirect the drainage channel to be closer to E1 Camino Real, improve the channel to
adequately contain 100-year storm runoff volumes, enhance the channel with a riparian planting
program to restore a more natural condition, and provide for detention areas to filter urban
pollutants prior to them entering Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon beyond.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures outlined in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts concerning biological
resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that this alternative will not
mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. For those impacts which cannot be
mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
D. Different Uses and Use Configuration (EIR Section 5.4)
This alternative would provide for different uses and use configuration throughout
the Specific Plan area. Agricultural uses would be located in a continuous block in the South
Mesa planning area, single family residential uses would be located in all planning areas except
West Saxony and Green Valley, mixed uses would be located in the West Saxony and East
Saxony planning areas, Quail Botanical Gardens would be expanded into the East Saxony area,
community and educational facilities would be located in the South Mesa, North Mesa and
Sidonia East planning areas, a regional commercial center, recreational uses and other mixed
uses would be located in the Green Valley planning area, and main vehicle transportation
corridors would be Leucadia Boulevard, Quail Gardens Drive, Via Cantebria and Garden View
Road. This alternative also would allow substantially more dwelling units, more
commercial/office space square footage, approximately 32 more acres of agricultural land and
no golf course.
The City Council finds that this alternative would allow more intensive land uses
than the Specific Plan, resulting in increased traffic volumes, vehicle emissions and demand for
services and that other impacts would be similar to or greater than those identified for the
Specific Plan. The City Council therefore finds that this alternative can be eliminated from
consideration.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures outlined in
23
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts concerning biological
resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that this alternative will not
mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. For those imPaCts which cannot be
mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
E. Strict Adherence to Encinitas General Plan Criteria (EIR Section 5.5)
This alternative would redesign the project to comply strictly with the criteria for
development set forth in the Encinitas General Plan. This alternative would involve a slightly
larger study area, would reconfigure land uses, would substantially reduce the number of
dwelling units and the total square footage of commercial and office uses, would allow 100,000 '
total square feet of industrial use, would increase the amount of agricultural land, would
eliminate the golf course and would substantially reduce traffic v°lumes.
The City Council finds that this alternative would meet most of the project
objectives. The City Council further finds that this alternative, however, would not provide as
many dwelling units or as broad a range .of housing opportunities as the Specific Plan, would
limit commercial service to a neighborhood center rather than a regional center, would result
in fewer recreational opportunities and would allow industrial uses which could result in conflicts
with surrounding areas. Accordingly, the City Council finds that this alternative is not feasible.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures outlined in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts concerning biological
resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that, although this alternative
will reduce air quality impacts to a level of insignificance, this alternative will not mitigate
impacts to noise and biological resources to a level below significance. For impacts which
cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted the Statement of
Overriding Considerations below.
F. County Jurisdiction (EIR Section 5.6)
This alternative would not annex the Specific Plan area in the City of Encinitas
and would redesign the project to comply with the General Plan and zoning requirements of the
County of San Diego. Among other differences in impacts, this alternative would allow at least
1,190 dwelling units more than the Specific Plan, would have no commercial or office uses,
would have approximately 126 more acres of agricultural land, and would eliminate the golf
course.
The City Council finds that this alternative would meet some of the project
objections. The City Council further finds, however, that this alternative would provide no
24
office space, no commercial services, fewer recreational opportunities, and would be less
sufficient because, without annexation, both the City of Encinitas and the County of San Diego
would be involved and the value of any future entitlements have the provision of services to
future development. Accordingly, the City Council finds that this alternative is not feasible.
The City Council finds that all significant impacts from the proposed project will
be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation
MonitOring and Reporting Program, except the impacts concerning biological resources, noise
and air quality. The City Council further finds that, although this alternative would have a
substantially reduced traffic volume which would lessen air quality impacts to a level of
insignificance, this alternative would not mitigate impacts to noise and biological resources to
a level below significance. For those impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance,
the City Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
G. Alternative Development Sites (EIR Section 5.7)
The following alternative sites were evaluated in the FEIR:
1. Hall Property
This alternative site is approximately 45 acres and is located along the west
side of 1-5 south of Santa Fe Drive, behind a neighborhood commercial center. The site is
currently used for agriculture. Surrounding land use is primarily single family residential, with
the adjacent ten-acre commercial center designated Local Commercial.
The City Council finds that this alternative site is not large enough for
either a regional commercial center or golf course. The City Council further finds that
development would generate a high volume of traffic and that access to the site is limited. The
City Council further finds that development of this site would have significant impacts associated
with traffic, air quality, noise, land use compatibility and General Plan consistency. The City
Council further finds that the project sponsor does not own this site or adjacent properties.
