2016-27RESOLUTION NO. PC 2016 -27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT /PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND TO ADOPT FINDINGS OF
FACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.
(CASE NO. 14 -200 POD; CITYWIDE)
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65588(b) requires the City of Encinitas
to periodically prepare an update to the Housing Element of its General Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council directed the City Manager to cause the Planning and
Building Department to proceed with this update to the City's Housing Element for the 2013-
2021 planning period, which affects properties citywide;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.), the City is the lead agency for the Project, as the public
agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project;
WHEREAS, the City of Encinitas entered into a professional services contract with
RECON Environmental to prepare the Environmental Assessment/Program Environmental
Impact Report ( "EIR ") under the supervision of the City's Planning and Building Department,
which described the Project, the environmental impacts resulting there from, and the proposed
mitigation measures;
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City distributed a
Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional
responsible agencies, and other interested parties on April 10, 2015 for a 30 -day public
comment period. Various agencies and other interested parties responded to the NOP. In
addition, a public scoping meeting was held on April 23, 2015;
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the proposed project was then prepared and after
completing the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2015041044), the City released the document for public
review for a 45 -day public comment period, beginning January 29, 2016 and ending on March
14, 2016, by filing a Notice of Availability with the County Clerk of San Diego;
WHEREAS, during the 45 -day public comment period of the Draft EIR, the City
consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other
regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15086 and 15087;
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final EIR, which contains the information required by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, including the Draft EIR, the technical appendices and
referenced documents, revisions and additions to those documents, public and agency
comments on the Draft EIR and the City's responses to comments, which was sent out for a 10-
day public notice period on May 12, 2016 and ending on May 23, 2016 pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21092.5;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided a
Notice of Public Hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such
notice, and published the Notice of Public Hearing on April 29, 2016, in the Coast News;
WHEREAS, the Encinitas Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
the certification of the Final EIR on May 24, 2016, which was continued to May 26, 2016, in the
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024, during
which it received any evidence and took and considered public testimony from those wishing to
be heard regarding certification of the Final EIR;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all
environmental documentation comprising the Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and the
revisions and additions thereto, the technical appendices and referenced documents, and the
public comments and the responses thereto (Exhibit 2016 -27 -A, on file in the Planning and
Building Department and incorporated by this reference), and has found that the Final EIR
considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project and is complete and
adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, prior to making a recommendation on this Project, the Planning
Commission considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and Project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR and found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have
been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible;
WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies one or more
significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes certain written findings for each
of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding;
WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that where an agency approves a
project that would allow the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified
in an Environmental Impact Report, but are not mitigated to a level of insignificance, the agency
state in writing the specific reasons supporting its action based on the Final EIRt and /or other
information in the record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, 15093, and 15097, the City of
Encinitas has prepared Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which have been filed with the Clerk of the City of
Encinitas (Exhibit 2016 -27 -B and C, attached hereto);
WHEREAS, the Encinitas Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project
against its unavoidable environmental risks in making its recommendation on this Project as
necessary to serve the existing and future needs of the City of Encinitas, has analyzed the
information submitted by staff and considered any written and oral comments received at the
public hearing, including all factors relating to Planning Case 14 -200 POD, and has determined
that any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are outweighed by specific economic, legal,
social, or other benefits of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Encinitas Planning Commission, in its
independent judgment, hereby that:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitations are true and correct.
SECTION 2. GHG -2 shall be modified as to include a fifth point: A mechanism to
monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is
not achieving specified levels.
SECTION 3. The Final EIR, as so amended and evaluated, is recommended for
acceptance and certification as the Final EIR for the Project and as recommended is adequate
and provides good -faith disclosure of available information on the Project and all reasonable
and feasible alternatives thereto, including the No Project Alternative and Sustainable Mixed
Use Places Alternative.
SECTION 4. No Significant New Information Added to Draft EIR. The information
provided in the various reports submitted in connection with the Project and in the responses to
comments on the Draft EIR, the information added to the Final Environmental Impact Report,
and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at public hearings on the Project, do
not constitute significant new information that would require recirculation of the EIR pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
SECTION 5. Based on its review and consideration of the Final EIR and all written
communications, oral testimony regarding the Project, and other evidence which has been
submitted to, and received by, the City, the Planning Commission RECOMMENDS
CERTIFICATION of the Final EIR for the 2013 -2021 Housing Element update, and the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 2016- 27 -B),
based on the following findings.
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Final EIR
(Exhibit 2016 -27 -A, on file in the Planning and Building Department and
incorporated by this reference), the environmental impacts therein identified for
this project, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Exhibit 2016- 27 -13), and Mitigation Monitoring, and Reporting Program (Exhibit
2016- 27 -C), prior to recommending approval of this Project.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the City of Encinitas'
independent judgement and analysis, the Final EIR, Findings of Fact, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are
complete and adequate in scope and have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, the Planning
Commission herby recommends that the Final EIR be certified in relation to the
Project.
3. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full
herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of
Fact (Exhibit 2016- 27 -B), including feasibility of mitigation measures and
alternatives pursuant to Public Resources Code 20181 and CEQA Guidelines 15091.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends to the City Council that the
Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 2016 -27 -C) is designed to
ensure that during the project implementation, any responsible parties will implement
the project components and comply with feasible mitigation measures identified in
the Findings of Fact and Mitigation and Monitoring Program.
5. The Planning Commission hereby finds that although certain environmental effects
caused by the Project will remain significant or potentially significant even after the
adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and the consideration of all feasible
alternatives, there are specific economic, social, and other considerations that render
unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable, as set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 2016 -27 -8) and recommends its
adoption to the City Council.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(e), all documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceedings are located at the City of Encinitas Civic Center. The City Clerk, whose office is
located at 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024, is hereby designated as the
custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be
available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California
Public Records Act.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2dh day of May, 2016 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ichael Glenn O'Grady, C r
PC Resolution No. 2016 -26 — Exhibit B
At Home in Encinitas,
the City of Encinitas Housing Element Update
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2015041044)
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
Page 2
May 12, 2016
Page 3
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
Section
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION
5
A. Record of Proceedings
8
II.
PROJECT SUMMARY
10
A. Project Location
10
B. Project Description
10
C. Discretionary Actions
11
D. Statement of Objectives
13
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
14
IV.
GENERAL FINDINGS
15
V.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
17
VI.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
20
VII.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
20
VIII.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
21
A. Impacts Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels
21
B. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
48
IX.
FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
70
A. No Project Alterative
74
X.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
78
Page 3
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
Page 4
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
ION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and
the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder,
require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is
approved. In addition, once significant impacts have been identified, CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines require that certain findings be made before project approval. Specifically,
regarding findings, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR
has been certified 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 Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR); (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, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for
the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the Final PEIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making
the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with
identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in
subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting
ed mitigation I
i ifi 1 1 ion measures and project alternatives.
Page 5
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall
also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it
has either 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.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the
documents or other materials which constitute the record of the
proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the
findings required by this section.
The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in,
or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of
an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
Zn
impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
Should significant and unavoidable impacts remain after changes or alterations are applied
to the project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared. The statement
provides the lead agency's views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving a
agency's
6
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
project despite its environmental damage. Regarding a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides:
(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 specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental
effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the
occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final PEIR but
are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in
writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final PEIR
and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding
considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(e) 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 notice of determination. This statement does
not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant
to Section 15091.
The following Candidate Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Findings) are the findings that would need to be made by the decision - making body prior to
certification of the Final PEIR. It is the discretion of the decision -maker certifying the Final
PEIR to determine the adequacy of the proposed Findings. It is the role of staff to
independently evaluate the proposed Findings, and to make a recommendation to the
decision -maker regarding their legal adequacy.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final PEIR for At Horne in. Encinitas, the
City of Encinitas Housing Element Update (the project), State Clearinghouse No.
2015041044, as well as all other information in the Record of Proceedings (as defined below)
on this matter, the following Findings are hereby adopted by the City of Encinitas (City) in
Page 7
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis
for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and
responsible agencies for the implementation of the project.
A. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed
project includes but is not limited to the following documents and other evidence:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the proposed project;
• Comments received on the NOP;
• Scoping Meeting(s) and comments received at Scoping Meeting(s);
• The Draft Environmental Assessment(EA) /PEIR and appendices for the proposed
project;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
public review comment period on the Draft PEIR;
• All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public
during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR;
• All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing
for the proposed project at which such testimony was taken;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the responses to
public comments;
• All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference or cited to
in the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR;
• The Final PEIR and all supplemental documents prepared for the Final PEIR and
submitted to the City of Encinitas City Council (City Council) prior to the City
Council hearing;
Page 8
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state,
and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings;
• City staff report(s) prepared for the hearing related to the proposed project and any
exhibits thereto;
• Project permit conditions; and
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by CEQA
section 21167.6(e).
The Draft PEIR and related technical studies were made available for review during the
public review period on the City's website at www.AtHomeinEncinitas.info and at the
following public locations:
City of Encinitas Encinitas Branch Library
Planning and Building Department 540 Cornish Drive
515 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024
Encinitas, California 92024
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials, which constitute the administrative record for the
City's actions related to the project, as detailed in Section I.B. above, are located at City
Planning and Building Department, 515 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024.
The City Planning and Building Department is the custodian of the administrative record
for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the Record of Proceedings, are
at all relevant and required times have been and will be available upon request at the
offices of the City Planning and Building Department. This information is provided in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(e).
Page 9
May 12, 2016
Resolution 20l8'27 Exhibit B
A. Project Location
The project area ia located witbintbe Coastal Zone and encompasses five coozzuuuitiea--
Lenoudio Now Encinitas, Olbmubaiu. Old Encinitas, and Cardiff. The City (and its Sphere
of Influence) are composed of approximately 13.328 acres of Lund in the County of San
Diego, roughly 20 cuil*e north of downtown San Diego and 85 miles south of Los Angeles.
The jurisdictions that surround the City include the City of Carlsbad to the ouzih, the City
of Solana 8eoob to the anntb, and unincorporated area of Rancho 8uuto Fa to the east. The
Pacific Ocean lies at the City's western boundary. Interstate 5 (1-5) and Coast Highway 101
traverse the vveet*co portion of the City in a north-south direction. The project study area
consists of approximately 150 acres of 1uud on distinct sites within each of the five
communities.
B. Project Descri
The project is At Home in Enctnibzx. the City's General p1uu Housing Element Update
(HEU) for the housing cycle 2013-2021. The State of California mandates that all cities and
counties prepare u Housing Element as part of the comprehensive General Plan. The 2013—
202I Housing Element represents the City's effort in fulfilling the requirements under the
State fIonaiug ICla000ut law. The 8uu Diego Association of Governments (G/\NI]z\G) Board
of Directors adopted the final Regional Housing Needs Asaoaauzout (ICfINA) Plan for this
Housing Element cycle on October 28. 2011. The DIINAi6enti6aJ a housing need ofI.203
lo* and very low income housing units in the Cih/, which also includes o carryover of
253 prior housing cycle units. These are attached and multi-family housing units.
The project includes an update to the uncertified 1992 Housing Element, including revised
goals and policies, along with new and continuing implementation programs to ensure
consistency with current State housing law. The update also integrates updated
socioeconomic data, as well as other population and household obacuctecietbue to support
the development nf the Housing Element.
To meet these future housing needs, the City has identified 33 potential housing sites to
accommodate new housing within each community. Various combinations of these viable
Page 10
May l2.2OIS
Resolution 2OlS'27 Exhibit 8
housing sites comprise three concept housing strategy maps, which were selected byCity
Council for analysis in the PEZU: Housing Strategy l — ~Deady Made" (BM); }Iooaiug
Strategy 2 — "8nild-{ our- Own" (8`/() ) and Housing Strategy 3 — 'Modified Mixed Use
Places" (MM[JI) Each housing strategy includes a description of land ooea' type of
development, and basic site design that could be attained. Each of the three strategy cuupo
are studied in detail iothe PEIR. Afoortb strategy coup ' "Sustainable Mired Use Places"
(SMTJP) is studied as a 1ouaiblo alternative in Chapter 9.0 of the PICIIl (and described in
detail in Section I}C. below). After u preferred housing strategy is adopted by the City
Onnnoil, the project rrou|J be presented to the voters of the City in November 1016. In
conjunction with the HETJ, the City will adopt an implementation gzogrucu that includes
General Plan I'uod Use Plan uooeudzuaota; rezoning of housing sites; Zoning Code
uou*odmueuba; Municipal (]ode uoueudzueuta; new Design Guidelines; umueudnueote to the
North 101 Corridor Specific Plan, Dovvutnnru ICuoiuitae Specific Plan, Encinitas Daoob
Specific Plan, and Corditf-by-the-Buu Specific Plan; u1'ocu1 Coastal Program Amendment;
and the adoption of other programs necessary to implement the lfonoiog Elezueot, as set
forth in the iouplecouutuiioo program. A Noise Element amendment is being processed
concurrently to resolve internal inconsistencies in the existing element and reflect
ooutuuupocucy noise standards. IriouUv, an uoomudouuot to the Community Character and
Voters' 8jobte Initiative portion of the Land Use Element and Zoning Code Chapter 80.00
would modify building height limitations and authority to grant land use change approvals
in very specific circumstances. (IuDeoLivmlv, these actions would serve as u blueprint to
accommodate future housing and provide housing-related services within the City.
C. Discretionary AodVne
The following discretionary actions are being considered bvthe City Council with advisory
votes by the Planning Commission:
a Adopt the Housing Element Update, which amends the General Plan.
w Amend the General Plan Land Use Element for conformance,
* Amend Land Use Element Goals 2 and 4 for growth nuuougeruent program
Page 11
May I1.i0l6
Resolution 2016-2-7 Exhibit B
• Amend the Community Character and Voters' Rights Initiative portion of the Land
Use Element and Zoning Code Chapter 30.00 to modify building height limitations
and authority to grant land use change approvals in very specific circumstances.
• Amend Zoning Code Chapter 23.08 to allow additional authority to grant permit.
• Amend Zoning Code Section 30.04.10 to add anew zone "At Home in Encinitas zone"
definition.
• Amend Zoning Code Section 30.34.30 to allow additional authority to grant permit.
• Amend Zoning Code Chapter 30.72 to allow additional authority to grant permit.
• Add Zoning Code Chapter 30.36 for the At Home in Encinitas Zone, which also
adopts the Design Guidelines as a part of this new chapter by reference.
• Amend the North 101 Corridor Specific Plan, Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan,
Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan, and Cardiff Specific Plan to establish a
foundation for new zone implementation.
• Amend the Land Use and Implementation Program portions of the Local Coastal
Program (LCP).
The following actions by the registered voters of Encinitas would be required for approval
the HEU:
• Public Vote on the HEU, General Plan Amendments, Amendments to Specific Plans
and Zoning Code Amendments as provided by Chapter 30.00. Included in the
proposed Zoning Standards is a provision to delegate authority to make major
amendments related to maintaining state compliance with the Housing Element
back to the City Council with a super majority vote as part of the public vote on the
actions necessary for approval of the HEU.
Page 12
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
The following activities or actions are required by other agencies:
• California Coastal Commission to certify the LCP, as amended.
• California Department of HCD to review the Housing Element for compliance
with State law.
The following ancillary actions are needed to help implement the HEU objectives:
• Amend the Noise Element to resolve internal inconsistencies and address mixed
use development. standards. The amendment focuses on policies 1.1 through 1.7.
• Amend the Land Use Element to delete policies as specified by Proposition A, the
Community Character and Voters' Rights Initiative, except in areas of conflict
with the HEU.
• Amend the North 101 Corridor Specific Plan and Downtown Encinitas Specific
Plan to modify regulations that constrain housing development.
D. Statement of Objectives
The primary objectives of the proposed project include the following objectives related to the
HEU:
1. Housing Choice. Accommodate a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all
Encinitas residents, creating opportunities for attainably - priced housing for all
income groups.
2. Adequate Supply. Provide adequate sites with corresponding density to meet the
City's RHNA allocation, inclusive of prior planning cycle carryover housing units.
3. Effective Implementation. Deliver State - mandated and locally desired programs
to implement the City's Housing Element.
The following are the objectives relative to the housing strategies:
1. Maintain Community Character. Integrate future development using a blend of
two- and three -story buildings or building elements into the City's seven community
Page 13
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
character contexts through appropriately located sites and project design, and
embrace the unique cultural identities expressed in each of the five communities.
2. Emphasize Mixed Use. Accommodate mixed use, walkable places in key activity
centers of every Encinitas community, while allowing for some standalone housing.
3. Achieve a Variety of Neighborhood Types. Provide a mix of building types and
varied site designs that incorporate existing community character contexts to
achieve a variety of neighborhood types in which to develop new housing and mixed
use.
4. Consider Infrastructure Conditions. Ensure adequate infrastructure to support
new housing by locating future development in areas that have existing or potential
capacity for infrastructure and public services to accommodate it.
5. Address Mobility Needs. Maintain or enhance community access and mobility
networks.
6. Strive for a Sustainable Encinitas. Coordinate planning for land use,
transportation, and housing to reduce environmental impacts and preserve a
natural, healthy environment.
7. Strengthen the Local Economy. Locate housing in the right places to grow the
economy organically by supporting local businesses and making the City more
fiscally sustainable.
8. Equitably Distribute Multi - family Housing. Distribute attached and multi-
family housing to the City's five communities.
The City has considered the statement of objectives as specified in Section 3.3 of the Final
PEIR. The City hereby adopts these objectives as part of the proposed project.
! • • 1 ' '•' ''• !L
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City distributed an NOP of a Draft
PEIR to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies, and other
interested parties on April 10, 2015 for a 30 -day public comment period. Various agencies
Page 14
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
and other interested parties responded to the NOP. In addition, a public scoping meeting
was held on April 23, 2015. The City's NOP and comments are included in the Final PEIR
as Appendix A -2.
The Draft PEIR for the proposed project was then prepared and circulated for review and
comment by the public, agencies and organizations for a public review period that began on
January 29, 2016 and concluded on March 14, 2016. A Notice of Completion of the Draft
PEIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research (SCH No.
2015041044). A Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIR for review was mailed to
organizations and parties expressing interest in the project. The Notice of Availability was
also filed with the City Clerk and published in the Coast News. The City received
comments on the proposed project. Those comments and the responses to comments have
been incorporated into the Final PEIR.
On May 24 and May 26, 2016, the City of Encinitas Planning Commission (Planning
Commission) held public hearings on the proposed project. The Planning Commission
recommended
I MAW" DIN D111.11 IOBWM
The City hereby finds as follows:
• Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15050 and 15051, the City is the "Lead Agency"
for the proposed project.
• The Draft PEIR and Final PEIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines.
• The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR, and
these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City.
® An MMRP has been prepared for the proposed project, which the City has adopted or
made a condition of approval of the proposed project. That MMRP is incorporated
herein by reference and is considered part of the Record of Proceedings for the proposed
project.
Page 15
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
• The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of
mitigation measures. The City will serve as the MMRP Coordinator.
• In determining whether the proposed project has a significant impact on the
environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the
City has based its decision on substantial evidence and has complied with CEQA
Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15901(b).
• The impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the
time of certification of the Final PEIR.
• Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, the City provided consultation opportunity with Native
American tribes, as relevant.
• The City reviewed the comments received on the Draft PEIR and the responses thereto
and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such
comments add new information regarding environmental impacts associated with the
proposed project that would require recirculation of the Draft PEIR. pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all
viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings
concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final PEIR.
• The responses to comments on the Draft PEIR, which are contained in the Final PEIR,
clarify and amplify the environmental analyses therein.
• The City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of
resources toward the proposed project prior to certification of the Final PEIR, nor has
the City previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the proposed
project.
• Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR and /or Final
PEIR are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City,
custodian of record for such documents or other materials.