Development of the site would have significant constraints and land use compatibility problems
and would require extensive time for processing required approvals.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the
proposed project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the cumulative impacts due
to solid waste disposal, air quality and traffic circulation. The City Council further finds that
this alternative will not mitigate such cumulative impacts to a level below significance. For
those impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City has adopted the
Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
2. Chang/Tec-Built Properties
25
This alternative site consists of combined properties totalling approximately
146 acres on the north side of Manchester Avenue, between Sienna Canyon Drive and Trabert
Ranch Road. The site is vacant and surrounded by mostly single family residential use. San
Elijo Lagoon Reserve is situated across Manchester Avenue to the southwest.
The City Council finds that this alternative site does not meet project size
requirements for the regional commercial center and golf course. Developable area for this site
would be reduced because of steep slopes as well as sensitive coastal sage scrub and southern
maritime chaparral habitat. Commercial use is likely to have significant impacts associated with
grading, biology, water quality, traffic, air quality, noise, General Plan consistency and land use
compatibility. Access is limited to Manchester Avenue with a high volume of traffic loaded onto
a two-lane augmented local street. There would be conflicts between commercial use and the
rural surroundings of this site and a General Plan amendment would be necessary, requiring
extensive time for processing necessary approvals. The project sponsor does not own this site
or adjacent properties.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the
proposed project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts'due to
biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that this alternative
will not mitigate such cumulative impacts to a level below significance. For those impacts which
cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted the statement of
overriding considerations below.
3. Yasuda/Gim Properties
This alternative site consists of combined properties totalling approximately
45 acres on the north side of Manchester Avenue adjacent and east of I-5. The site is partly in
agricultural use, with native vegetation on a bluff along the northern boundary. Surrounding
land use is varied, with single family dwellings to the north, a community college to the east,
an auto service station to the west and the San Elijo Lagoon Reserve to the south.
The City Council finds that this alternative site does not meet project size
requirements for the regional commercial center and golf course. Steep slopes and sensitive
coastal sage scrub habitat further reduce the developable area of this 45-acre site, making it too
small for a golf course or regional commercial center. Surrounding land uses to the south and
east leave no adjacent land for possible combined development. The City Council further finds
that use for a commercial center would likely have significant impacts associated with grading,
biology, water quality, traffic, air quality, noise, General Plan consistency and land use
compatibility. Access is limited to Manchester Avenue and commercial use would generate a
high volume of traffic. The site is designated for residential use and a General Plan amendment
would be necessary, which would require extensive time for processing. The project sponsor
does not own this site or adjacent properties.
26
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the
proposed project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts due to
biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that this alternative
will not mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. For those impacts which cannot
be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
4. Hunt Property
This alternative site has approximately 281 acres and is located in the City
of Carlsbad along the west side of E1 Camino Real between La Costa Avenue on the north and
the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area on the south. Portions of the site have been
used for agricultural purposes, with riparian woodland along Encinitas Creek paralleling
E1 Camino Real and natural vegetation on a bluff along the west boundary. Surrounding land
uses are varied, with agricultural use to the south and west, vacant, naturally vegetated land to
the east (the Fieldstone La Costa project site), Batiquitos Lagoon to the north beyond La Costa
Avenue, and a neighborhood commercial center to the northeast at La Costa Avenue.
The City Council finds that the developable area for this site would be
reduced by sensitive southern maritime chaparral and riparian woodlands, malting it too small
for a golf course. This site would probably have enough usable area for a regional commercial
center. Commercial development of this alternative site likely would cause impacts to grading,
biology, water quality, traffic, air quality, noise and General Plan consistency. Commercial use
would generate a high volume of traffic onto E1 Camino Real alone if no connection were made
to Leucadia Boulevard. The site is designated for community commercial use and a General
Plan amendment would be necessary. There is a current proposal to develop 86 acres, with
600,000 square feet of commercial use on 56 acres and 400 multi-family dwelling units on 18
acres. The project sponsor does not own the site.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the
proposed project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption of the mitigation measures
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, except the impacts due to
biological resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that this alternative
will not mitigate such impacts to a level below significance. For those impacts which cannot
be mitigated tO below significance, the City Council has adopted the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
H. No Project (EIR Section 5.8)
The no project alternative is a default alternative required to be included in the
analysis by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2). Adoption of the no project alternative would
retain the existing jurisdiction of the County of San Diego and its General Plan designations and
would not preclude future development.
27
The City Council finds that although the no project alternative would eliminate
potential impacts that may result from the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, it
would not preclude future development. There would be ongoing erosion of cultivated fields
in the Green Valley planning area and erosion and sedimentation of the Encinitas Creek Channel,
which would continue to exacerbate off-site sedimentation of the creek and Batiquitos Lagoon.