Page 16
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
• Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record,
the City hereby conditions the proposed project and makes the findings as stated in
Section V, below.
i /
CEQA Section 21.002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed
if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[...]" The same
statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies
in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that will avoid or substantially lessen
such significant effects. CEQA Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that]
specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or
such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more
significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in CEQA Section 21002 are implemented, in part,
through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for
which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for
a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more
of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "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" (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(x)(1)). The second permissible finding is that "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" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(2)). The third potential
conclusion is that "specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR"
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)). CEQA Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean
"capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA
Page 17
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565).
The concept of "feasibility" of a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the
underlying goals and core objectives of a project (see San Diego Citizenry Group v. County
of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 18; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego
(1982) 133 Cal_AppAd 410, 417). "[F]easibility under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to
the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid).
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are
used. CEQA Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the
term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate
"mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is
consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public
agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of such projects" (CEQA Section 21002).
For purposes of these Findings, the term "avoid" means to not result in a significant impact.
In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of a mitigation
measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect to a level
less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify
that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings,
for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been
reduced to a less- than - significant level or has simply been substantially lessened but
remains significant. Moreover, although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, read literally,
does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely
"potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects
identified in the Final PEIR.
Page 18
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,
where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that
would otherwise occur. Project modifications or alternatives are not required, however,
where such changes are infeasible. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)).
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible
environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may
nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding
considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's
"benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043(b). The California Supreme Court has stated
that, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires
a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and
their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply
it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra,
52 Cal.3d at p. 576; see also Cherry Valley Pass Acres Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010)
190 Cal.AppAth 316, 357 -359).
Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these Findings conclude that various project design features and
mitigation measures outlined in the Final PEIR are feasible and have not been modified,
superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These
Findings, therefore constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when
the City formally approves the proposed project.
The project design features and adopted mitigation measures are included in the MMRP
adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of
implementation of the HEU.
Page 19
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
As required by CEQA Section 21081.6 (a)(1), the City, in adopting these Findings, also
concurrently adopts a MMRP. The program is designed to ensure that during
implementation of the HEU, all responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation
measures identified below. The MMRP is described in the document entitled Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with
project mitigation measures. The MMRP will be available for the public to review by
request during the mitigation compliance period, which is on -going following project
approval through buildout of the project.
The monitoring program will serve the dual purpose of verifying completion of the
mitigation measures for the project and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions.
VII. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Final PEIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated
with implementing the proposed project. The Final PEIR concludes that implementation of
the project (housing strategies 1 through 3 and the Sustainable Mixed Use Places [SMUP]
Alternative) would result in significant impacts that would be mitigated to below a
level of significance with respect to the following issue areas: Air Quality (Criteria
Pollutants, Sensitive Receptors); Biological Resources (Sensitive Species, Sensitive
Vegetation Communities, and Wetlands); Cultural Resources (Paleontological Resources);
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Accidental Release, Emissions Near a School);
Hydrology and Water Quality (Flooding /Inundation); Land Use and Planning
(Neighborhood Compatibility — Noise /Land Use Compatibility), and Noise (On -site
Generated Noise, Temporary Noise).
For housing strategies 1 through 3, the following impacts would remain significant
despite the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures: Aesthetics (Public Views
and Scenic Resources at Site 0-4 and Community Character at Sites L -7, 0-4, and 0-5); Air
Quality (Consistency with Regional Air Quality Standards [RAQS]); Cultural Resources
Page 20
May 12, 2016
Resolution 20lG-27 Exhibit D
(Historical Roeooroee, Archaeological Resources); Greenhouse Gas Eodaeioo*; Land Use
and Planning (Neighborhood Compatibility ' Traffic, Aesthetics) and Transportation and
Traffic (Circulation System Capacity and Operations). The 8MUP Alternative vvunlJ
incrementally reduce all of tb e aforementioned significant impacts, and would preclude the
significant unavoidable aesthetics impacts associated with housing strategies l through 8.
VKII, SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Dzopuots Mitigated twLmea-Thmn-SigmifimamtLevels
1' Air Quality
Thresholds of Sianiflcmuce Issue 2: Criteria Pollutants
Pursuant to Issue 2,u significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in
a coouo]utinoly considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for vrbiob the project
region is non-attainment under uuapplicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard
(including release emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Impacts
As discussed iu Section 4.2.Hofthe Final PEI8 and shown ouTable 4.2'5, all three housing
strategies and apocifically, the following ll buuabug aihao would result in construction
emissions that exceed the eigui6nnooe threshold borUOG of 250 pounds per day: ALT-7,
ALT-2, NE-4, AL7'3. DE'6, ALT-5, OE-8, O-2, NU'3. C-I and DJE'l (Impacts /\(J'2). IIzeae
azuisainoe would be doe to the \7OC content of the architectural coatings. Specifically, the
impacts of each housing strategy are uefollows:
Housing Strategy 1 — Ready Made (RM)
Housing sites OE-5. C-2, and NE-4 would result in potentially significant construction
emissions due to emissions of ROG that exceed the significance threshold nf250 pounds per
Housing Strategy 2— Build Your Own (8YO)
Page 21
May I2.2OlG
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
Housing sites C-2, NE-3, and OE-8 would result in potentially significant construction
emissions due to emissions of ROG that exceed the significance threshold of 250 pounds per
day,
Housing Strategy 3 — Modified Mixed Use Places (MMUP)
Housing sites ALT-2, ALT-3, ALT-5, C-2, C-1, NE-1 and ALT-7 would result in potentially
significant construction emissions due to emissions of ROG that exceed the significance
threshold of 250 pounds per day.
Sustainable Mixed-Uses Places (SMUP) Alternative Housing Strategy
The SMUP Alternative would only include the following sites: ALT-7, ALT-2, ALT-3, C-1,
and NE-1. Impacts related to criteria pollutants from the future development under SMUP
Alternative would be less than under the HEU housing strategies.
Refer to Appendix J of the Final PEIR for technical air quality methodology and modeling
results.
Explanation
Housing sites ALT-7, ALT-2, NE-4, ALT-3, OE-5, ALT-5, OE-8, C-2, NE-3, C-1 and NE-1
are the larger housing sites that would involve a larger volume of architectural coatings
during construction. Application of architectural coatings would occur during the final
phase of construction. As shown in Table 4.2-5 of the Final PEIR, the significance threshold
for ROG is 250 pounds per day. The listed housing sites would generate daily emissions of
ROG in excess of the established threshold, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation
AQ-2: For future development of housing sites consistent with the new zone program,
wherein the City has determined a potential for ROG emissions impacts could occur, the
Planning and Building Department shall require that the construction contractor be limited
to the use of architectural coating (paint and primer) products that have a low- to no-VOC
rating.
Page 22
May 12, 2016
Resolution 20l6-27 Exhibit D
Finding
Pursuant to C80A(3uidelbzoa Section 1509I(a)(1)' changes or alterations are required in,
m incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
as identified in the Final P0Btoo level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
A/J-2 is a feasible ouoaauro and ebuD be required as o condition of approval and made u
binding condition of future development of applicable housing sites. Implementation of this
coiijgxiiou measures would reduce the significant impacts related to criteria pollutant
(DOG) emissions because it requires that during construction of specified housing sites,
)on' to no-\rOC rated architectural coatings are used to ensure the daily emissions are
below the significance threshold. For these reasons, implementation o[ mitigation measure
/\W'2 would reduce significant criteria pollutant impacts during construction to u1eaa than
significant level.
Thresholds of Significance Issue 3: Sensitive Receptors
Pursuant to Iaano 3, a significant impact would 000nc if the project would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Irnpacts
As discussed in Section 12.7of this Final PED[all three housing strategies would result in
housing sites being located within 500 beet from Interstate 5 (1-Q) n1zbdz is u source of diesel
particulate matter from vehicle emissions on 1'5. Exposure to diesel particulate matter at
housing sites O'|. OB||K88'1. OK-3. |,'4 and |''5 would result in a potentially significant
impact to sensitive receptors due to the potential adverse health effects resulting from long-
term exposure to these pollutants (IoupuotaAQ-3). Only housing site (]-1 would be included
in the BMlJy Alternative. Theretore, izupuota to sensitive receptors under the BMlJp
Alternative would be laaa than the HElTstrategies.
Explanation
Doe to the location of housing sites C-l' CBHMN'l, OE-2' l,4` and I=5 within the
California Air Resources Board's (CARB'a) 500'fbot recommended buffer distance from
truanvaya for siting of sensitive land uaoa, a potentially significant impact from exposure to
diesel particulate matter would occur.
Page 23
May l2'%VI8
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
Mitigation
AQ -3: In order to reduce impacts associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
• Future development under the new zone program shall be designed to minimize
exposure to roadway- related pollutants and exposure shall be mitigated to the
maximum extent feasible. Design features may include but are not be limited to:
maximizing the distance between the roadway and sensitive receptors, locating air
intake at the non - roadway facing sides of buildings, and ensuring that windows
nearest to the roadway do not open. The orientation and placement of outdoor
facilities designed for moderate physical activity shall be placed as far from the
emission source as possible. Mitigation may also include installing mechanical
ventilation systems with fresh air filtration and constructing a physical barrier
between the roadway source and receptors of pollutants (e.g., sound wall or
vegetative planting).
• New parks with athletic fields, courts, and other outdoor facilities designed for
moderate to vigorous activity under the new zone program should be sited at least
500 feet from the freeway. Exceptions to this recommended practice should be made
only upon a written finding from a decision - making body that the benefits of such
development outweigh the public health risks or that a site - specific analysis
demonstrates a less than significant risk.
• Ventilation Systems: Ventilation systems that are rated at Minimum Efficiency
Reporting Value of "MERV13" or better for enhanced particulate removal efficiency
shall be provided on all residential units within the new zone, located within
500 feet of I -5.
• City staff shall ensure that the aforementioned requirements are included on plans
associated with any permit for future development consistent with the new zone
program and submitted for approval. The City shall verify compliance on -site prior
to occupancy clearance. Staff shall also review the future Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for inclusion of guidelines pertaining to the proper
maintenance /replacement of filters.
Page 24
May 12, 2016
Resolution 20IG-27 Exhibit B
Finding
Pursuant to CEQAGnidelbzee Section 15091(u)(1), changes or alterations are required in,
m incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen oravoid the significant affect
as identified in the Final PEID to u level of insignificance. BpooificaDy, mitigation measure
AQ'3 is a feasible noeuaoro and ebuU be required as m condition of approval and ruo6e o
binding condition of future development of applicable housing sites. Implementation of this
mitigation oeu auz ea would reduce the significant impacts related t o sensitive receptors
beouoau it vruold require design features to reduce diesel particulate emission
concentrations such as installation of mechanical ventilation eyatmoue with Yraob air
filtration systems or constructing physical barriers between roadway emission sources and
receptors. AdditionoDy, parks and other outdoor facilities designed for moderate to vigorous
activity under the fIElJ would be prohibited within GOO &aot from nCceervay unless x site-
specific unolveia is prepared showing the impact to sensitive receptors would be less than
significant or the decision-making body ouabee n tiudiuA that the benefits of the
development outweigh the public health risks. For tbuoo ceoaooa, implementation of
mitigation zooueore AQ-3 for housing strategies 1-3 and the 8MTJP Alternative would
reduce significant impacts to sensitive receptors to a less than significant level,
Reference: Final PEIR Section 4.2, Air Quality; Appendix J, Air Quality Methodology and
Modeling.
2' Biological Resources
Thresholds wf Significance Issue I: Sensitive Species
Pursuant to Issue l, u significant impact would occur if the project vmoN have a
aobaLoutol adverse offect, either directly orthrough habitat ouodifioutioua, on any species
identified as u candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plaoe,
pu6ciuo, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (UUFW) or
DSFWB (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
Doopuota
As detailed in Chapter 4.3.5of the Final PEIIl and Table 4.3-0, potentially significant direct
iozpuuta to sensitive plants and sensitive wildlife (Impact 81O-D would occur for all housing
strategies, and specifically resulting from development of housing sites ALT-4, ALT-5, C-6,
Page 25
May l2.l0l6
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
L-4, L-7, NE-3, 0-2, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6, OE-1, OE-2, and OE-7. Significant direct and/or indirect
impacts to least Bell's vireo (Impact BIO-2) would occur for all housing strategies and
specifically resulting from development of housing sites ALT-7, NE-1, 0-41 0-5, and OE-2.
Potentially significant direct impacts to migratory or nesting birds would occur for all
housing strategies and specifically resulting from development of housing sites ALT-2,
ALT-4, ALT-5, ALT-7, C-2, C-6, CBHMG-1, L-4, L-5, L-7, NE-1, NE-3, NE-4, NE-7, 0-2, 0-
3, 0-4, 0-51 0-6, OE-1, OE-2, and OE-7 (Impact BIO-3). The SMUP Alternative includes
the following sites: OE-1, OE-71, NE-1, C-6, NE-7, and 0-3. Therefore, development under
this alternative would result in slightly fewer impacts to sensitive species compared to any
of the HEU housing strategies because fewer of the housing sites with the potential for
sensitive species are included in this alternative.
Explanation
Potentially significant direct impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife could occur on the
undeveloped housing sites ALT-4, ALT-5, C-6, L-4, L-7, NE-3, 0-2, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6, OE-I, OE-
2, and OE-7 due to the removal of occupied habitat during grading and land development.
Potentially significant direct impacts to least Bell's vireo could occur on housing sites that
support or are adjacent to riparian habitat (ALT-7, NE-1, 0-4, 0-5, and OE-2). Impacts
would occur if either riparian habitat is removed or excess noise or lighting from
construction activity within 300 feet of the riparian habitat is generated during the least
Bell's vireo breeding season (April 10 to July 31).
Direct impacts to migratory or nesting birds within housing sites ALT-2, ALT-4, ALT-5,
ALT-7, C-2, C-6, CBHMG-1, L-4, L-5, L-7, NE-1, NE-3, NEA, NE-7, 0-2, 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6,
OE-1, OE-2, and OE-7 could occur because these sites support mature trees and/or native
vegetation that could support nesting birds. If the on-site trees/vegetation is disturbed
during the typical bird breeding season (January 15 - September 15), a potentially
significant impact would occur.
Mitigation
BIO-1: Applications for future development of housing sites consistent with the new zone
program, wherein the City has determined a potential for impacts to sensitive biological
resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:
Page 26
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
a) A site - specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted to identify
the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant
or wildlife species. A biological resources report shall be submitted to the City to
document the results of the biological resources survey. The report shall include:
(1) the methods used to determine the presence of sensitive biological resources;
(2) vegetation mapping of all vegetation communities and /or land cover types;
(3) the locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the
potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and
(5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts
from the proposed project. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological
resources are identified, future project -level grading and site plans shall
incorporate project design features to minimize direct impacts on sensitive
biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend
appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
b) If suitable habitat for sensitive species is identified within the housing site based
on the general biological survey, then focused presence /absence surveys shall be
conducted in accordance with applicable resource agency survey protocols.
BI0-2: Prior to issuance of a permit for grading or vegetation removal, future development
of housing sites consistent with the new zone program, wherein the City has determined to
the potential for impacts to least Bell's vireo, shall require USFWS protocol surveys for
least Bell's vireo should project construction occur within 300 feet of riparian habitat
during the breeding season (April 10 to July 31). If least Bell's vireo are identified during
the protocol surveys, then noise attenuation measures shall be required to ensure that
noise levels from construction do not exceed a 60 A- weighted decibels [dB(A)] hourly
average per hour at the edge of the riparian habitat or to the ambient noise level if it
exceeds 60 dB(A) prior to construction. Construction noise monitoring shall be required to
verify that noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat are maintained below 60 dB(A)
hourly average unless an analysis completed by a qualified acoustician shows that noise
generated by construction activities would not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge
of occupied habitat.
Page 27
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
BI0-3: Prior to issuance of a permit for grading or vegetation removal, future development
of housing sites consistent with the new zone program, wherein the City has determined
the presence of mature trees and/or native vegetation suitable for nesting birds in the
future, shall require a pre- construction survey to determine the presence of active bird
nests if vegetation clearing is proposed during the typical bird breeding season (January
15— September 15). The nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist
within one week prior to the start of vegetation clearing or construction activities. No direct
impacts shall occur to any nesting birds or their eggs, chicks, or nests. If an active nest is
located, nest avoidance measures would be required in accordance with the MBTA and
CDFW code.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
as identified in the Final PEIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, Mitigation Measures
BIO -1, BIO -2, and BIO -3 are feasible measures and shall be required as a condition of
approval and made a binding condition of future development for applicable housing sites.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the significant impacts related
to sensitive species, including impacts to least Bell's vireo, and impacts to migratory or
nesting birds. Mitigation measure 1310 -1 would require site- specific general biological
surveys. This measure would ensure that each site is specifically evaluated for the presence
of sensitive species and appropriate mitigation measures are identified to reduce any
potential impacts to below a level of significance. Mitigation measure BIO -2 would ensure
that USFWS protocol surveys for least Bell's vireo are conducted for sites that would
propose construction within 300 feet of riparian habitat. This measure would reduce
potential impacts to least Bell's vireo to below a level of significance because if surveys
identify the presence of the species, the measure requires construction noise monitoring to
ensure noise levels do not adversely impact any occupied habitat. Mitigation measure 13I0-
3 would avoid impacts to nesting birds by requiring pre- construction bird surveys to occur if
construction is to occur during the typical bird breeding season. Further, if surveys were to
detect the presence of active bird nests, nest avoidance measures would be required
consistent with the MTBA and CDFW code. For these reasons, implementation of
Page 28
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
mitigation measure BIO -1, BIO -2, and BIO -3 would reduce significant impacts to sensitive
species to a less than significant level for all housing strategies and the SMUP Alternative.
Thresholds of Significance Issue 2: Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant impact would occur if the project would have a
substantial adverse effect on any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.
Impacts
As discussed in Chapter 4.3.6 of this Final PEIR, potentially significant direct impacts to
sensitive vegetation communities would occur for all housing strategies and the SMUP
Alternative, specifically resulting from development of housing sites ALT -4, ALT -5, C -6, L-
4, L -7, NE -3, 0-2, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6, OE -1, OE -2, and OE -7 (Impact BIO 4).
Explanation
Future development of housing sites would have the potential to directly impact sensitive
vegetation communities through vegetation removal. Sensitive vegetation communities
which exist or have the potential to exist on undeveloped housing sites include coastal sage
scrub, southern maritime chaparral, grasslands and wetlands /riparian. Thus, removal of
these vegetation communities associated with future development on housing sites
containing these resources would be significant.
Mitigation
BIO -4: Prior to issuance of a permit for grading or vegetation removal, future development
of housing sites consistent with the new zone program resulting in impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities shall implement avoidance and minimization measures and
provide suitable mitigation in accordance with the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
(MHCP).
Future project -level grading and site plans shall incorporate project design features to
minimize direct impacts on sensitive vegetation communities including but not limited to
riparian habitats, wetlands, non - native grassland, and coastal sage scrub. Mitigation for
impacts to sensitive upland habitats shall occur in accordance with the mitigation ratios
Page 29
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2UIS-27 Exhibit B
identified in Tables 4-G and 4-7uf the MBCP. Mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation
communities shall be implemented att6etioefbtuza development projects are
Finding
Pursuant to CfCQA(}uidolbzee Section 15091(a)(1), changes or nlbarutinze are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
as identified in the [riumJ yKTD to a level ofinsignificance. BpecifiuuDr, mitigation zoaueuua
8IO'4 is u feasible oueaonce and aboD be required as u condition of approval and made u
binding condition of future development for sites that would remove any vegetation.
Implementation oythis mitigation measure would reduce the significant impact related to
sensitive vegetation communities baoanam it requires that future development incorporate
design features to minimize direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, requires
impacts tosensitive upland habitats occur in accordance with mitigation ratios established
in the MEI(]P, and requires mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation oozuuznuitiae at
the time future development is proposed. Iboa, implementation of this cueumore would
ensure inupmote to sensitive vegetation communities are fully mitigated at the time of site-
specific impacts. For these rea0000, implementation of mitigation oueoacne BiO'4 vvonki
reduce significant iuupuota to sensitive vegetation communities to a less than eigoiboout
level for all 6noaiog strategies and the 8MDPUteroutivo.
Thresholds of Significance Issue %:NVetlanda
Pursuant to Issue 3, u significant impact would occur if the project would have a
substantial adverse effect on wetlands as defined by Section 484 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limbed to, maza6, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
{3liug, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Impacts
All three housing strategies and the BMDI'Alternative vroo|d have the potential to impact
�noadict on al waters or wetlands based on potential �aemm x[ wetland
resources on
()S,0E'l,OU'2, and 0E-7.
Explanation
Page 30
May l2.Z0l8
Resolution 20I6'27 Exhibit B
Although there are various policies and regulations aimed at the protection ofwetland
resources (Policies 9.3, 10.6, 10.9` and 10.11 of the General Plan Raeunroe Management
ICbauueut; Policies 1.1, 8.5, and 8.6 of the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan; and
Section 30.34.040 of the Municipal Code), the site-specific requirements for each housing
site are not known due to u lack of site specific analysis for u program-level EI8. Thus,
buddout of the opmod5ed housing sites may either contain or be adjacent to wetlands and
future development of these sites could directly impact jurisdictional waters or wetlands.
Mitigation
BDO-5: Prior to issuance of permit for grading or vegetation removal, future development
of housing sites consistent with the new xoua program, wherein the City has determined
the potential for impacts to sensitive biological reoonroaa, abuU be required to prepare a
site -specific biological resources survey. Should any potential jurisdictional waters be
identified on-site during the general biological resources encvey, then a jurisdictional
wetlands delineation of the housing site shall be conducted following the methods outlined
iu the lJ.B. Army Corps of Engineers (]SA(]E'a) l887 Wetlands Delineation Manual and
the Regional Supplement to the (3ocpa of Engineers Delineation Muooul for the Arid West
Region. The Uouita of any riparian buhitute on -site under the aulo jurisdiction of OD}rW
shall also be delbueaLod, as well as any special aquatic sites (excluding voroo] pools) that
may not meet Federal jurisdictional criteria but are regulated by California Coastal
Commission and the Regional VYxtecOuulityCoutzolBnucd(DW0CB).
Avoidance memenroe based onproject-level grading and site plans s6uU be incorporated into
the project design to minimize direct impacts to jurisdictional waters consistent with
IrodocxI, State, and City guidelines. Unavoidable impacts towetlands shall be minimized to
the ouaricuuou extent practicable and would be subject to alternatives and mitigation
uuulyaee oouaietuot with U.S. Eonir000uoutul Protection Agency 404(b)(1) findings and
procedures under the TJSA(]IC'e permit process. Unavoidable impacts would require the in-
kind creation of new wetland of the same type lost, atxratio determined by the applicable
regulatory agencies that would prevent any net luaa of wetland fuuodnne and values.
Wetland creation on-site or within the same wetland system shall be given preference over
replacement off-site or within a different system. The City shall also control use and
development in surrounding areas of influence to wetlands with the application of buffer
Page 31
May l2.2OI6
Resolution 20l8'27 Exhibit ]0
zones. Ata minimum, k00'foot-widebuffers shall ba provided upland of tidal wetlands with
the exception ofriparian areas vrbidz will require 50-foot'nido buffere, unless the applicant
demonstrates that a buffer of lesser width would protect the resources of the wetland based
on site-specific information. Use and development within buffer uzeoo abxD be limited to
minor passive recreational uses with 5auoiop, deeiltotion or erosion control facilities, or
other improvements deemed necessary to protect the habitat, to be located in the upper
(upland) half ofthe buffer when feasible. All n,otluuda and buffers obaD be permanently
conserved or protected through the application of an open space easement or other suitable
device-
All new development adjacent to wetlands and waters ebaU be required to adhere to
measures outlined in the (3tva Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance to avoid
degradation of lagoons, other */eUaoJ habitats, and upland habitats from erosion and
sedimentation. These measures include restrictions on the timing and ucuonot of grading
and vegetation removal. For example, grading or vegetation raounvol abuD be prohibited
during the rainy oeuaoo (October l through April 10) without an approved erosion control
plan and yrogzuou in place. In udditiuu, all necessary erosion control devices must be in
plaue, and appropriate monitoring and maintenance zuoat be implemented during the
grading period.
Finding
pucaouot to OEQA Guidelines Section 15091hd(1). changes or u1bazatioue are required in,
m incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
ue identified iuthe Final PEIB(o a level nyinsignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
DI0 5 is a feasible measure and shall be required as u condition of approval and made a
binding condition of future development for applicable housing sites. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce the significant ioupoote related to jurisdictional waters
and wetlands because u site-specific biological resources survey would be required where
development could impact sensitive biological resources. If Jurisdictional waters or wetlands
are identified during the biological survey, a jurisdictional wetland delineation would be
required and wetland/waters avoidance measures would be required, vvbare feasible. Any
jurisdictional waters impacts would be required to comply with LTGA()E permit
requirements and would require vrat|uud creation to uueuce no net loos of wedou6a.
Page 32
May I2.20IG
Resolution 2OIG'27 Exhibit D
the measure requires appropriate wetland buffers to be implemented to
ensure protection of the resources based oosite-specific information. For these reoeooe,
implementation of mitigation uueuauze BIO-5 would reduce significant jurisdictional
waters/wetland impacts to a less than significant level for an housing strategies and the
8&JlTP Alternative.
Reference: FinolPEIB Chapter 4.3' Biological Resources; Biological Resources Appendices
K-I through K-4.
8' Cultural Resources
Thresholds wf Significance Issue 3: Paleontological Resources
Pursuant to laema 3, u significant impact would occur if the project would significantly
impact a unique paleontological resource or ogeoloeic formation possessing umoderate to
kis6 fossil-bearing potential. SyeoifioyDv' impacts would be considered significant if
development of housing site would require the excavation of over 1'000 cubic yards of
geologic formation with bicb paleontological resource potential, vvooJd require excavation
depths within the geologic formation oflO feet nc groater, or would require over 2,000 cubic
yards o{ excavation within a geologic formation with moderate resource potential tocontain
paleontological resources.
Dmupuoto
All three housing strategies and the SMUP Alternative and specifically, the following
housing sites may be underlain by geological formations with o moderate to high
paleontological resource potential: ALT-3. ALT-4' AI^?'S' ALT-6, ALT-7, [-6. I,7, NE-3,
underlain with undisturbed deposits of Torrey Sandstone and/or the Del Mar formation and
impacts tothese formations could significantly impact subsurface paleontological resources
(Impact CUL-3).
Explanation
While specific grading quantities for each site are not known, future development of
housing sites with high or moderate potential to contain paleontological resources could
result in disturbance to buried fossils resulting in significant impact. As future oite-
Pugo33
May l2.2Ol8
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
specific development is proposed, specific grading quantities and depths would be identified
and site-specific geotechnical analyses would be completed to identify the geologic
formations underlying each housing site to determine whether mitigation measure CUL-3
would need to be implemented.
Mitigation
CUL-3: Applications for future development of housing sites consistent with the new zone
program, wherein the City has determined a potential for impacts to paleontological
resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:
A qualified paleontological monitor shall be present during grading on housing sites where
development would require the excavation of over 1,000 cubic yards of a geologic formation
with high resource potential to contain paleontological resources, excavation depths within
the geologic formation of 10 feet or greater, or over 2,000 cubic yards of a geologic formation
with moderate resource potential to contain paleontological resources. Geologic formations
would be determined by a site-specific geotechnical study. The monitor shall have the
authority to stop and/or divert grading, trenching, or excavating if a significant
paleontological resource is encountered. An excavation plan shall be implemented to
mitigate the discovery. Excavation shall include the salvage of the fossil remains (simple
excavation or plaster-jacketing of larger and/or fragile specimens); recording stratigraphic
and geologic data; and transport of fossil remains to laboratory for processing and curation.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
as identified in the Final PEIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
CUL-3 is a feasible measure and shall be required as a condition of approval and made a
binding condition of future development for applicable housing sites.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the significant impacts related to
paleontological resources because it would assure the recording and recovery of important
paleontological information which may otherwise be lost during construction of the
proposed project. The requirement for a monitor to be present for all construction activities,
along with the specified processes, assures that grading will be halted or diverted should
Page 34
May 12, 2016
Resolution 20lG'27 Exhibit D
any discovery be made. Implementation of the mitigation measure uoanrea that if resources
are encountered, significance testing occurs right away and important discoveries are
reported and/or collected. The measure would require excavation, salvage, uudcorutiou of
fossil reouuioa so that any research potential is obtained from the discovery. For these
raaeooe' implementation of mitigation zneueuro C[TI,-3 would reduce significant
paleontological rmaoorua impacts to a loeo than significant level for all housing strategies
and the GMUI,Alternative.
Rntbzeooc: Final yEI8Cbopter 4.4. Cultural Resources.
4' Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Thresholds of Significance Issue 2: Accidental Release
Pursuant to |amze 2' u significant impact would occur if the project would ozeuie u
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Impacts
Development of any ofthe three housing strategies and the BMTJ9Altmcuativm would result
io potentially significant impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials. This
would occur where housing sites have been exposed to hazardous materials or have on-site
contamination vvbiob could result in u potentially significant impact to the public or
auvirourunut if hazardous materials or contamination are not properly buudJe6 and
removed prior to development. Specifically, development on housing sites C'l. O-2, O-3, D-7,
C8B&f8'3. L'l, L'2, L-4' I^'5, L'8, NE'3, NE'4, NE'7, OE'l, OE-2, OE4, OE-5, OE-7, ALT'
2, Al^I'3' ALT-5, ALT-6, aodAlT'7 may have been exposed to contamination from current
or prior uses such as Aoo stations and agricultural land use. Development on these housing
sites would represent o significant impact.
Explanation
Housing sites with existing commercial uses, such as the Que etutb000 ot housing sites AI^T-
2, ['7, 0E'2, 0E-1, and NE'T, could have the potential for ooutuzoiu4tioo resulting from
leaking underground storage tanks. Development on housing site O'l could have
000tuuuboutbzu from the former gas station at this ode. Sites 1=5 and |-G that have been
Page 35
May }2.20IS
Resolution 20lG'27 Exhibit D
used for agricultural purposes and could pose a risk of from ber6icida,
peoticide, and fertilizer use. Other properties may also have undocumented ou'obe
contaminants from building materials uudJoc underground contaminants. Development on
contaminated sites could pose a significant hazard to the public or environment if
hazardous aode or ooutociala are not properly handled and removed from the project site
t grading construction.
prior o�ra u��u d coua ruo zou.
Mitigation
HAZ-l: Future projects ahuD be required to identify potential conditions, which require
further regulatory oversight and demonstrate compliance based on the following measures
prior tn issuance of any permits:
A. APbaos l Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be completed in accordance with
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)Standards. If hazardous materials
are identified requiring xeouediutbou. u Phase U ]8B}\ and nezneJiution effort o6uU be
conducted in conformance with Federal, 8tute, and local regulations.
B. If the Phase 11 ESA identifies the need for remediation, then the following shall occur
prior tu the issuance of grading permits:
l. The applicant shall retain qualified environmental engineer to develop xsoil
and/or groundwater management plan to address the ootificatioo, monitoring,
sampling, testing, handling, storage, and disposal of contaminated medium
substances (soil, groundwater). The qualified environmental consultant shall
monitor excavations and grading activities in accordance with the plan. The
groundwater zuuuugaoumut and monitoring plans shall be approved by the City prior
to development ofthe site.
2. The applicant shall submit documentation showing that ooutunduuted soil and/or
groundwater on proposed development puzcal have been avoided orremediutedto
meet cleanup requirements established 6v appropriate local regulatory agencies
(RWQCB/Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC]/Department of
Environmental Health [DB0) based on the future planned land use of the specific
area within the boundaries of the site d.e, commercial, resideutiaD. and that the
Page 36
May l2.20l8
Resolution 2OIG'2T Exhibit B
risk to human health of future occupants of these areas therefore has been reduced
to below u level of significance.
8. The applicant shall obtain written authorization from the appropriate regulatory
agency (RW0C8/DT80DEH) confirming the completion ofremodiatioo. A copy of
the authorization shall be submitted to the City to confirm that all appropriate
remediation has been completed and that the proposed development parcel has been
cleaned up to the satisfaction of the regulatory agency. In the situation vrbaze
previous contamination has occurred on u site that has a previously closed
cuaa or on
a site included no u list of 6uuazJoua materials sites compiled pursuant to
(3ovezuzoeut Coda Section 65962.5, the DEfI shall ba notified ofthe proposed land
use.
4. All cleanup activities shall be performed io accordance with all applicable Federal,
State, and local laws and regulations, and required permits shall be secured prior to
oonuzueoneznamt of construction to the satisfaction of the City and compliance with
applicable regulatory agencies such uo but not limited tothe Eocioboo Municipal
Code
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA (]nidmlbzua Section 15091(a)(1). changes or ulhyrotbooa are required to,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
as identified in the I6nu| 9p|Dtn u level ofinsignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
BAZ'l is u feasible oueueuce and shall be required as u condition of approval and made u
binding condition of future development of applicable housing sites. Implementation of this
mitigation zuenaore would reduce the significant iouyurte related to uocidoutu) cclouoo of
hazardous anbetuuoea because it requires future development to prepare a Phase I ESA
that would identify the presence of any hazardous conditions and require renuediutiou of
any contaminants prior to development. The zueoeuze {uc[bez opeoJGeo that written
authorization shall be obtained from the appropriate agency with regulatory oversight over
the clean-up. For these reasons, implementation of mitigation measure llAZ-1 would reduce
significant impacts to uleea than significant level for all housing strategies and the GMlJP
Alternative. '
Page 37
May I2,10lG
Resolution 2OI8'27 Exhibit D
Thresholds of Significance Issue 3: Emissions near uSchool
Poraomot to leeum 3, u significant impact would occur if the project vrou|6 emit hazardous
emissions urhandle hazardous or acutely hazardous nouteriula, avbatuucee' nr waste within
one-quarter udlo of an existing or proposed school.
Impacts
Significant impacts due to potential emissions or handling of hazardous materials ndtbiu
one-quarter mile of school were identified for each of the three housing strategies and the
SMUP Alternative because housing sites may contain unknown subsurface contaminants or
may contain hazardous materials within existing structures that could pose u health risk.
Baouuao schools are located within O.25 mile of housing sites within each housing strategy,
as well as the uncertainty ofwhere future schools may be sited in the future, there would
be potentially significant impacts associated with buourdooe ezuiaeiooa uauz schools.
Explanation
If development occurs oua housing site with contamination or hazardous materials ou-aite.
accidental release of these materials near uschool would represent aDotentially significant
Mitigation
DetbrtouitigpationozoaourallAZ- Ibothapreviooaeeutbou.
Finding
Pursuant to CBQA8uideboes Section 15091(a)(1). changes oralterations are required in,
m incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effed
as identified in the Final PEI1l to u level of insignificance. Specifically, cudbgutkoo zueuanre
I£AZ'l is u &aoaib}e measure and abaD be required as u condition of approval and ouuda u
binding condition o[future development. Implementation nf this mitigation measure would
reduce the significant impacts related to ecoiaaioua uaac u acbon| because it rvon|d ensure
that prior to development of each housing site, u Phase I ESA would be completed that
would identify the presence of any huuucJuoa conditions and require cozuediution of any
contaminants prior to development. The measure further specifies that written
authorization shall he obtained from the appropriate agency with regulatory oversight over
Page 38
May 12,2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
the clean -up. For these reasons, implementation of mitigation measure HAZ -1 would reduce
significant impacts related to emissions near a school to a less than significant level for all
housing strategies and the SMUP Alternative.
Reference: Final PEIR Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
Thresholds of Significance Issue 9: Flooding /Inundation
Pursuant to Issue 9, a significant impact would occur if the project would expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
Impacts
Buildout of the HEU would result in potentially significant impacts related to dam
inundation and flooding hazards for all housing strategies and the SMUP Alternative.
Specifically, potentially significant dam inundation impacts would occur with development
of housing sites C -6, 0-2, and 0-4 and potentially significant impacts related to flood
hazard areas at housing sites ALT -2, ALT -6, ALT -7, L -1, L -2, and OE -2 would occur
(Impact HYD -1).
Explanation
Implementation of the IIEU would result in potentially significant impacts due to potential
dam inundation hazards at three housing sites (C -6, 0-2, and 0-4), affecting all three
housing strategies and the SMUP Alternative. These sites are located within a dam
inundation area, which means they could be inundated in the event of a dam or levee
failure. While there are several policies in the General Plan (refer to Final PEIR
Chapter 4.8, Table 4.8 -4) that address flood hazards, potential impacts associated with dam
inundation are not specifically addressed through the current regulatory framework. Thus,
impacts associated with dam inundation would be potentially significant for housing sites
C -6, 0 -2, and 0 -4.
Page 39
May 12, 2016
`
Resolution 20I6'27 Exhibit B
Mitigation
HYD'l: Applications for future development of housing sites consistent with the new zone
pcoAcanz, wherein the City has determined u potential for flooding iuqpucte, shall be
reviewed by the City for compliance with applicable components uf the City's Floodplmin
MuuuAerueut Regulations, specifically Section 23.40.05I, nddcb includes standards for
construction in areas of special flood hazard. All future development on buneiuA sites
consistent with the new zone program, located within mapped flood problem areas or duro
inundation ureue, aboU be designed to reduce potential flooding hazards subject to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section l§09l(a)(I)' changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
as identified in the Final P]QIR to u level of insignificance. 8peci6raUv, coidgotino noeueuoe
Ig\]]'l is u feasible zueueucu and shall be required as o condition of approval and made u
binding condition of future development of applicable housing sites. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce the significant impacts related to flood hazards because it
would require future development to be designed to reduce potential flooding hazards to the
eo6e[oc600 of the City Engineer. For these reuaone, implementation of mitigation zueueuce
II}D-1 would reduce significant flooding impacts to a less than significant level for all
housing strategies and the SMTJP Alternative.
Reference: Fiou}PKIR Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
6. Land Use and Planning
Thresholds of Sianificance Issue 3: Neighborhood Compatibility (Noise)
Pursuant to Issue 3'u significant impact would occur if the project would result in
substantial neighborhood compatibility impacts associated with significant traffic, noise, or
aesthetics impacts.
Impacts
Neighborhood compatibility impacts associated with on-site noise generation were
identified for all three housing strategies and the 8MUP Alternative in the Final I,ICIR
Page 40
May l%.%OIG
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
because at a program -level of analysis it cannot be ensured that each future project would
be capable of reducing noise levels to comply with City standards. Thus, significant
neighborhood compatibility impacts were identified in association with on -site noise levels
(Impact LU -2).
Significant and unavoidable impacts related to neighborhood compatibility were identified
for traffic and aesthetics for all three housing strategies and the SMUP Alternative. These
findings are provided in Section IX, Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Explanation
A significant neighborhood compatibility impact was identified related to noise because the
HEU would allow development of new residential uses adjacent to existing uses that may
be a significant source of noise. New housing sites may be exposed to noise levels in excess
of the City standards due to proposed noise generating uses in the case of mixed use sites or
due to siting adjacent to existing noise sources such as commercial uses. Thus,
neighborhood incompatibility impacts resulting from exposure of new noise sensitive land
uses to noise levels in excess of City standards would occur.