The City Council further finds that none of the project objectives would be achieved with this
alternative. Without a specific plan for the area, there would be no guidance for its development
into the future and the precise time frame for improvements to and the extension of Leueadia
Boulevard would be unknown. In addition, there would be no reasonable projection as to when
this roadway and other missing links of the circulation system within the Specific Plan area
would be completed.
The City Council further finds that all significant impacts from the proposed
project will be mitigated by the project and the adoption o.f the mitigation measures outlined in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program, except the impacts concerning biological
resources, noise and air quality. The City Council further finds that, although these impacts
could be avoided by the no project alternative, such alternative is infeasible because it would not
attain the project's objectives and would not provide the City with the benefits of the project.
For those impacts which cannot be mitigated to below significance, the City Council has a
adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
II.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The FEIR identifies three unavoidable environmental impacts which cannot
be mitigated below significance by the proposed project: biological resources; noise; and air
quality. The City Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed project against such
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the proposed Project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council hereby
finds and states that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh such unavoidable
environmental risks, which are found acceptable due to the following overriding considerations:
a. Biological resources are impacted to a level of significance by the
extension of Leucadia Boulevard through the inland bluffs. This extension impacts sensitive
vegetation resources and bisects the vegetation habitat area. All alternatives extending Leucadia
Boulevard would result in some degree of significant impact to biological resources. The
extension of Leucadia Boulevard from E1 Camino Real to the 1-5 Freeway is an essential
component in the City's General Plan Circulation system. Without the extension, City Traffic
Models indicate that the future buildout of the City, in accordance with the General Plan, would
28
result in significant degradation of Levels of Service at intersections and road segments near the
Specific Plan area and in other parts of the City. The extension is neces~ to'accommodate
City and regionally generated traffic at adequate Levels of Service. The project, therefore,
cannot mitigate biological impacts to a level below significance since the City's General Plan
requires the Leucadia Boulevard extension. The project will implement, however, mitigation
measures intended to minimize the impacts on biological resources generated by the project to
the extent feasible.
b. Noise generation levels can be mitigated to below a level of
significance within the Specific Plan area by the implementation of adequate buffers and
construction techniques to attenuate vehicle noise. However, noise impacts from the western
boundary of the site to the I-5 Freeway will be significant along portions of Leucadia Boulevard
due to the proximity of some existing residences and the fact that noise attenuation walls cannot
be constructed which do not have breaks in them for driveways and other access points of some
of the properties fronting Leucadia Boulevard. The extension of Leucadia Boulevard from E1
Camino Real to the I-5 Freeway is an essential component in the City's General Plan Circulation
system. Without the extension, City Traffic Models indicate that the future buildout of the City,
in accordance with the General Plan, would result in significant degradation of Levels of Service
at intersections and road segments near the Specific Plan area and in other parts of the City.
The extension is necessary to accommodate City and regionally generated traffic at adequate
Levels of Service. The project, therefore, cannot mitigate noise impacts along portions of
Leucadia Boulevard west of the Specific Plan area to a level below significance since the City's
General Plan requires the Leucadia Boulevard extension. The project will implement, however,
mitigation measures intended to reduce noise impacts below a level of significance within the
Specific Plan project area.
c. Air quality for San Diego County is in violation of state and federal
standards, resulting in any contribution to this existing problem to be considered cumulatively
significant. Mitigation of this existing problem can only be accomplished on a regional basis.
The project will implement mitigation measures, however, intended to minimize the impacts on
air quality generated by the project to the extent feasible.
d. The project will improve the general quality of development and
construction by mandating the specific goals, policies and regulations to guide development in
an environmentally sensitive manner on the project site.
e. The project will provide enhancement, restoration and maintenance
of improvements within the riparian corridor of Encinitas Creek and its tributary drainage
channel. The riparian area improvements will be subject to approval by the Army Corps of
Engineers (404 Permit) and the California Department of Fish & Game (1603 Streambed
Alteration Agreement); in addition to the California Coastal Commission review process. Said
improvements are required as mitigation and are more specifically discussed in Section 4.3.3 of
the Final EIR.
29
f. The project will preserve approximately 609[ of the Specific Plan
area in oPen space for sensitive vegetation preservation along the inland bluffs and within finger
canyons on the site, in agricultural preserves (with greenhouse uses), and in recreational
preserves for a golf course (174 acres) and other recreational uses such as playing fields and
hiking trails.
g. The project will increase employment opportunities within the City
by providing permanent employment opportunities in association with the commercial uses.
h. The project will result in a capital investment of several million
dollars in commercial resources in the City as evidenced by the projected cost of construction
and equipping the project.
i. The project will provide additional revenues to the City due to
increased property and sales taxes as evidenced by the projected increase in assessed value of
the property and the projected sales revenues for the project.
j. The project will provide an expanded opportunity for purchasing
goods and services within the City at certain prices for which residents now travel outside the
City.
30