Mitigation
NOS -1: Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development consistent with the new
zone program, wherein residential development would be located adjacent to commercial
uses, the City shall require a site - specific noise study. The study shall determine if on -site
generated noise levels exceed the property line noise level limits in the Noise Ordinance
and to present appropriate mitigation measures, which may include, but are not limited to
the following:
• Require the placement of loading and unloading areas so that commercial buildings
shield nearby residential land uses from noise generated by loading dock and
delivery activities. If necessary, additional sound barriers shall be constructed on
the commercial sites to protect nearby noise sensitive uses and hours of delivery can
be limited if determined as needed through the study.
Page 41
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2OIG'2T Exhibit B
* Require the placement of all commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) machinery to be placed within mechanical equipment rooms wherever
possible.
» 8agoioa the provision ofkmuliz*duoise barriers or rooftop parapets uconudI{\AC`
cooling towers, and mechanical equipment so that line-of-sight to the noise source
from the property line of the noise sensitive receptors is blocked.
Finding
Pursuant to CEWAGuidelbnea Section 15091(a)(1)' obuuAee or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effeot
oa identified iu the Final PElIltou level nfinsignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
NOS -1 is u baooiblo zueaenrm and abuD be required as o condition of approval and made u
binding condition of future development of applicable housing sites, Implementation of this
mitigation zoeuauzo would reduce the significant boyucta related to exposure of noise
sensitive land uses to noise levels in excess of City standards. For these reasons,
implementation of mitigation measure NOS-1 would reduce significant neighborhood
compatibility impacts related to noise to u less than significant level for all housing
strategies and the SM[P Alternative.
Thresholds of Significance Issue 5: Noiem/LandKJae Compatibility
Pursuant to Issue 3'o significant impact would occur if the project would result in exposure
of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan.
Impacts
Noise—land use compatibility impacts were identified for all three housing strategies and
the SMUP Alternative in the Final PEID because all of the housing sites are located
adjacent to roadways or trean/uya that would generate noise levels greater than the
standards established inthe City's General Plan (|ouDactlJJ'3).
Explanation
As shown iuthe Fiuu}PEIR. Figures 4.9-4 through 4.9'8, all of the housing sites are located
adjacent to roadways or freeways that would generate noise levels in excess of City
Page 42
May l2.2VI6
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
standards. The City General Plan Noise Element includes noise compatibility standards,
which are specified in the Final PEIR, Table 4.9 -17. As indicated, the standards indicate
that exterior noise levels below 60 day -night equivalent level (Lan) are considered "normally
acceptable" for residential uses while noise levels greater than 70 Lan are considered
"conditionally compatible" for residential uses.
All housing sites are located adjacent to roadways or freeways that would generate noise
levels in excess than 60 Lan, which is in excess of the City's "normally acceptable" exterior
noise compatibility level. Additionally, the following housing sites are located adjacent to
roadways or freeways that would generate noise levels greater than the City's
"conditionally acceptable" exterior noise compatibility level of 70 Lan: Alt -2, Alt -3, Alt -4, Alt -
6, Alt -7, C -1, C -6, CBHMG -1, L -4, L -5, L -6, NE -1, NE -4, NE -7, 0 -2, 0 -3, 0 -4, 0 -5, 0 -6, OE-
2, OE -5, OE -7, and OE -8. While noise control measures such as site design, sound walls,
and other measures would likely be feasible to reduce noise to acceptable levels; at a
program -level of analysis and without specific project design, impacts due to potential
inconsistency with the City General Plan Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines are
considered potentially significant.
Mitigation
LU -1: As part of the City's design review and entitlement process for housing sites, to the
extent practicable, the City should avoid siting sensitive exterior areas associated with
future residential uses within the 70 Lan exterior traffic noise contour distances to the
extent practicable and in consideration of other Zoning Standards and Design Guidelines. If
sensitive receptors are to be located within the 70 La, exterior noise contour, outdoor
activity areas shall be shielded from the noise source using site design measures such as
building orientation or sound walls to maintain a 70 Lan exterior: noise level for noise
sensitive exterior areas.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
as identified in the Final PEIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
LU -1 is a feasible measure and shall be required as a condition of approval and made a
Page 43
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
binding condition of future development of housing sites. Implementation of this mitigation
measure would reduce the significant impacts related to exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan. For
these reasons, implementation of mitigation measure LU -1 would reduce significant
noise /land use compatibility impacts to a less than significant level for all housing
strategies and the SMUP Alternative.
Reference: Final PEIR Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Chapter 4. 10, Noise and Appendix O,
Noise Methodology and Modeling.
7. Noise
Thresholds of Significance Issue 2: On -site Generated Noise
Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in exposure
of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of limits established in the noise
ordinance. The applicable property line noise level limits for each housing site are
summarized in the Final PEIR, Table 4.10 -10.
Impacts
Future on -site generated noise sources would have the potential to exceed to property line
noise level limits established in the City's Noise Ordinance due to stationary noise sources
such as HVAC equipment. These impacts would occur for all three housing strategies and
the SMUP Alternative. Without detailed operational data, it cannot be verified that future
projects implemented in accordance with the HEU would be capable of reducing noise levels
to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance property line standards (Impact NOS -1).
Explanation
The noise sources associated with future development proposed under the HEU would be
those typical of any residential development (vehicles arriving and leaving, children at play
and landscape maintenance machinery). None of these noise sources are anticipated to
violate the City's Municipal Code or result in a substantial permanent increase in existing
noise levels. However, HVAC equipment and commercial and retail components of mixed-
use developments (commercial- related mechanical equipment, loading docks, deliveries,
trash - hauling activities and customer and employee use of commercial facilities) would
Page 44
May ].2, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
have the potential to generate noise in excess of property line standards. Without site -
specific operational information and equipment specifications, it is not possible to verify
that impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Verification that future
projects consistent with the HEU comply with the City's Noise Ordinance property line
standards would be determined at the project -level through implementation of NOS -1.
Mitigation
NOS -1: Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development consistent with the new
zone program, wherein residential development would be located adjacent to commercial
uses, the City shall require a site - specific noise study. The study shall determine if on -site
generated noise levels exceed the property line noise level limits in the Noise Ordinance
and to present appropriate mitigation measures, which may include, but are not limited to
the following:.
• Require the placement of loading and unloading areas so that commercial buildings
shield nearby residential land uses from noise generated by loading dock and
delivery activities. If necessary, additional sound barriers shall be constructed on
the commercial sites to protect nearby noise sensitive uses and hours of delivery can
be limited if determined as needed through the study.
• Require the placement of all commercial HVAC machinery to be placed within
mechanical equipment rooms wherever possible.
• Require the provision of localized noise barriers or rooftop parapets around HVAC,
cooling towers, and mechanical equipment so that line -of -sight to the noise source
from the property line of the noise sensitive receptors is blocked.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect
as identified in the Final PEIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
NOS -1 is a feasible measure and shall be required as a condition of approval and made a
binding condition of future development of housing sites. Implementation of this mitigation
measure would reduce the significant impacts related to compliance with City Noise
Page 45
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
Ordinance property line standards because it would ensure that future project complete
site - specific noise studies to demonstrate Noise Ordinance property line noise level limits
are met. For these reasons, implementation of mitigation measure NOS -1 would reduce
significant on -site generated noise impacts to a less than significant level for all housing
strategies and the SMUP Alternative.
Thresholds of Significance Issue 3: Temporary Noise
Pursuant to Issue 3, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
Impacts
Based on an evaluation of average construction noise levels and distances to residential
land uses from each housing site, it was determined that significant temporary noise
impacts resulting from construction noise would occur if residential land uses are located
closer than 110 feet of construction activities. Based on these distances, significant
temporary noise impacts due to construction activities were identified at the following
housing sites: C-7, L -2, L -6, OE -5, ALT -2, ALT -7, and CBHMG -1. Average construction
noise levels at these housing sites would exceed the limit of 75 dB(A) average sound level
Lng(s) established in the City's Municipal Code for housing strategies 1 and 3 and the SMUP
Alternative (Impact NOS -2).
Explanation
As detailed in the Final PEIR, Table 4.10 -11, certain housing sites would be located at a
closer distance to adjacent residential property lines. Those housing sites with adjacent
residential property lines located less than 110 feet from the acoustic center of construction
activities would result in a construction noise impact due to noise levels in excess of the
limit of 75 dB(A) Leg(8) established in the City's Municipal Code. For these sites, a site -
specific noise control plan would need to be developed and implemented to require noise
control measures to ensure property line noise levels do not exceed the 75 dB(A) Legs) noise
level limit established in the City's Municipal Code.
Page 46
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2Ol6'2T Exhibit 8
Mitigation
NOB-2: Prior to the issuance of future construction permits at the housing ait*e. u
Construction Noise Control Plan shall be submitted to the City's Planning and Building
Department for review and approval. The plan shall daruooatruta that all construction
activity aboD be in cooupbuooe with noise standards provided in Section 8.82 of the City's
Municipal Code. The construction noise control plan can include, but is not limited to. the
*
Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled uonnr6bnc to industry
standards and is in good working condition.
* Place construction equipment and locate construction staging areas
away from sensitive uses, where feasible.
* Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include,
but are not limited tu, temporary noise barriers ornoise blankets around stationary
construction noise sources.
0 Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment,
where feasible.
° d equipment, heury'JuL" egoiyozauL ozotuc vehicles,
and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than
5zuioutee.
«
Construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday. No construction ie permitted ou Sundays or legal holidays.
� Construction hours, allowable workdays and the phone number of the job
superintendent ebnO be clearly posted at all construction outrmuoea to uDovv for
surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the County
or the job superintendent receives ucucup|uiut. the superintendent shall investigate,
take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting
DurL}.
Page 47
May 12,2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit
� Project developers shall require ly contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks
used during construction would bo routed away from residential streets to the extent
feasible. Contract apeuifioutb000 shall be included ioconstruction d0000ueuto, vvbicb
shall bo reviewed by the City prior to issuance nfu grading permit.
Finding
yuzauuot to CEQAGuidelinea Section 15881(a)(1)' changes ocalterations are required in,
or incorporated into, tba project that will substantially b*oaen or avoid the significant effeut
as identified in the Final PEIIl to u level of insignificance. Spouifiuully, mitigation ouooanre
NOG-2 is a feasible 000aaore and shall be required as u condition of approval and made u
binding condition of future development of applicable housing sites. Implementation of this
mitigation coeuanre would reduce the significant impacts related to temporary noise
because it requires preparation of edo-npmcdDo construction noise control plan that would
incorporate zoeoanrea to ensure noise levels comply with noise standards provided in
Section 9.32 of the City's Municipal Code. For these rouaooa, implementation of mitigation
cuoueure NOG'2 would reduce significant temporary noise impacts to u1aea than significant
level for housing strategies l and 3 and the 8MTJPA]ternutive.
Reference: Final PE[B Chapter 4.10. Noise and Appendix O, Noise Methodology and
Modeling.
B. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
l. Aesthetics
Threshold wX Significance Issue 2: Public Views
Pursuant to Issue 2'u significant impact would occur if the project resulted inu
development that:
u. Is incompatible in shape, f000z' or intensity, such that public views from designated
open space ureao, view corridors or scenic bigbn'uya, or to any significant visual
landmarks oc scenic vistas would be substantially blocked; uz
b. Is located in u highly visible area (e.g., on a canyon edge, hilltop oc adjacent to on
interstate and would strongly contrast with the surrounding development
Page 48
May l2.20IS
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
or natural topography through excessive height, bulk, signage, or architectural
projections.
Impacts
A potentially significant impact to public views would occur with implementation of
housing strategies 2 and 3 (BYO and MMUP, respectively) due to future development of
housing site 0-4 (Impact VIS -1). Development of this site would impact scenic views of the
San Elijo Lagoon from the scenic roadways South El Camino Real and Manchester Avenue
particularly for southbound travelers along South El Camino Real to southbound
Manchester where expansive views toward San Elijo Lagoon would be substantially blocked
by development of a Neighborhood Center /Mixed Use -Large Site neighborhood prototype.
Housing strategy 1 (RM) and the SMUP Alternative do not include housing site 0 -4, and
therefore, would preclude Impact VIS -1.
Explanation
Housing site 0 -4 is located adjacent to the scenic roadway, Manchester Avenue, and is
within a designed scenic view corridor as shown in the Final PEIR, Figure 4.1 -3. Under the
new zone provisions, the site would be developed with the Neighborhood Center /Mixed Use -
Large Site neighborhood prototype, which would allow two to three stories of mixed use
development. A development of this scale would block scenic views of the San Elijo Lagoon
from South El Camino Real and Manchester Avenue. The project includes new zone
standards and design guidelines are intended to maximize consistency with the
surrounding land use context, including preserving significant views; however, even with
implementation of these standards and guidelines, development of housing site 0-4 would
substantially block a scenic vista.
Mitigation
No mitigation has been identified at the plan level to minimize the adverse impact to views
resulting from development on housing site 0 -4.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible mitigation
measures to reduce the impact to public views to below a level of significance. The project
Page 49
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
has incorporated features to the maximum extent feasible that would minimize impacts to
public views. The new zone standards and design guidelines that are part of the project
would preserve significant views to the extent feasible, but even with incorporation of those
requirements, the bulk and scale of development at housing site 0 -4 would still result in a
significant impact to public views from adjacent roadways. It is not feasible to implement a
measure that would require a specific design or grading approach (such as development
below grade) because site - specific environmental studies (such as geotechnical
investigations) would need to be completed to determine feasibility of such a measure. At a
program -level of analysis, it is not feasible to conduct site - specific studies as there is no
current development proposal at the site and no developer to fund such studies and designs.
However, housing strategy 1 (RM) and the SMUP Alternative would eliminate housing site
0-4 from the HEU and would thus, avoid the significant impact to public views associated
with development of this site. Since the SMUP Alternative was found to be feasible and
would meet the project objectives, the City has elected to consider the SMUP Alternative for
adoption. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the
decision makers choose to approve either housing strategy 2 (BYO) or housing strategy 3
(MMUP). If the decision maker chooses to adopt housing strategy 1 (RM) or the SMUP
Alternative, a significant unavoidable impact to public views would be avoided and no
statement of overriding considerations would be required for Issue 2, Public Views.
Threshold of Significance Issue 3: Community Character
Pursuant to Issue 3, a significant impact would occur if the project would introduce features
which would conflict with important visual elements or the quality of the
community /neighborhood (such as theme, style, setbacks, density, size, massing, coverage,
scale, color, architecture, building materials, light /glare, etc.) and would thereby negatively
and substantially alter the existing character of neighborhoods.
Impacts
Implementation of any of the three housing strategies would result in a potentially
significant impact to community character, specifically associated with development of
housing sites L -7, 0 -4, and 0 -5 (Impacts VIS -2, VIS -3, and VIS -4, respectively). These
impacts would occur because even with application of the zoning standards and design
Page 50
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
guidelines, development of these sites at the intensity required to meet housing element
goals would result in a scale of development inconsistent with the surrounding low- scale,
rural environment. These housing sites would not be included in the SMUP Alternative.
Therefore, impacts to community character would be less than the HEU.
Explanation
Housing site L -7 is a vacant site accessed from the two -lane road, Quail Gardens Drive and
is surrounded by low density residential uses and agriculture. Development of this housing
site with the Residential Infill- Medium to Large Site prototype would be potentially
inconsistent with the surrounding community setting. Housing site 0 -4 is a vacant site
located at the southeast corner of Manchester: Avenue and El Camino Real. Housing site 0-
5 is located at the northeast corner of the Manchester Avenue and El Camino Real
intersection. The character of housing sites 0 -4 and 0 -5 is rural and the sites are located at
the western edge of the more rural areas further east along Manchester Avenue.
Development of housing site 0 -4 with the Neighborhood Center /Mixed Use -Large Site
prototype would allow two to three stories of mixed use development which would be
potentially inconsistent with the rural setting that dominates the site and the lands further
east along Manchester Avenue. Similarly, development of housing site 0 -5 with the
Residential Infill -Small Site Neighborhood Prototype would allow two- to three -story multi-
family residential development at a density of 20 to 30 units per acre. Although
implementation of zoning standards and design guidelines would ensure development
complements the rural character of the area, the scale and density of development would be
incompatible with the surrounding rural community character.
Mitigation
No mitigation has been identified to fully mitigate the community character impacts at
housing sites L -7, 0-4, and 0-5. The new zone standards and design guidelines are
intended to maximize consistency with the surrounding land use context, including
minimizing community character impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the
intent of the new zone is to respond to neighborhood character, be compatible with
community specific settings, and promote basic best practices in urban design. The
proposed zoning code would achieve this goal by regulating site density, percent building
coverage allowance, required usable open space, and building setbacks, height, articulation,
Page 51
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
and transparency. However, even with implementation of these standards, community
character impacts at these three housing sites would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible mitigation
measures to reduce the impact to community character to below a level of significance. The
project has incorporated project features (zoning standards, design guidelines) to the
maximum extent feasible that would minimize impacts to community character. The new
zone standards and design guidelines that are part of the project would maximize
compatibility with the surrounding land use context to some extent; however, even with
incorporation of those requirements, the bulk and scale of development at housing sites L -7,
0-4, and 0-5 would contrast with the rural character in the area, resulting in a significant
impact to community character.
However, one of the feasible project alternatives, the SMUP Alternative, would eliminate
housing sites L -7 and 0-4 and would thus, avoid the significant impact to community
character associated with development on these housing sites. Since the SMUP Alternative
was found to be feasible and would meet the project objectives, the City has elected to
consider the SMUP Alternative for adoption. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations would be required should the decision makers choose to approve any of the
three housing strategies (RM, BYO, MMUP). A Statement of Overriding Considerations for
Issue 3, Community Character would not be required if the City chooses to adopt the SMUP
Alternative since sites L -7, 0-4, and 0-5 would be removed from the HEU under this
alternative.
Threshold of Significance Issue 4: Scenic Resources
Pursuant to Issue 4, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in the
physical loss, isolation, degradation, or destruction of a visual resource or community
identification symbol or landmark or other features that contribute to the valued visual
character or image of the neighborhood, community, or localized area (e.g., a stand of
mature trees, coastal bluff, native habitat, historic Landmark).
Page 52
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
Impacts
Development of housing strategies 2 and 3 (BYO and MMUP, respectively) would result in
potentially significant impacts to scenic resources. Specifically, development of housing site
0-4 would result in a potentially significant impact to scenic resources because it would
impact mature vegetation that is a visual extension of the natural open space associated
with Escondido Creek and the San Elijo Lagoon to the south (Impact VIS -5). Housing
strategy 1 (RM) and the SMUP Alternative do not include housing site 0-4, and therefore,
would preclude Impact VIS -5.
Explanation
The eastern edge of housing site 0-4 contains a large stand of mature vegetation that is a
visual extension of the natural open space associated with Escondido Creek and the San
Elijo Lagoon to the south. Development of this site at proposed housing densities would
require development of the majority of the site, which would eliminate this scenic resource,
resulting in a significant impact.
Mitigation
No additional mitigation at the program -level is available to avoid the adverse impact to
scenic resources resulting from development of site 0-4.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts to scenic resources to below a level of significance. The
project has incorporated new zoning standards and design guidelines that are part of the
project that impose standards intended to preserve scenic resources to the maximum extent
practicable. However, even with incorporation of those requirements, significant and
unavoidable impacts to scenic resources at housing site 0-4 would occur.
At this program -level of analysis, it is not feasible to implement a measure requiring a site
specific design or grading proposal because there is no current development proposed and
there is no developer to fund project- specific feasibility and environmental studies to ensure
feasibility of such a measure.
Page 53
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2OIG'27 Exhibit B
However, housing strategy l (KM) and the SMTJP Alternative would eliminate housing site
0-4 and would thus, avoid the significant impact to scenic resources uoaoubded with
development of this site. Since the SMUP Alternative was found to be feasible and would
meet the project objectives, the City has elected to consider the 8MTJI` Alternative for
adoption. Adoption of Gtataoumut of Overriding Considerations related to scenic resources
would be required should the decision makers choose to approve housing strategies 2 (BYO)
or 3 (MMTJY). However, if the Oity chooses to adopt housing strategy l (IlM) or the BMLJI,
Alternative, no Biatozuoot of Overriding Considerations would be required for Issue 4,
Scenic Resources since the alternative would remove housing site 0-4 from the I{ETI.
Reference: 1piool PEIIl (7hupiez 4.1 Aesthetics and Chapter 9, Alternatives, Appendix I,
Photo Survey.
2' Air Quality
Threshold of Significance Issue l: Consistency with Regional Air Quality Strategy
Pursuant to loane l' o significant bopuot would occur if the pcojeot would conflict with the
of FU\Q , �
pczrour7goals o
Impacts
From a long-term planning standpoint, implementation of any housing strategy of the HEU
or the 8M}JP /\beroatbm vvooJd not comply with the ezia(jug aeouozytioma of density and
land use used to develop the RAQS and applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Explanation
OARB mobile source emission projections and GANDA8growth projections are based oo
population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by cities. As such, projects that
propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the general plan (or
|eaa dense) vrunld be consistent with the R\US. }Cu project proposes development that is
greater than what ie assumed in 8ANDA8'e growth projections upon which the RAC)8 is
based, then the project would be iu conflict with the DA()8 and SIP. Since the fIfClTwould
result in uu increase iothe u8ovvublo Juueidme and development potential within the City,
all of the housing strategies and the GMTJP Alternative would conflict with the RA0G.
resulting ina potentially significant impact.
Page 54
May l2.2Ol6
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
Mitigation
AQ -1: Prior to the next update of the regional housing needs assessment and within six
months of the certification of the Final PEIR, the City shall provide a revised housing
forecast to SANDAG to ensure that any revisions to the population and employment
projections used by San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) in updating the
RAQS and the SIP will accurately reflect anticipated growth due to the HEU.
Despite implementation of mitigation measure AQ -1, direct and cumulative impacts
relative to conformance with the RAQS would remain significant and unavoidable because
the HEU would be inconsistent with the population and employment projections used to
develop the RAQS.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2), updating the RAQS and SIP is within
the exclusive jurisdiction of SDAPCD, not the City, and SDAPCD can and should adopt
updated RAQS and SIP that incorporates the increase in allowable densities authorized by
the HEU; and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible
mitigation measures to reduce the impact to below a level of significance. The project is
required to implement mitigation measure AQ -l. Mitigation measure AQ -1 would ensure
that SANDAG is provided with information that would assist them in revising the housing
forecasts; however, until the anticipated growth is included in the emission estimates of the
RAQS and the SIP, direct and cumulative impacts relative to conformance with the RAQS
would remain significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the City has no control over when
the SDAPCD updates the RAQS; therefore, additional mitigation is not feasible. Adoption
of a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to Issue 1, consistency with the RAQS
would be required for all three housing strategies and the SMUP Alternative.
Reference: Final PEIR Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, Chapter 9, Alternatives, Appendix J, Air
Quality Methodology and Modeling.
Page 55
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
3. Cultural Resources
Threshold of Significance Issue 1: Historical Resources
Pursuant to Issue 1, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in the
alteration, including the adverse physical or aesthetic effects and /or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic structure, object or site.
Impacts
Direct impacts to historical resources could potentially result from the physical demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historical resources within the housing
sites (Impact CUL -1) under any of the housing strategies or the SMUP Alternative.
Explanation
The following housing sites are identified as containing potentially significant historical
structures and/or sites: ALT -2, ALT -7, L -1, and OE -1. Additionally, as implementation of
the HEU has development potential over the next 20+ years, the following housing sites
contain buildings or structures that may be 50 years of age or older at the time of future
development and, therefore, may need to be evaluated for historical significance: ALT -2,
ALT -3, ALT -4, ALT -6, ALT -7, C -1, C -2, C -3, C -6, C -7, L -1, L -2, L -5, L -6, NE -1, NE -3, NE -4,
NE -7, 0 -3, 0 -5, OE -1, OE -2, OE -4, OE -5, OE -7, OE -8, and CBHMG -1. Significant historic
resources are typically identified through on -site reconnaissance in conjunction with
specific development projects, and development is required to comply with applicable
federal and state laws that concern the preservation of historical resources, including the
National Historic Preservation Act and CEQA. However, site - specific development
proposals are not currently evaluated at this program- level. of analysis and specific impacts
to historic resources and associated preservation requirements are unknown. Thus, direct
or indirect impacts to historic resources could occur and would be potentially significant.
Mitigation
CUL -1: Applications for future development of housing sites consistent with the new zone
program, wherein the City has determined a potential for impacts to historical resources,
shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:
Page 56
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2Ol6'27 Exhibit B
(a) Prior to the issuance of any permit for a future development pnoject, the age and
original structural integrity and context of any buildings/structures occnoingoothe
housing sites shall be verified. The project applicant shall submit in conjunction
with the development permit application, verification of the age and original
structural integrity o[ all on-site structures.
0V For nny ein excess ofG0 years of age huvin��e original structural
integrity intact, a qualified pzn8aaainuol historian shall JateruzLoe whether the
affected building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation of historic
ncobihpctnrol resources abaD be based on criteria such as nge, kmutioo' ooutmsf,
association with an important person orevent, uniquauoea, or structural integrity,
as indicated in (3E()A Guidelines Section 15064.5. Ahiatoriou1 zeeoozoe report nbaU
be submitted by the project applicant tothe City and shall include the zuotbnde used
to determine the presence or absence of historical resources, identify potential
izupuoto from the proposed project, and evaluate the significance of any historical
resources identified.
Although ant impacts to historical resources may be mitigated through future
review of project-specific development proposals in uocordouuo with CT7L-1. it cannot be
assured that mitigation for each bnnaiug site would be bauaiblo at this program-level of
uou|yaio. Therefore, the impact to historical resources is considered significant and
unavoidable,
Finding
Pursuant to CBQA Guidelines Section 15081(a)(3). ioupuota on cultural resources may
remain significant even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation and there are no
feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to below u level of significance. The
project is required | o � L eoeo ( mitigation ueueuzo C[l l ' which requires completion o f
a
historical survey prior to development of certain sites with potential historic resources.
Notwithstanding implementation of this requirement for historical surveys prior to
development, impact O[TI''l would remain significant and unmitigated. Additional
mitigation for this direct impact would be infeasible because without site-specific surveys, it
cannot be ensured that mitigation nt each site would be feasible to implement. Site-specific
Page 57
May 12,2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
evaluation associated with proposed project footprints would be required to ensure each
potential impact can be feasibly mitigated.
However, one of the feasible project alternatives, the SMUP Alternative, would remove
housing sites C -2, CBHMG -1, ALT -5, and ALT -6 from the HEU, all of which contain
potential historic resources. Thus, the SMUP Alternative would reduce the potentially
significant impact to historic resources compared to any of the proposed housing strategies
because fewer sites would have the potential for historic resources to be impacted. Adoption
of the SMUP Alternative would reduce but not completely avoid potentially significant and
unavoidable impacts to historical resources. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations related to Issue 1, Historic Resources would be required for all three
housing strategies and the SMUP Alternative.
Threshold of Significance Issue 2: Archaeological Resources
Pursuant to Issue 2, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in any
impact to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area.
Impacts
While the HEU does not specifically propose alteration of a known archaeological resource
or ground - disturbing activities such as grading or excavation, it can be assumed that future
development of housing sites could have the potential to directly or indirectly impact
undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources through such activities. The following
housing sites consist, at least in part, of undeveloped land and /or have been mapped as
having `high sensitivity' for archaeological resources by the General Plan Resource
Management Element. Future development of these sites has the potential to significantly
impact archaeological resources: ALT -4, ALT -5, C -6, L -4, L -7, NE -3, 0 -2, 0 -4, 0 -5, 0 -6,
OE -1, OE -2, and OE -7 (Impact CUL -2) under any of the housing strategies or the SMUP
Alternative.
Explanation
As identified in the Final PEIR, Table 4.4 -3, there are existing policies and regulations
aimed at protection of archaeological resources. As future projects are planned they would
be required to adhere to these policies and regulations. However, as the site- specific
archaeological conditions are unknown at a program -level of analysis, it is unknown
Page 58
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
whether direct or indirect impacts to archaeological resources would be potentially
significant.
Mitigation
CUL -2: Applications for future development of housing sites consistent with the new zone
program, wherein the City has determined a potential for impacts to historical resources,
shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:
Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development consistent with the new zone
program located on a previously undisturbed housing site, an archaeological survey shall be
conducted by a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the presence of archaeological resources
and the need for project impact mitigation by preservation, relocation, or other methods.
The archaeological survey should include a records search at the South Coastal Information
Center branch of the California Historical Research Information System, to determine if
previously recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources exist on the housing
site. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission should be contacted to perform
a Sacred Lands File Search. An archaeological resource report detailing the results of the
record search, Sacred Lands Search, and the field survey of the housing site shall be
submitted by the project applicant to the City. The report shall include the methods used
to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources, identify potential impacts
from the proposed project, and evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources
identified. If potentially significant impacts to an identified archaeological resource are
identified, the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to
below a level of significance. All information regarding site locations, Native American
human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential
addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. Reports shall be submitted to
the South Coastal Information Center upon finalization.
Although significant impacts to archaeological resources may be mitigated through future
review of project- specific development proposals in accordance with CUL -2, specific
mitigation to ensure impacts would be fully mitigated to a less than significant level at the
program -level EIR is not available since specific development projects are not known at this
time. Therefore, the impact to archaeological resources is considered significant and
unavoidable.
Page 59
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), impacts on cultural resources may
remain significant even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation and there are no
feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. The
project is required to implement mitigation measure CUL -2, which requires an
archaeological survey of specified sites prior to development. Notwithstanding
implementation of the requirements of measure CUL -2, impacts to archaeological resources
would remain significant and unmitigated. Additional mitigation for these direct impacts
would be infeasible because without site - specific surveys, it cannot be ensured that
mitigation at each site would be feasible to implement. At this program -level of analysis, it
is not feasible to complete a site- specific evaluation for each site, as the proposed project
footprints would be required to ensure each potential impact can be feasibly mitigated.
However, one of the feasible project alternatives, the SMUP Alternative, would eliminate
housing sites ALT -5, L -7, 0-2 and 0-4, all of which contain potential archaeological
resources. Thus, the project would avoid the potentially significant impact to archaeological
resources associated with development of these sites. Adoption of the SMUP Alternative
would reduce but not completely avoid potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to
archaeological resources. Thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
required with adoption of any of the three housing strategies or the SMUP Alternative.
Reference: Final PEIR Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources and Chapter 9, Alternatives.
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold of Significance Issue 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pursuant to Issue 1, a significant impact would occur if the project generates greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. No scientific
or regulatory consensus exists regarding what particular quantity of GHG emissions is
considered significant, and there remains no applicable, adopted numeric threshold for
assessing the significance of a project's emissions. The analysis also considers the
significance of the GHG emissions based on compliance with regulatory programs designed
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as SB 375, the Energy Code, the CalGreen Code,
Assembly Bill 341, and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Page 60
May 12, 2016
Resolution 201G-27 Exhibit B
linpacts
GI{G aodaeioua would be associated with the future construction and operation of each
housing site and emissions would be proportional to the size of proposed development. The
primary oonroua ofdirect and indirect GfIQ eouieaioue were calculated for boidout of the
HElJ as detailed iu the Final PEIIl. 7,ub1m 4.6-7. The analysis estimates u numeric increase
in 8IIG emission of approximately 42,699 to 55'458 metric tons Of COz
equivalent (XI7,(]O2IC) uouuaDv; hovvevec, this number is not a sufficiently informative or
reliable indicator ofthe oiguifiuuooe of the project's QHGeouiseioos. 7,bue' the analysis also
considers the BEU'aconsistency with regulatory programs related toGH8 emission. The
analysis concludes that future development under the HElJ would result in significant
impacts due to transportation, energy, water nee, and area source enuieaiooa and
inconsistency with applicable regulatory programs (lcupuot 8f{(3-1) under any of the
housing strategies or the B20[[I'Alternative.
Explanation
Significant and unavoidable OB6 emissions were identified because atu program-level of
analysis, pnoject'aDecificcuooy6ance with applicable regulatory programs and specific GHG
eudseiuu reductions ouuuot be determined. For example, due to the iuornuoe in vehicle
cuilae traveled (\rM]`) resulting from the flE[T' the project would not be consistent with
applicable policies of the Sustainable Ooouzuooidea 8<zutogy (BCS). 8iouilurly, u lack of
project'specific development proposals makes it impossible to quantify actual water-related
88|U emissions that would occur from FIBiJ implementation. ?6ua, impacts related to[}[|[}
emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation
The following mitigation zueuaucea would address the {3flG emission izopuote at the
GHG-l: Within six months of adopting the HEU, the City shall provide u revised land use
plan to BAN0AO to ensure that any revisions to the population and employment
projections used in updating the BOB will accurately reflect anticipated growth due to the
Page 61
May l%.20I6
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
GHG -2: To mitigate citywide GHG impacts at the program- level, the City shall adopt a
qualified climate action plan within 20 months after the date the HEU becomes effective.
The climate action plan shall contain the following components:
1. The City's goals for reducing GHG emissions consistent with the statewide reduction
goals outlined in Assembly Bill 32 and expressed in Executive Orders 5- 03 -05, and
B- 30 -15;
2. Quantified community and municipal GHG emissions inventories for a baseline year
and business as usual emissions through 20,50;
3. Identification of emission reduction required to meet GHG emissions targets as
established by the CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan and related statewide
policies and regulations;
4. GHG reduction measures consisting of project -level implementation measures as
well as citywide policies, standards, and programs. The project -level and citywide
measures will be designed to achieve emissions reductions that would meet or
exceed the established GHG reduction targets in line with statewide goals expressed
in Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order B- 30 -15.
The timeline for preparation and adoption of the climate action plan shall include the
following milestones:
• Project Initiation /Public Scoping Meetings — 2 Months
• Inventories and forecasts — 2 Months
• Outreach and Public Scoping Meetings — 2 Months
• Reduction Measures and Projections — 2 Months
• Document Preparation — 2 Months
• Environmental — 6 Months
• Public Review — 1 Month
® Response to Comments and Certification — 1 Month
Page 62
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
• Commission and City Council Public Hearings — 2 Months
Upon completion of the climate action plan, future development shall be reviewed for
consistency with the CAP, and projects may utilize the project implementation checklist to
ensure compliance with the City's GHG reduction targets.
GHG-3: Until the adoption of a qualified climate action plan (or in the event a climate
action plan is not adopted), all discretionary projects that exceed the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 900 MT CO2E screening threshold shall
prepare a project-specific GHG analysis that identifies an appropriate project-level
significance threshold and project- specific mitigation measures. Mitigation measures that
may be applied at the future project-level include, but are not limited to, those identified in
Table 4.6-10 of the Final PEIR. The project -level analysis shall demonstrate that, with
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Table 4.6-10 of the Final PEIR
that are applicable to the project, the project will not impede the implementation of
Assembly Bill 32 or Executive Order B-30-15.
The provision of land use data described in GHG-1 above would assist SANDAG in revising
the housing forecasts; however, the timing of revision of the SCS is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of SANDAG and not the City and, therefore, until the anticipated growth is
included in the emission estimates of the SCS, impacts relative to conformance with the
SCS would remain significant and unavoidable.
While the proposed mitigation framework would reduce GHG emissions associated with
future projects consistent with HEU, GHG emission reductions from future development
cannot be adequately quantified at this time, and therefore, the impact would be significant
and unavoidable.
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), impacts relating to GHG emissions may
remain significant even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation and there are no
feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance at the
program-level. The City is required to implement mitigation measures GHG-1 and GHG-2.
GHG-3 would be implemented by future development consistent with the HEU.
Notwithstanding implementation of these measures, Impact GHG-1 would remain
Page 63
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2OlS-27 Exhibit B
significant and unmitigated. Additional mitigation for the remaining cumulative impacts
would be infeasible because the specific design and emissions associated with each project
cannot bo feasibly known nr quantified uttbi time. The 8B8UP Alternative would result iu
bavver trips than any of the housing strategies under the I{IClJ (refer to
7,raoaportudooyTraffic, below); tbmrofoco' vehicular GII8 emissions would be incrementally
less. Adoption of the 8&1TJy Alternative vvould, therefore, reduce but not completely avoid
potentially significant and unavoidable impacts related to 8lIQ emissions. Tbne` a
Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required with adoption of any of the three
housing strategies or the 8MTJP Alternative.
Reference: Final PEIR Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix L, Greenhouse
Gas Methodology and Modeling.
5. Land Use and Planning
Threshold of Significance Issue 3: Neighborhood Compatibility
Pursuant to loene 1 u significant impact would occur if the project would result in
substantial neighborhood compatibility impacts associated with significant traffic, noise, or
aesthetics impacts.
Impacts
As discussed in the Final PEIR,8ection 4.13, the HEU would allow the development of new
residential nuduzixad,uae uses throughout the City resulting in u significant decrease in
the level of service (LOS) of existing roadways and intersections. Neighborhood
incompatibility impacts from such traffic generation would be significant (Impact LTJ'I)
under any of the housing strategies or the SMT]P Alternative. The BMlJP Alternative
would reduce traffic impacts compared to the other housing strategies (refer to
Transportation/Traffic, below).
The BED would allow development of new uses throughout uxisdng communities ofthe
City. While the application of zoning regulations and design guidelines would ensure most
development is compatible with the existing community character, development of housing
sites L-7. 0-4 and O-S would be potentially incompatible with community ohuzuotec.
Neighborhood incompatibility impacts from such the development of these locations would
be significant (InupuoteV]G'2. TI8 3. and V7B 4) under housing strategies 2 (BYO) and 3
Page 64
May l2.2Vl6
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
(MMUP). Housing strategy 1 (RM) and the SMUP Alternative would eliminate housing site
0 -4 and would, thus, avoid the significant impacts.
Significant impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level were identified
for noise- related neighborhood compatibility impacts. These findings are provided in
Section 'V-111, Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures.
Explanation
Refer to Section B.1 above for details regarding the significant and unavoidable aesthetic
impacts (VIS -2, VIS -3, and VIS -4). These impacts would result in significant and
unavoidable neighborhood incompatibility impacts under housing strategies 2 and 3.
Refer to Section B.6 below for details regarding the significant and unavoidable
transportation and traffic impacts (TRF -1 through TRF -26). These impacts would result in
significant and unavoidable neighborhood incompatibility impacts under all housing
strategies and the SMUP Alternative.
Mitigation
No mitigation has been identified that could reduce the significant neighborhood
compatibility impacts associated with traffic and aesthetics to a less than significant level.
The project already incorporates features to maximize protection of community character to
the extent feasible through implementation of new zone standards and design guidelines
intended to maximize consistency with the surrounding land use context and character of
individual neighborhoods. Thus, no further mitigation is available at the program -level to
reduce the adverse impact resulting from development of sites L-7 (Impact VIS -2), 0 -4
(Impact VIS -3), and 0 -5 (Impact VISA).
Finding
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible mitigation
measures to reduce the neighborhood compatibility impact to below a level of significance.
Notwithstanding the project design features including zoning standards and design
guidelines, Impacts LU -1, VIS -2, VIS -3 and VIS -4 would remain significant and
unmitigated for housing strategies 2 (BYO) and 3 (MMUP). Specific findings detailing the
Page 65
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
infeasibility of further mitigation are provided in Section B.1 above for- Impacts VIS -2, VIS-
3, and VIS -4 and in section B.6 below for Impacts TRF -1 through TRF -26.
However, housing strategy 1 (RM) and the SMUP Alternative would remove housing sites
L -7 and 0-4 from the HEU, thus, eliminating the significant and unavoidable community
character impact at these sites. Additionally, the SMUP Alternative would reduce traffic
volumes in the study area, thus, reducing the severity of the neighborhood compatibility
impact related to traffic generation. Adoption of the SMUP Alternative would reduce but
not completely avoid potentially significant and unavoidable impacts related to Issue 4,
Neighborhood Compatibility. Thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
required with adoption of any of the three housing strategies or the SMUP Alternative.
Reference: Final PEIR Chapter 4.1 Visual Resources, Chapter 4.9 Land Use and Planning,
Chapter 4.13 Transportation and Traffic, Chapter 9 Alternatives, and Appendix N, City of
Encinitas Housing Element Traffic Impact Study, and Appendix P, SMUP Traffic Impact
Analysis Memo.
6. Transportation and Traffic
Threshold of Significance Issues 1 and 2: Circulation System Capacity and
Operations
Pursuant to Issues 1 and 2, a significant impact would occur if the project would:
• Result in buildout of land uses, which would generate an increase in projected traffic
that is substantial in relation to the capacity of the existing circulation system (with
the addition of funded capital improvement projects [CIP] improvements).
• Conflict with other standards establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
Impacts
Buildout of the HEU would result in significant impacts (Impacts TRF -1 through TRF -26)
to roadway segments and intersections. These impacts are cumulative impacts of HhiU
Page 66
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2OlG'27 Exhibit B
buildout that would potentially occur wheubuildout of theBEU is added to future growth
in the surrounding area for the horizon year 2O35(TRF'lthrough TRF-26)
Housing strategy I nvzuId result in 15 significant roadway segment impacts, identified as
Inzpuota 7RF'I to TRF'15. Housing strategy 2 would result in 20 significant roadway
segment impacts, identified as Irupuote7DF'l to 7,8F-l2. ondTKy-l4 to TDF-21. Housing
strategy 3 would result iu 20 significant roadway segment impacts (Impacts 7I<Ir'l to7I{I7'
20), two significant intersection impacts (PIlK-22 and '[fty-23), as well as three ramp
intersection impacts (TBF'24 to TIlI7'16). The GMTJP Alternative would result in six
roadway segment impacts (TIlI7'4, TIlF'5, TDF-6' TIlF-T, I8F'8, TB[-10); two intersection
impacts (TI<Ir'22 aud7`IlF'23) and one freeway ramp impact (IIlF 28).
Explanation
In order to determine the significant of traffic and transportation impacts resulting from
buildout of the HEU, the trip generation for each housing strategy was calculated based on
the land use maps and buildout assumptions provided by the City and trip generation rates
from BANDA(}'a Guide to Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. As
abovro in the Iriuul PEIR, Table 4.I3-9, housing strategy 3 (DMDP) n'onLd result in the
largest increase in average daily traffic (3O.l4B&U7). followed 6y housing strategy 2(Build
Your Own [BYO]) (24.566AI}gP). housing strategy I (Ready Made [DM]) (16.361 AZ)I), and
tbeBMUP Alternative (2,364 ADT).
Final PEI8, Tables 4.I3-11 through 4.I3-10 identify the future year 2035 conditions for
roadway segments, intersections, and freeway segments and identifies vrbotbar u
eiAuifiouzd impact would occur. Refer to the Final PEIIl, Table 4.I3'20 for u anzoouury of
each identified traffic impact and p/bethoc the impact would occur for each housing
strategy. /& detailed analysis of future year traffic conditions under the 888LTP Alternative
can be bound in AoPeu6ir P of the Final PQIB. '& summary of impacts is included in
Section 9.3oC the Final PEI8.
Mitigation
To reduce the potentially significant impacts, improvements to roadway segments,
intersections, and freeway ramps would be required. The Final PEIR, Table 4.13-21
Page 67
May l2.20lS
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit O
identifies 26 mitigation zueuenree (TDF'l tbrouo67DF-26) to address impacted roadways,
intersections, and ramps.
Since adoption of the HElJ would result in additional transportation and traffic impacts
beyond those that would occur with boildoot of the General Plan, the City's existing (]I9
program would not be sufficient to fund improvements identified in the Final I,l3D{
Table 4.13-21 and summarized above. ?bna, mitigation oueuouroe TIlF-27 and IflF-28 are
included to establish a program for funding improvements needed to address traffic impacts
of the fIElJ. This program requires actions to be taken by both the City (establishment and
implementation) aa well oa actions tobe taken by future projects.
TRF-27: Within 12 months after the date theDEU becomes effective, the City shall
complete u nexus study and adopt aHET] fee mitigation program, aafollows:
u. To establish this mitigation program, the City obuD identify the costs associated
with feasible traffic improvements identified in Table 4.l8-2lofthe FinalIEID.
Once the costs are uetahliabad' the City shall undertake o nexus study to identify
bory the funds will be collected on o per project basis (e.g., by trip gnnorotud, unit,
etc.). Costs funded may include program adzuiniatxatioo, project administration and
management, design and engineering, regulatory compliance, and construction.
b. Once the }IE(] traffic mitigation program is established, each project eboD
contribute its fair share of the traffic improvements as identified in the program
prior to Certificate of Occupancy Permit.
c. The (Stv ebaU deposit the funds in u specific account dedicated for the use of
completing the improvements identified iu the HElTtraffic mitigation pnngzuoz. The
funds shall be used exclusively for the purpose of implementing mitigation for the
iuzpuota meaooiutmd with boddout of the H|BlT; huwover, upon completion of a
citywide nexus study, this program could include additional improvements related to
multi-modal facilities as well.
d. The City shall complete an annual public report on the HEU traffic mitigation
program within 180 days of the completion of the fiscal year pursuant to the
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 6608Oetaag,).
Page 68
May l2.2OlG
Resolution 2OI8'27 Exhibit B
TRF-28: Within 12 months from the date theBEU becomes effective, the City shall enter
into uTraffic Mitigation Agremment with Cultrn etor implementation of the necessary
improvements identified in Table 4.13-21 of the Final y}ZID. Payment of fair-share &suo
shall be determined based on the increase in freeway traffic directly attributable buildout of
tbeHEU.
Mitigation zuouaoro 7RF-37 would provide the City of Encinitas with u zuaobuuiauz for
fiuuuobog the implementation of the identified improvements required to mitigate
cumulative impacts of the ITE[T through future year 2835 The program would assign u
iaiz'aboze transportation impact fee to development projects based oox nexus between the
cost to implement all proposed circulation improvements and the number of net new trips.
However, since the mitigation fee program outlined in TRF-27 has not been approved, there
is no assurance that funding will be available to construct the required improvements at
the time future development is proposed. Until such time as this program is implemented,
ioopoota would c000uio significant and unmitigated. Additi000lly, some of the identified
mitigation measures were found tobe infeasible for following reasons: (I) the improvement
would result iu the roadway exceeding the General Plan clueai6cutiou� (2) insufficient right-
of-way exists and the City/community prefer to retain existing uJiuceot uses instead of
exercising eouiumut domain and (3) the improvement conflicts with existing or planned
multi-modal facilities or adopted City policies or program relative to the provision o[ multi-
modal facilities (pedestrian, bicycle or transit). As such, these impacts would be significant
and unmitigated.
Mitigation measure TBF'28would provide a mechanism 6y which u funding source could be
developed to mitigate for ramp capacity impacts to Co|trans facilities. Because the City
cannot ensure that the zubigudoo oeoaeyury to avoid ocreduce the impacts to u level below
eiguifimu000 will occur prior to construction of any or all of the housing sites, the fIETJ'a
cumulative impacts oo freeway ramp operations at the I5 southbound ramp at Encinitas
Boulevard, the 1-5 northbound ramp at Encinitas Boulevard, and the I'b southbound on-
ramp ot Santa IreDrive are considered significant and unmitigated.
Page 69
May li.20I6
Resolution 2UlS'27 Exhibit 8
Finding
Pursuant to L]{0A <3ni6e|uaa Section 15091(u)(2). the implementation of necessary
improvements to freeway facilities is within the exclusive jurisdiction o{Cultzuua, not the
City, and Coltcuna can and should adopt the ooeuancae identified in Table 4.13-21 of the
Iriuo| PIIIR; pnrannot to CEQAGnidolioee Section 15081(u)(3). the potential traffic izupuoto
would remain significant arou after the implementation of all byxaihby mitigation and there
are no baueibie oudigutiuu coeueoreo to reduce all of the project's potentially aigud5uont
transportation impacts to he]orr a level of significance. The project is required to izopkanueut
all feasible mitigation coeuaoreo referenced in Table 4.I3-21 of the I7iuul PEITI.
Notwithstanding implementation of the proposed fee mitigation program described iuIOEr-
27 and Transportation Mitigation Agreement program (IDIr'28)^ impacts 7,IlIp'l —TIlF-26
would remain significant and unmitigated. In additiou, the timiug, design and
implementation of uaoeeaury ioupzovezoauta to freeway facilities is within the exclusive
jorie6iotiun otOaltrouo and the City cannot guarantee that necessary iouproveooauLe will be
installed when needed. No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified that
would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
However, one of the feasible project olksnuibvoa, the SMTJP` would reduce significant
traffic impacts compared to the three housing strategies. Adoption of the GMDPAlternative
would umduon but not completely avoid potentially eieuifiouot and unavoidable impacts
related toIssues l and 2: Circulation System Capacity and Operations. Tbns, aBtotenuout
of Overriding Cons] dezotiona vrnn|d be required with adoption of any of the three housing
strategies nzthe 8MlJP Alternative.
Reference: Final PEIR Chapter 4.13 Transportation/Circulation and Chapter 9,
In preparing and adopting findings, u lead agency need not necessarily address the
baueibilhv of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when
contemplating the approval ofa project with significant environmental icupxute. Where the
significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance solely by the adoption of
mitigation measures, the lead agency has oo obligation in drafting its findings to consider
Page 70
May l2.20l6
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less
severe than those of the project as mitigated. Accordingly, in adopting the findings
concerning alternatives for the proposed project, the City of Encinitas considers only those
significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through
mitigation.
Where a project will result in some unavoidable significant environmental impacts even
after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in an EIR, the lead agency
must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Under such circumstances, the
lead agency must consider the feasibility of alternatives to the project, which could avoid or
substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental impacts. "Feasible" means
capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15364).
If there are no feasible project alternatives, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations with regard to the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the lead agency must decide whether
it is environmentally superior to the proposed project. The lead agency must consider in
detail only those alternatives which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project; however, the lead agency must consider alternatives capable of eliminating
significant environmental impacts even if these alternatives would impede to some degree
the attainment of project objectives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)).
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives, where appropriate, in order to
demonstrate that the selection of the SMUP Housing Strategy Alternative has substantial
environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In rejecting the No Project (Adopted
General Plan) Alternative, the City has examined the project's objectives and weighed the
ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The City believes the SMUP
Housing Strategy Alternative best meets these objectives with the least environmental
impact. The overall objectives of the project are divided into two categories: objectives of the
Housing Element Update and objectives of the housing strategies, which together comprise
the objectives of the HEU. Objectives of the Housing Element Update are:
Page 71
May 12, 2016
Resolution 20lG-27 Exhibit R
l. Housing Choice. Accommodate uvariety of housing types to meet the needs of an
Encinitas reaideote, creating opportunities for uttajuuhly-p rice d housing for all
income groups.
2. Adequate Supply. Provide adequate sites with corresponding density to meet the
City's RHNA allocation, inclusive of prior planning cycle carryover housing units.
3. Effective Implementation. Deliver State-mandated and locally desired programs
to implement the City's Housing Element.
Objectives of the housing strategies are:
I. Maintain Community Character. Integrate future development using oblend of
hvo' and three-story buildings ur building elements into the City's seven community
character contexts through appropriately located sites and project dosigo, and
embrace the unique cultural identities expressed iu each ofthe five communities.
2. Emphasize Mixmd Use. Accommodate mixed use, walkable places in key activity
centers of every Encinitas cncucouoity.wbik*ullovvbugforoonueatuoduloueboo*iug.
3. Achieve m Variety of Neighborhood 7ypma. Provide a mix of building types and
varied site designs that incorporate existing community character ooutorte to
achieve a variety of neighborhood types in which to develop new housing and mixed
use.
4. Consider Infrastructure Conditions. Ensure adequate infrastructure to support
new housing 6v locating future development in areas that have existing orpotential
capacity for infrastructure and public services to accommodate it.
G. Address Mobility Needs. Maintain orenhance community access and mobility
6. Strive for a Sustainable Encinitas. Coordinate planning for land oee,
and housing to reduce environmental impacts and preserve u
natural, healthy environment.
Page 72
May l2.2OIG
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit S
7. Strengthen the Local Economy. Locate housing in the right places to grow the
economy organically by supporting local businesses and making the City more
fiscally sustainable.
8. Equitably Distribute Multi - family Housing. Distribute attached and multi-
family housing to the City's five communities.
The objectives considered by the City are set forth in Section 3.3 of the PEIR.
The EIR examined a reasonable range of alternatives to determine whether they could meet
the project's objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the project's
unavoidable significant impacts. These findings also considered the feasibility of each
alternative. In determining the feasibility of alternatives, the City considered whether the
alternatives could be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time in light of economic, environmental, social, and technological factors, and whether the
City can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative sites
(CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126(d)(5)(A), 15364).
The PEIR concluded that the HEU housing strategies 1 through 3 would result in
unavoidable significant direct impacts on: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources,
greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and transportation and traffic. Some of these impacts
could be avoided or reduced to a level below significance by the mitigation measures
recommended in the PEIR; however, due to the programmatic nature of the mitigation, the
timing and implementation of some measures relative to future development of the housing
sites is uncertain. Accordingly, the PEIR analyzed two alternatives to the project: the No
Project (Adopted General Plan) Alternative and the SMUP Alternative. Detailed
information and analysis concerning these alternatives are set forth in Chapter 9.0,
Alternatives of the PEIR and Appendix P, the SMUP Traffic Analysis. The following
section of these findings summarizes the No Project Alternative and the feasibility of the
No Project Alternative as a means to reduce or avoid the unavoidable significant impacts
associated with the project. The findings and feasibility of the SMUP Housing Strategy
Alternative are discussed above under VIII of the Findings.
Page 73
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
A. No Project AJtwrative
The No Project Alternative iaanalternative which is required to be evaluated by CEQA
((]EAf\ Guidelines Section 15126kD(2)). Consistent with OE(JA Guidelines
Bentb`ul5l28.6(e)(9)(A). the No Project Alternative represents the continued
implementation of the adopted General Plan l,nod Use and xuuiug for the housing sites.
Compared to the HETJ project' the No Project Alternative would have lower density of
residential loud use per uoce and b*vvur overall ogoara feet of uocuzueroiul development.
TJudec this alternative, the City is forecasted to have u total population of74'268 people by
the year 2035 (8ANDAI}2Ol5) and approximately 837 dwelling units would be permitted
throughout the City.
The No Project Alternative pmuQ result is similar impacts associated with most
environmental issues; however, due to the fewer number of trips generated by the o6untnd
plan, iozpaoia associated with traffic (oun63e emissions, traffic-related noise) would be lea*
than the fl]bTJ, Additionally, under the adopted General Plan, less intense development
would occur on a uunuhmc ot visually sensitive housing aitea, vrbereiubuildout under the No
Project Alternative vvuold result in bav/or and reduced viaonJ and community obocoot*r
related irnpucto, an compared to the I{]U|I. The No Project Alternative vroo|d' bnn'ever,
result in several greater impacts than the E[ELT. Because Yotoze development under the No
Project Alternative would not basubject to the mitigation framework in this PEIR,impscts
associated with sensitive receptors and paleontological resources nmn|d be greater. In
addition, bui dout of the adopted 800ucul Plan would not result in as efficient as land use
pattern as the housing strategies under the I£ETJ; therefore, OIIO and land use inupoote
would be greater.
However, the No Project Alternative is not ufeasible alternative, as defined by CEQA,
because it would not meet any of the project objectives. The No Project Alternative would
not provide an update to the Housing Eleuzaui, as required by State }u*, Irurtherouuce,
devoInpzuout under the adopted General Plan would not be in compliance with State luvv
with regards to providing adequate sites with high-density residential zoning. This
alternative would not satisfy the project objectives.
The City of Encinitas finds that the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the
project's objectives and would preclude obtaining the benefits of the project, including: an
Page 74
May l2'2Ol6
Resolution 2Ul8'%7 Exhibit D
increased inventory of land available for hioka, affordable housing; increased
opportunities for iufi], more 000zpuot and transit-oriented development consistent with
8ouatm Bill 375 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy/San Diego I'onwurd. The City
finds that all potential significant environmental icupuota of the lIElJ will be mitigated by
project features, including new zoning regulations and design guidelines and the adoption
of the mitigation f,nrnovvork set forth in the MM8P, except significant impacts on
aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas eooiyaioua' luuJ use
(neighborhood compatibility), and traffic. The City further Oudo that, although the No
Project Alternative would ovoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts relative to
traffic and aesthetics, the No Project Alternative is infeasible because it would not attain
any of the project objectives and vvondd not provide the City with any of the benefits of the
project described above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and thus would
be undesirable from u policy standpoint. For the potential significant impacts which cannot
be avoided or mitigated to a level below eigni<ionone, therefore, the City adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations below pursuant to (7]BOA Guidelines
Section 15093.
B. Sustainable Mixed Use Places Housing Strategy Alternative
The BMl7P Alternative would meet the City's DHNA obligation, while providing an
adequate buffer to ensure compliance with the State luvv requiring no net loss of adequate
sites. This alternative iucoqpocubae those housing sites that (l) have tevvec combined
unmitigated impacts than the other three housing strategies; and (2) presents the fewest
constraints to future inupIeruaototiou of future housing at those locations. The 8MTIP
AJtocoxdvo copraeaute an alternative to the E{IIlI housing etcatugjoe addressed as the
project iu Chapter 3.0.
The 8M[OP Alternative refines, but would have fewer impacts than the HElJa housing
strategy 3 (MMUP)' which was developed iuresponse to substantial public input. All sites
that comprise the GMKJy Alternative would meet the project objectives. The SMUT`
Housing Strategy Alternative ie composed ufthe following housing sites:
ALT-2: Housing site Alt-2 was included in the SMUP Alternative because this site
provides anopportunity to strengthen the walkable Main Street Corridor character of
Page 75
May l2.20l6
Resolution 20lS-27 Exhibit 8
Leuoadiu. Additionally, its inclusion helps meet project objectives by tzuusitiooiog
oasidendayie0afrom moderate-income categories to lower income categories.
OE-1: Housing site OE-1 was included in the BMDP Alternative because it provides an
opportunity to convert incompatible heavy oozuoueroiul and light industrial land uses
adjacent to Moonlight Beach and the duvvotovvu walkable Main Street Corridor with
complementary and visitor serving uses. Visitor-serving uaoa are an important
consideration adjacent to the beach iothe Coastal Zone.
OE-4: Housing site OID'4vvoo included in the BMTJ9Alternutivc because it provides an
opportunity for redevelopment of the underutilized City Hall eibaa into a mixed use place
immediately adjacent tothe Encinitas transit center.
ALT-7: Housing site Alt-7 was included iu the 8MDP Alternative because it provides an
opportunity to strengthen the walkable Main Street Corridor character of downtown
Encinitas by converting underutilized sites to stitch together the vv6o|o of the Joxuto`*o.
Additionally, its inclusion helps meet project objectives bytcooeiboxbug residential yields
from moderate-income categories to lower income categories.
OE-7: flooaiug site OE-7 was included in the 8MT]P Alternative because while there is
potential for biological resources, the site is considered '^iufiD" being fully surrounded by
urbanization. Changing the land use from 000uouecoiul to residential would reduce overall
traffic trips and takes advantage nf adjacent bus service.
C-3: Housing site C-3 was included in the SNILTAlternative because it would reduce traffic
trips and strengthen the walkable character of the Cardiff TowuCenter/Village by
accommodating mixed use.
{O-l: Housing site O'l was included in the GMOI, }Ut*ruatbm haomuae it provides an
opportunity to complement the Encinitas Community Park by improving entrance
aesthetics and allowing residents to walk to the park rather than drive from u distant site.
C-6: Housing site C-6 was included in the SMUP Alternative because it provides an
opportunity to meet diverse housing needs.
Page 76
May l2.iOlC
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
NE -7: Housing site NE -7 was included in the SMUP Alternative because it reduces traffic
trips and provides a mixed use walkable place for New Encinitas. It also provides an
opportunity to improve the aesthetics in the heart of the City's commercial corridor.
ALT -3: Housing site Alt -3 was included in the SMUP Alternative because it provides an
opportunity to improve the aesthetics in the heart of the City's commercial corridor.
NE -1: Housing site NE -1 was included in the SMUP Alternative because it reduces traffic
trips and provides a mixed use walkable place adjacent to existing shopping, park facility
and planned cultural facility.
ALT -4: Housing site Alt -4 was included in the SMUP Alternative because it focuses the
change in land use to only one of the "four corners" of Olivenhain and supports the viability
of the adjacent new mixed use site, 0-3.
0-3: Housing site 0-3 was included in the SMUP Alternative because it reduces traffic
trips and provides a mixed use walkable place for Olivenhain.
An issue -by -issue comparison of the SMUP Alternative and the HEU housing strategies is
presented below.
The potential impacts of the SMUP Alternative are discussed in detail in Chapter 9.0,
Section 9.3.2.2 of the PEIR. As Staff has recommended the SMUP Alternative for adoption,
the impacts associated with the SMUP Alternative were previously discussed in detail in
the above Findings Section VIII. The SMUP would reduce the following impacts of the
HEU: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,
land use and planning, and transportation and traffic (refer to Table 9 -2 of the Final PEIR).
The significant unmitigated aesthetic impacts would be altogether precluded through
adoption of the SMUP Alternative. All other significant unavoidable impacts of the HEU
would be reduced, but not to a level less than significant for the reasons described in
Section VIII, above. The SMUP Alternative would require all of the same mitigation
measures recommended for the project to reduce the impacts to a level below significance.
The MMRP included in the Final PEIR includes the mitigation program specific to the
SMUP Alternative. Appendix P of the final PEIR includes a detailed traffic analysis of this
Page 77
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
Alternative and identifies the subset of mitigation measures, previously identified for the
HEU strategies that would apply to the SMUP Alternative.
The SMUP Alternative would achieve all of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0 of
the Final PEIR. The City of Encinitas finds that all potential significant environmental
impacts of the HEU housing strategies will be mitigated by the adoption of SMUP
Alternative and the mitigation framework set forth in the MMRP, except the project's
significant impact on air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use
and planning, and traffic. The City further finds that, the SMUP Alternative would avoid
the significant unavoidable impacts on aesthetics. The City further finds that the SMUP
Alternative is feasible because it would attain all of the fundamental objectives of the
project and would provide the City with all of the benefits of the project described above and
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. For the potential significant impacts which
cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level below significance with adoption of the SMUP
Alternative, the City adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations below pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
Since circulation of the project for public review and consideration of the information
contained in the PEIR, the City has elected to bring the SMUP Alternative forward for
consideration. Thus, this Statement of Overriding Considerations reflects the significant
and unavoidable impacts of the SMUP Alternative. As described in Section VIILB of these
Findings of Fact, the SMUP would have impacts that remain significant, even after the
adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, on the following areas:
• Air Quality
• Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Land Use and Planning
• Transportation and Traffic
Page 78
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts.
Although the proposed mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant
impacts, adoption of the measures would not fully reduce the impacts to a less than
significant level.
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on
this examination, the City has determined that the SMUP Alternative would (1) meet
project objectives and (2) is environmentally preferable to the project. Nonetheless, the
SMUP Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
As a result, to approve the SMUP Alternative, the City must adopt a "statement of
overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. This
provision allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits
as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental
effects that have not been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment,
the project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where another
substantive law (e.g., the California Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the
California and Federal Endangered Species Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking
certain actions with environmental impacts, a statement of overriding considerations does
not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the decision -maker has
recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis contained in the Final PEIR,
recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose more stringent
standards or measures.
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather,
EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be
"adverse." (Pub. Resources Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to
focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial
impacts must also be addressed (See Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Ca1.3d 190, 206
[132 Cal.Rptr. 3771). Nevertheless, decision- makers benefit from information about project
benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding
considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).
Page 79
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016 -27 Exhibit B
The City finds that the SMUP Alternative would have the following substantial legal,
social, environmental, and economic benefits. Any one of the reasons for approval cited
below is sufficient to justify approval of the SMUP Alternative. Thus, even if a court were to
conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would
stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial
evidence supporting the various benefits can be found either below or in the preceding
findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found
in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section I.
A. Legal Benefits
• State law requires that housing elements in the San Diego region be completed by
April 27, 2013, 18 months after the adoption of the 2050 RTP /SCS. The Housing
Element for the City of Encinitas has not been updated since the 1990s. Thus, the
City is in violation of State law, is subject to fines, and the General Plan is
vulnerable to litigation.
B. Economic Benefits:
• The SMUP Alternative would accommodate more attached and multi - family housing
units. These higher density housing types provide economic benefits such as lower
per unit construction and potential reductions in municipal infrastructure costs.
Higher densities also reduce occupant housing costs.
• With adoption of the SMUP Alternative and voter approval of the HEU, the City will
be eligible for more State funding including infrastructure and public amenity
improvement funds that the city is currently ineligible due to the lack of a current
housing plan.
• Adoption of the SMUP Alternative will streamline development on housing sites,
resulting in construction jobs and associated economic benefits.
• Development of underutilized land will result in an increase in property tax
revenues.
Page 80
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
C. Circulation Benefits:
• The MMRP for the SMUP Alternative includes mitigation measure TRF-27 and
TRF-28, which would require adoption of a fee mitigation program, which would
provide a mechanism for projects to contribute their fair share for future traffic
improvements.
D. Social Benefits:
• Adoption of the SMUP Alternative would provide increased affordable housing
options.
• The project would improve walkability and non-vehicular trips by providing housing
in proximity to commercial uses.
• Adoption of the SMUP Alternative will include new zoning standards and design
guidelines intended to preserve the diverse character of the City's communities.
r�
X. CONCLUSIONS
The City finds that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record of benefits, as
described above in Section TX, which would directly result from approval and
implementation of the SMUP Alternative. The City finds that the need for these benefits
specifically overrides the impacts of the proposed project related to air quality, cultural
resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic.
Thus, the adverse effects of the SMUP Alternative are considered acceptable.
The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final PEIR as required by CEQA.
Prior to that review and analysis, the City circulated the Draft PEIR and appendices and
those documents also reflect the City's independent review, analysis, and judgment
pursuant to CEQA.
As part of the certification of the Final PEIR, the City finds that the Final PEIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City, acting in its capacity as the lead agency. As required by
CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6), the City in adopting these findings and
also adopts the MMRP. The City hereby finds that the MMRP meets the requirements of
Page 81
May 12, 2016
Resolution 2016-27 Exhibit B
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring
of the mitigation measures set forth herein, which mitigate the identified significant
impacts associated with the SMUP -Alternative and are fully enforceable through permit
conditions, agreements, these findings, and other measures.
Page 82
May 12, 2016
4� m G
r, q ads
all
U o
U
�
U
U
1•"a
�i
W
W
4
O
0 O
�1-1
h
ot•
t�
U
C.)
4� m G
r, q ads
all
U o
U
�
C
W
W G7 dOd
cc3
41
S•+ U
a)
y A
+
U
C) ';
'''"
-4-
o
v
o es ° � � 4
o
m � � m
� �
14
It a
'
CL
U
a s° 1 3 0 o
a -�
° p° w °
¢
A
SS'
W
I
N
Cq
c.4
0
0
z
G
0
A
U
a
>
all
U o
wv 0 ,'-,
�
6 a
cc3
ow °O Q A
3�
+
C) ';
Saar
o
v
�
U
,a)
c
'a'
'
�i
%•� U
U
O
'
� N
p
'C
U
+�
bD
°
eu
°
Cf)
•N
y
I
«S o cz
+�
"�
z �'SD
o
>,—a)
cr
A
tLE
a
aQ
-C
C, o
U
a
U ..U•� +U�
rOj ,1: '7' Ln
q
o
+� Q
Q
Ct
.�"
CZ
°
tc
'+
o - hW��•r�
U
]
3 G
"�
b,
(iy
N U F t+•a
�S"y
��yy �yU�
;�
d
.•�
°
G7 V 41
CZ
c m
U
Q
Q)�
CZ a
d
t+ L!
O
o +
Q. c�+�
o C:,i
a)
.�'m�
°
tr
U
a-
p W cV & a
a� F
v
N
4.
CC
CZ
co � ca a
E-� 3
m rN z J n
E d,
E�
a y
m s�
rl
GV
A
SS'
W
I
N
Cq
c.4
0
0
z
G
0
A
U
a
all
U o
6 a
°
cc � ro
+
C) ';
Saar
o
v
o
bJ) o
'd �
,a)
c
'a'
-
n o
M Z
cs
W�
�.
U
+�
bD
°
eu
°
a� o
"�
z �'SD
'y,� CCC
y
U
A
) �j
T J]
a1
U
° C."
U ..U•� +U�
rOj ,1: '7' Ln
CO
+� Q
h
.�"
CrJ
U
"
'd bA
6n
U
]
N
,�n
Q [?U OnO G
F
+
.•G
a� +
m
3
d
°
3 'G -o a"
n
c m
c�'
cd E-
Q
u
m
-
o +
Q. c�+�
o C:,i
a)
.�'m�
°
U
a-
p W cV & a
a� F
v
m may
f� m cn
co � ca a
E-� 3
m rN z J n
E d,
E�
a y
m s�
A
SS'
W
I
N
Cq
c.4
0
0
z
G
0
A
U
a
w
0
L.�
a�
U
O
O U U
U 4� P,
co .G+
W O U p ..
U p R 41 C) o to m +o' m a y✓ C C
v 4� a «i A 7- o a s. o „ G O
m o
• o ro ,UO. O C" [d "' c� C�d ++ tu ^� . ��" + � , G O 41
141U :Z GO eo m 3- cv � X ~ ,n o
6 O 3 m ° °°W a '
W
•.�i '�1
+� '� ,�"'., aki z0•, Q y ti �" W C
. U `z•i ca o -C C r o O r .� ' U= S� Q w N Q U 'C
o w " °
o
o v o N C c�
c�S G a O he .� �� U c) W U '� N m ^C s� a R cz 2
0 y C w y za +1 � E G o � o U Z 0 o v ca o C
,.+ 42 O G�" N N RS N ya S7 �+ �+ N ..a fir" O P. M 41 c,.., .Si.. O •'r Q
41 0 o� m w a w w o. Ih
cd _a
Q O "ci O N v A Q 4' .n cC O `> "' 4' OLO 0 C +� p
-' • bA ,� y .Q
i-� S-i r 'O �' •y Jl ? o Q it d N
m '6 '� .� a U '� '� 'fir •,'�.i �U] Lo7 O '��' r�•-
° a m o n o C c3 0 +' U u1 o C W
o w m s� .� ° n o M Z ro° 3 Z o a 3 � a o m x
0
zt co .
c+�
C3�
U o 0 co
cD p •.�, C
m cd n +'
x '3 `r' o C ai+ �°v� o
o
m o o a C 'm +�' 3 n4 �°���
mn Ems- a) co p, . -, o o u
oW °� a) o U ca) a o 0
cz
U O
f1:4 ct r > r uoJ .� o o .a
ro Co
ct a o a o o o w a o
uz v +
&
u ° Q
CO
F O O y O
W O 0 4�
rl �
z� °��.
0 (1)
„ ° U 4
°4
o 0 0
d ° t.,
C N m cd cC to
m ' ^ 4' a>
� r4 P-i U
4
CZ
U p 150 O C
bk
�w o ° o.�
m,� ti O. > CZ-�— o
a°y m o JI °
°
U
W
W
O
.a
U
� CD
4-,
4� ° o
O U w 41 —
y Z a)
U
Ra . 4
U
o �
O y
U U •N
Cf) 3
to y
U
Q Q
° �u o
L) a•�
v � 4 m 3
C cz
4-. O b0
o ct O
rl
H
U O
y N
� 3
U
� a)
o � O
4-i
NO
�zSw zy p v v G
w z cz .o o Q) �y ` U e� o o Ica w v +�
P4 bD
;�, ;i R. O U Cd ",ti U a)
U m v p U cz 42) N¢ N 'a) p ''
cu O U]
° C o m o ao dpd o� u)
o o o - y ¢
v p c� o q as v aki
bp v m o rG m °
)
CD O
A- s a • o y n v
Q 'C O
Q a a
11) �31 m e m o M
CC
w W W cz
_ Q F E- cC
y �0 o en ciZ
U o° Pa LO A o a) m N
p-
ul 'o m o y O o o to O o� b° � �` `r' WO
En
pr b° �O a ° 00 U`"' 14. �N W
0 5 W o o U p o-5 a)
O v a '+° o N v cv o o F
,� a W o a W O
o U a 0 0 0�WO aiz o �zcflO
pa �v G .� m �� O zn.aPa csNP�.� ��ci r-)"56 �
U
W
ca
cfl
0
0
z
r
0
U
a
A
x
W
I
C`
c.4
0
0
z
O
O
U
bB
°
co
Go
V
n
h
bi °; C
bD
C
0)
�
'�
N
TS
+�•�
4�
N
CZ �O•!
ri)
Cr
O
W
O
bD
by >
U
O
P1
.� o o Q
P
.� a
o
5
Q7
O O W Uj
'L5
N
V
C
cc
5
° .G o
o
co o
c° Cl) o
°
o
i°'
P
Ci
d°
C o a) �°
C cz
m
Cl)
V
N � O
U]
N
a)
C W W 4--� U
O U
� O O
O WO ✓�
Fa
�
U
O
Q.
s,
.•� cd >
4 O p
W y
O �
U
%
r
Fr
I
Jl 4]
a)
U2 >, Cd Cd O O"
a) aj
O a) G"" O .�
bi)
Rj
N
U1 >>
41
H
Ci
F•,
LO
a
c6
...
0 U
aJ
V
G
b0 4
N c N
i
O
U
GO
m.1
U°
�
, r.
ca 3
o
W
o C U u
v° ^' a,
p
o
W
o a
c�c
>
o 0
a>
o
n^
o�
-
g 0— v m p
A W a° tG
ro m
o
U)
y
a
O ,�
U a)
Fr ti G"i
O
bD
U p C,' 41 U
.°
O d +� cd C3
Fy G]. U ^� 1
.
O a)
c
F7
a) r
O U
Co
�''
N .A
�•� C U
O
..
2i.
O
¢"
' O +U•-+ r a)
bD '� aF", p" cd
U cd m x., m
+' U ro
cd x
!�+
O bA
O
U
Cd � � °
n U] U
�
�'
Cd
N :•, O � F+ Fi O
�"
� Sa O � F U7
;I
V '�
�•+ aJ
+� '�
qj
aJ Cy
Q"
a) �
�
W
O
'12 CS
,�
W
O
P.
V N U a) cS
,a; O U
> S-+ V 'O . d �•'
+�
O ° .0
W
°
U V
00J a)
S., �—,
W
al
+� F,
V ° +� U�
O
O 2S '•d
U
U p
p
U
...
F7
O
N biD
U ' ^
CC C6 V
S; p .0 U btu
o
41
m
a)
4� 3 a >
o
m;ml
U
;ml
cz
-7-� %i N .'�
U
W�'� aJ
b
�" °
U
>
C
U
C
U]
CQ CO•'
U!+.+ T-� L""
41
cz
° O
° d
�+
CZ °
.0
U
Cl) 0)
ci
ea
O
O
a,
?,
.t
v
a) Ga
nY o
ra
cd C
"
�
O
C
M Q) O
um
X00
r
W Gr Cd
.
U
U1
obD�
-� a .5 -
A
x
W
I
C`
c.4
0
0
z
O
O
U
CO
a
U
W
w
O
.ti
U
U O N O
r. w 4" U N
r. y
z� p
w o Cl
O t�. by Z w
+' �, f •' cd > V 4+ Z
O
Q) y
O O FctS. ho O +�•' O
;.4 N
U
�i
W
w
O
.ti
U D .2 O
p ,8 ,1 O
G C6 bA 2
> 4 Q 3 O
° C) e r C) y
F n �,
,. :. b0 +1 y
'> y ° r 4� E^ + 00
41 o° C C) 0 5 a) o c `� 0 CZ
o 0 > -
y y �, bA v O O d v C +' ZY bn y by u R 'u Cl)
s
xi '."' -� ' •" F•+ "'Ci (U ti >ti a' '+a U (C y +'
C, o y u o n•, 0. c cS cd y o m y° Q, y n U) a)
>, g4 > co >~ bn u bp ca bL cD b0 bn -C� z
cn
y m OU � z cn r m aa)) m C r
@ y O �+�„ � V bD . N 'I? c�C y U a) OU r V .a a) hD ° CC y .... 'LS a) .,Gy
a7 w i� O G .Oti O U ° a) cC
bn Uj 41
o "Z:5 y IF y
` y V CC Cd O' ,--i +�-, � P. O O ✓ Cl
C
^ o s a? v y u C 0
V y a) R O ^>~ C ' y O b 0 O ,
y
o v ° y ca o o +; hU
hA a CC y ay 71 )
14 C
G7 (� +� wC 1 N ' cz " 0. O w y O
0" ''' cl � U) :r o ^ "O bL '" Q. c°0 O y bA C.� �. 0 y z, � NO "Z5 z- M cC
¢, hyD Aa . "d 4 p O t1. +� W o) y . °. +tea � OQ ~O
CD ?, y y r- F � , , � . , O V O cS a) rZ 0 a1) � . , y u �
Q >. u a 3 m ro w .� . en ° -cs a 3 �°
O O
p1 Pa
A
;.a
W
I
t-
C�1
0
c�
O
z
O
0
y
(1 i
oa)
> '41 bu
T o A co
¢i
cd
b
..
b!7 V H CC O O
y W V 4�
_ O
.--a �" �.
i
V CC
w
a°
Q) 4
z•^ y a
C)
+� U
bD m
r . ° � � m W
bo W
4, a1 O -o ajc p
a a Q. �o
a y y• ym J) W
o o o y o
ca o
F
A
;.a
W
I
t-
C�1
0
c�
O
z
O
0
y
(1 i
ro q m a 41 °
ai C0 m om, A4 m O O n N O N(3)
C." �±' U ^d ClS cz r-' +� O '`^ f-' '� .� W ,p ...� r � 41
p m
CL) 3 ✓¢° p
Q w zs G o m m 'd 4 vi p� y m U °� o +;
cl) o ° p C aa, ° c i p m CC ¢ A
41 "zz
CZS 1:0
U) �d
ct
cz
°-° z hem r. c
o y to o m o Z 0 g U -r
m
U1 w axi P °; w m m
N G 3 o
A
W
I
0
0
z
0
0
v
P,
0
U
W
4,
O
h
.ti
J
oz w
a-= U 4 U
0 Go
4]
F-� � •'-' U y C
O
d
41 bP
m c3 c0 O bo
o° ° °' CZ a ° rs o cis `� +°>
rn
bil ce C-I—I ^d as C m o 0 0 0
CZ bin w
y ', 41 "d +' "d y � O O G U •1 U > O DC cr Fy
V ✓ m C.� y, N b0 L�" 't" U L," a O O O P, 0)
¢° a) 0) m +' o z3 ( d ro ° w w C m A °
+ a tp 3 ° `�
41 O O di p p "s. bA O O cd O C y i•' �5 b cTr (3)
CU Cl) cz
cd
o ° a — m ^d �n G r d., o Q d a m CM4 3
d
w w M U
C) CJ ^d x. G m °v 0 cd
U
m
o �
U 00 N °p❑ C O
r
4� t''.,
m
a m a + o ami '+>
Q)
0
A
W
N
ti
O
0
z
0
0
m
L�
a
J,
CC
.ti
r,
U
C
W
w
0
U
m
a)
w
°
°
aS
co
C
a cno
C
C C
a o
PL
0) p +•� . O • U b0 p r�i m
u) U
aC o a�Ui U 3 c� c`�i m > o°
m� co a) C o o a" ° a to :~ o a) a o °° U '� ro O sa
c3 ° C) u O t), V —, w0 N U +-> ,� .d p ca F, ct . -Ui U x
c� o> s. m U C C to o
u C - C- v p C °° o O + u M Z aa)i o C C .0
o C
(Z cc W C p C c�C a •+, cC w 3 3 w° C a C!� w o
aC C ton Gn a ° i� Q o U o ¢ � cu c� °
ay ti Q, o ° 0 cd 0. ` 1 FcC N � ' ("n 4� z
ul
U cc p O tD ¢ r pp + p O �
o C o z� .� ° C w w o a °^ o C .� y o
U U o' a U U p a ^o ro > O ca a D o 7Z a) C +- m
C N " o ° cC w , _ y a � w
p m C m C C 5= cd
p o � -0
CD U— � C C 4E c, C) U
� s °' ° o o a, `' ° No C y
E CO -o o. O o o� U °� s a� � ° .
o o to bi) a -o ° 4�
J)
o C C za m o a o
U
u m o w° U C Cl) a 3 C c o� C C
U°
tip v d cyC +°-' 4' +' d s
U) ° o Q. E � Q. � m -i U) E� ° -d C bn �. • ° a o o -d
° p Co y--d o
U o a) o w U
ca
i
r�
U
a
W
I
c-
cq
c�
0
z
C
0
0
0
N
U
aS
U
PL
U 3
C o o b. a C
o
q
o
u c> 7� U
+,
a,
�
o
v
o, m p +, C o
m o al
o
`°' � u)
m o
u
o Q o
bC
co
M a U) m U
E-'
CV
CZ
._
c6 w U p
V O
r-f
i
W S-i
x
U
41
SC ti iP. U a) fJ) Cd
to bo
0.
� bn ° an
°� r�0
O
Q.
c6 ^d
bn ct 0 f: . M m -r. CL -C
a
W
I
c-
cq
c�
0
z
C
0
0
0
N
U
IN
w
i
N
0
0
z
0
0
U
P,
U
W
w
O
..y
U
ti
W
U O
y
3
O ap m
c
y
c
w
° U
o
as
o
°
�t
y
c
w
(L)
by
'�
o
o
.0 bn o • �
bD
o '•U..{
m m
� �
M
�
U
a)
°
—C
°
O . r.1 Q
O
O
;-4 y
4�.11 M U
bL X ,O
(1)
bjD
�i
D
O CO P. O :G Fr
f�" O
CSC
p]
+'
O� >,
° � bn
. ° +
o m
'O Cl ryy1
�i
U
co
O bl: V
Q"
O _
0
°
4
w0
-+r
U U a�
C)
0
i.
,r�y1
(Oj YC 11 9 O F-i i-�
H Ci
° O� J..1
�I
O ry
°
—M m
• o °
o
o
rn
zons
cn ° o
o
ro � .+
o
m
o �bn �
o
°
o
D
Z � 9
m�
w
c� ° W
�+-+ �u
�y o ° o
o cs
° +, u
m o
°
C,
y
0
bt
0
' C3 U
r-i u0," ^C m
p N
G
y
m
o ° U 3 '-, zs
.
� a,�^
o r.
m,
°� a,
m o
o w ° m rii o
a, W.�
a^�n
bL
q p
w ct o
.o
ti u a
m
m
.� zs
m o o
o R
bD o
A°
ci o ca o o o a°.�
4� w GL ba �, P. w bD m
Y.
m o d
a� O 0
m but w
5'
Q.
en
o
F Q
o,m,
o U a O° c3 U +
o w m u°
Lo
cu Cf)
°F 3CIS+' m ° W x o ° a zs § c�a o")
Qo p cmC 3 0 a °cq.0 m
+' U r m v ¢ m d a `I m
E- w > `�' L� o as o° m a o o C 4 a o ti
o E-1 - w n o o x m 0 3 p O o E" m o
o° w O m o O w m o �,•� O m r
� W o +�
o m 0 ° am° o co y m •� cz Z c n.
CO
—Ct C O a =� o E� m
lA
r•Q
?4
W
f�]
C)
N
O
z
0
0
ro
U
W
4.
O
C)
v
y
N o - 4
Y O d
ci ro ° q
C3 o d O
x
U O ,S V
U +�
M c?
m
a)
u
w ro
n
m
° U b
ro
Cl)
� C p
cz
Ct
hA CA
ti
bl)
V O
a
3
o
°
U O v
41 °U
`�'
, n sue.
ro
c
x O b
bD
�'' O (1)
tD
O
c�•i
o w ro
h0 C:
m ) �
O �
�
U` ro
OV
d U
M
U O
ro
a)
ri)
m
A" 4�
Cl) 2s
CD
U rI W
L"•
..`n N
'•O
• y' g
y
C,o cv
u
ro
rCV
V
x
1) ro �
.
41 41
V O ti
o c y a o
U ,� y
42� C S
.r J
m
C."
' o
III V 4 M
i•.
fin. ti O
Q 1 o 1 ^�
CD
N O U
O V � .O N •� w
C� ro
O O u O Cq
; 44 M CC
r
p ^C � C)
C
U ro 4-
� 4� U)
O ,41 U
i
C--
CV
O
O
O
z
0
0
ro
m
�
N
w ro
n
m
° U b
ro
Cl)
� C p
cz
Ct
hA CA
� s°
G Cd
U C�
CdO
U O v
ri)
M Cq
• .j)-� OD 'Z S "d
bD
�'' O (1)
F7 Cd
o
c�•i
o w ro
0 �
D
m ) �
O �
�
V
+' 'C0
N
r
O.
�C.'3�
.r J
m
C."
' o
III V 4 M
i•.
fin. ti O
Q 1 o 1 ^�
CD
N O U
O V � .O N •� w
C� ro
O O u O Cq
; 44 M CC
r
p ^C � C)
C
U ro 4-
� 4� U)
O ,41 U
i
C--
CV
O
O
O
z
0
0
0
U
W
O
4
U
U-r
¢, CZ (3)
pxi a) z O— O a) ° a) a)
Cd
UL Lt CCC
bb C� ' F G CV
CG c6 4 + p at +� a� �S ° U ,,, Off"
o c i a s y o Q p ro a,
uj
bA O U a b.D N ¢,� aJ m m m
p v A ca ° y° r. U v 1
bp
CZ 0
CD o p.., p, I w p U 'd :, U m
o
° c q� M o a 1
P -4 x 4 P-4 o .N
A
W
I
l
c,l
O
N
O
z
0
0
a�
U
P-�
o
o a
o
4,
.� CJ
4�i
U -lam
N
¢ 'm
a) z
co
m
C)
in,
a m
bn
x
G4�>
o
C) o
U-r
¢, CZ (3)
pxi a) z O— O a) ° a) a)
Cd
UL Lt CCC
bb C� ' F G CV
CG c6 4 + p at +� a� �S ° U ,,, Off"
o c i a s y o Q p ro a,
uj
bA O U a b.D N ¢,� aJ m m m
p v A ca ° y° r. U v 1
bp
CZ 0
CD o p.., p, I w p U 'd :, U m
o
° c q� M o a 1
P -4 x 4 P-4 o .N
A
W
I
l
c,l
O
N
O
z
0
0
a�
U
P-�
DC
W
I
N
Q
Cq
O
Z4
0
0
0
U
gyp'
•U
O
O
h
�i
a)
Tbf
O
U W
U F7
O
�
N
Pa
. � P. 'C
,I
V +� P.
co
O 4�,
5�
'"C
hi
d aJ
+-'
U 4•a "O
U
O aJ a)
U cd
•
�bA cC
o cC r
'C
y°
° o o U
v
U
aD E"
o a
A a
m o
q p a
o
D
„ o +' �_
so
o 41 m �' ca
to
+�
o
cC .d
4CI) .S:
4) O +E o O O
9-,
r "d
^'� R p a) �
O b D cI" a �'
O 4J
❑V❑
a
A
N O
CZ ' w y
N
m
w
m
� p a)
NO
a, °
a a, ¢ m o
> a
°
V
v
o
d
41 o
M
a m
14
U
. �"' a) O zj ,�' O
hD �" �'
Cd
'r �" -0 CC
4,
W
Ct
+� F+
ai
G C
2i
co O
G U
U p
U1 ^O QJ U
bn m N
O Cd
O ct
W
U
U
-a
m a)
-b
a> Q a))
3
CU
E"
F
cd
z, w°
P. o
o° o
ca C ro U
a ca
G
"
x 3
C +� z� °
d C
a p m U
° m
m a
p
a 4
ai Q nz
o
cn
CL)
Z
°
.�
3 + en o -o
P,
. ° �, C
2s a)
75 v�
�,
cz
cz
� a v
'�
m ° °
2
r
ro
o m �
czs
a
a
a)
so, o
o
°
0
P.� °
aA
as cz
141
.�
N
d'
x
� �
�
cq
4-a
��
�
�Q)
F oy
P"
a;
Q, d
o o°
a
1
ao 3�
a a) � o
3
°
o
a s
ypW m°
's
o
o
E"
N
a;
m o
Q
�
4�� rn
cd +>
c cz .
+
n
CD
° .�
U
ar��
a
U
c]
N
O
U U1
O 4 ° a)
'� ° U
Q) E+ U° p •rte+
CS$
d
N
Q� O1h7n0
OS N
>�-� p OA
U
DC
W
I
N
Q
Cq
O
Z4
0
0
0
U
o "
m
+� cS °
4. ° 4' ° " v
CD o
C6 M o * s , m `z 41 W a o
° —,t P hn
bic
+� 41 �" y +' o cD zs u w ^o ° C tin W
CZ
as z o w o v w o°
O y M 9 4 "+> m d a ¢ m C ¢S F ai
cz
a) a y a c bo ¢
° ry o m p^ so '� 4'
41
�a� ° x ° o w o o o p a o O
o
U
W
4-a
O
y
U
V
° an
41 �
q
o w w
4,1 3
r
-o 0
cz
a.
° :z
U C6
�y
k
W
I
N
cq
4
O
cq
O
~�r
G
0
0
U
a
° an
41 �
q
4 w
ova
o
-o 0
a.
U C6
�y
S•J': U7
k
W
I
N
cq
4
O
cq
O
~�r
G
0
0
U
a
U
W
W
O
N
ti
O
+�"•� O
U 4"
�f".
N
O
sr c�C
a)
a>
bi)
Ra P,
It OU
"
4) a
N U
y .p N y WO
cz 0 cu
W
cO)
Qj O W '4 �
U o a) cz
V
C)
Cd
$:� - cn m O C
r. III.)'�, °'a
¢ a z zs .o M
C r s4 U)
w U1 c C m
4� g ro o
CO CC RS
'7z �.
Cu 0
3 ) U w° o a)
y zi °
+� z4 o
a) 3 0 ro
d O p7i L r
CU
C
x
y bA
o s° .0 oCl) cz c b Q
. � . ff N° ° n o ; E, � o
Ct
cu
i° p �° Pa m C -� a o a) o -c o
awn �,� > P, (L)
D C Q G CZ o
W c G N 3 a)
o a� o o n
u
1:1 cz E. 75 U7 c3 O m cC
A
ti
SS
W
N
0
z
A
O
O
C)
9
U
P-4
U
O
j
�1
bi)
o
x
0 a
N
m u
'CS O
O
N
o �d�
0
>
O
W
� off'
.•�
0) +' C6
c
> f„i U E'{ U N U
�;, 4
m ° 6n
w O O Z O
;4 Z .UI '� 41
b O
R .^
cC -4s"-
O U O
3 4
y
° •"�'i '� Fa U) 7�
CU
F� r
U
P U 2s -N U1 a
z
W
a �a
+�
o U
U
tx O G N O
M >u N E- o U
ct o
o p o
U
^� U
U �
0 3 a>
4�
U U,
V U
� O
U,
U d�d O
Q'i F F•+
J
O
o C;
F•1 U O U
o mss."
U bl O
cu
U o
O iC1�•i O
cu
C �
a Aa
O U OU
E CD
� •ti
ro
v
Sr
U
a1 U U
A
W
CV
.-1
O
0
z
O
O
O
U
O
j
bi)
o
x
0 a
m u
'CS O
O
N
o �d�
^C G �
� off'
.•�
dA �
ai +•�
m
. .°
Or
:D
Q bA Z
uoj C)
Q)
cN ti U
o
U U
•U]
�
�w.�1r�
p.
C
H g
C) •41
Cd
4 O 1
O
D U
F
° U
O
U a3
:a U L"
W
a �a
+�
o U
U
tx O G N O
M >u N E- o U
ct o
o p o
U
^� U
U �
0 3 a>
4�
U U,
V U
� O
U,
U d�d O
Q'i F F•+
J
O
o C;
F•1 U O U
o mss."
U bl O
cu
U o
O iC1�•i O
cu
C �
a Aa
O U OU
E CD
� •ti
ro
v
Sr
U
a1 U U
A
W
CV
.-1
O
0
z
O
O
O
U
m
Im
j
N
U
U
C
iC
o
O
N
o
y
a
O O-0 r.
X41
U
w U
U
dJ
j
N
N
O
+1 0 0 �" S."1
U
O
N
y
a
O O-0 r.
X41
O
N
w U
F7
O
U 9
A
O of
p O u1
Cl)
�"
sct
UO
+'
p
.�'' -� O
N W
O cd
�'' hil)
•� N G"i
d
O
.�
C
d O
Pa . `� P. -8 J
y
P
P
P. ':1 U
� P.
U o m C o a� U �� CZ >, � y� 0) � ?, P
r d o a ca C C° U m
o Cl) Q •5 m C U o o U s� as ° ;m4 °, m 3
bi
0 0 NO
a O U o a o + a m
crs �" ctS O O Cry r,J ti Cd U. ti +�"'C{ O C �bD O N U 111 C° C 4' ° U o U rL O CO 4�
C= UO U � U b w W) CZ G� + p J x
a w
o
41 o C a v o C C N U m r •" C N
+, o z, Cs p o Cd U m
•�
41 CO 3 o C o cCC y� C -� P. P C py'c .� C o e d 1 p CD R P
L) 9 a U C o d C o u o � .� hm o Q. U
w C p c �� O C p +, ° o° .S � C 3 s0. P
+' cc C O °J ro o ° Pa y' a o m '+, m e v o p. a
Q+ m o U
o m p o o o °) o
o .[ 41 m ,C m o 'm a U v P, C 41 C a U C s
o
Q w ro H °° C3 m a W o ^d Q °.
a °z
;m, (3) °� „�
CD Co +1 °
m' o- a� a -O m o C
S""
N hD " U w0 G� cC P.
^ C'J Ca CAS O Nri . ti '" w
O O
co L-
O o L3 d O C ai x" Z> U U
ct C0 ^d M U cz
q E'- .1_! +� Z$ +' C11 F-i +' • O
p +; p r E C_ C U U a d o o +� u
Ct It
a cu
o 3 8
v m 4, G1 v cC tw W
P W p 3° C m c m L) m yn o a C °D x° '� O iI1
G° o° o aCi C o y° O
- U z. U] 'v co m w a G z z m U;= z
U
�C
W
I
Cq
O
Cq
6
z
C
O
H
U
J-�
U
W
W
O
U
m 1 °
41 M 41
C� U1
bi) �a o U p R. '� �°
so, 0 o cu
. - 4� C G4 r LS N '" CZ
o V o a o o° ° o o
CL)
m � u) Cf do
°> o- o y G ° .q m C n U p °
+' Ems" v' 0 3 y m h° o o
o ° r.
bf
Q) ,Q U ° t= b o ° en W ° O G p G z7
m ca ° o
a, p cc v ^G
m p W U Q W+ m 41
.° z O d q
0
cl
z
C, m
o Cl) ° U Q 3H 'P0.
cz o CC u 0 .> C) Pa p o z
ci
z '
r
gbl
F o> o
° _ o o
*y p° zs 9 0. m m a)
z G �' G o '4� > k m s
ti
M 41
H q � "'•+ +OO O O .� U
C
U O ti "Ci � W 1 U( 'O 75
aO "
IN
DC
W
N
c�
co
0
0
z
0
0
m
0
U
4 U
�
� O
N
+ O
U O N
s
m 1 °
41 M 41
C� U1
bi) �a o U p R. '� �°
so, 0 o cu
. - 4� C G4 r LS N '" CZ
o V o a o o° ° o o
CL)
m � u) Cf do
°> o- o y G ° .q m C n U p °
+' Ems" v' 0 3 y m h° o o
o ° r.
bf
Q) ,Q U ° t= b o ° en W ° O G p G z7
m ca ° o
a, p cc v ^G
m p W U Q W+ m 41
.° z O d q
0
cl
z
C, m
o Cl) ° U Q 3H 'P0.
cz o CC u 0 .> C) Pa p o z
ci
z '
r
gbl
F o> o
° _ o o
*y p° zs 9 0. m m a)
z G �' G o '4� > k m s
ti
M 41
H q � "'•+ +OO O O .� U
C
U O ti "Ci � W 1 U( 'O 75
aO "
IN
DC
W
N
c�
co
0
0
z
0
0
m
0
U
a�
a
° " �_ m
cz
o U o U O
U7 U1 4� O
�O +' U ,U)
O ro 4 U
o
� o
a v o 2 m� o f 3 °1' 3
o
5y m g b0 +� U 4' O o bo
9 z m o p a] m° o a ro M
s�
U p m m .- � r— P o U) coo m dr
A
W
CV
c9
O
CV
O
ti
0
L.�
A
w
i
0
0
z
0
0
x
U
a
R
w
i
0
0
z
0
.y
H
(A
U
a
4 o
F
10 c
a�
o o
cu
-
a
M a1
° —, ca
o p
z4 D CO
•
o sue+
an
• G o
Q ^C
;-4
'
OC +'
CU
c1
m .
m ,
� o
aU
°
o G +a
U]
1
+1
Cd 41 i�
CL,
Fr
bio
O
t3,
Cd U
O N CV
ma U
• a
O
m •r .� w
> by
N Tj
ur
s
+' r +�
c6 d
DO
C-() U
6A R
,�.� 4. .� .�- U
D U N
m
Ct
.)
:
• 0.
• W U N
m
cC U
'�
,� O U r
`�
N V CAS 'Tj N
_W��yy
m
m
R"' m m
4�,y
w �"i RS
`w
h+.q
a1
-1a
-'
6i
:
4ti N FU-�
o
o
4, s�
��°y
cow
���
4-4 O
O + C6
r o m[
a1 7� m
+>
��'� G
s «�� m
��, a u
y� O o C
o c
""
u
.�a 41
00
w
E