2020-28 (EG)RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND MAKING THE REQUIRED CEQA FINDINGS
INCLUDING FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED FOX
POINT FARMS AGRIHOOD DENSITY BONUS SUBDIVISION AND HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1150 QUAIL GARDENS DRIVE.
(CASE NOS. MULTI-003524-2019, SUB-003526-2019, DR-003528-2019 & CDP-003529-2019;
APN: 254-612-12)
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to analyze the
potential environmental effects of the project. In accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the draft EIR was published for a 45-day public and agency review period
on August 28, 2020;
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15051, the City of
Encinitas is the “Lead Agency” for the proposed Project;
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and
Final EIR, and these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City;
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been
prepared for the proposed Project, which the City has adopted or made a condition of
approval of the proposed Project. The MMRP is incorporated herein and is considered part of
the Record of Proceedings for the proposed Project. The MMRP designates responsibility and
anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City will serve as the
MMRP Coordinator;
WHEREAS, 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 15091;
WHEREAS, the impacts of the proposed Project have been analyzed to the extent
feasible at the time of certification of the Final EIR;
WHEREAS, the City reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR 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 EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all comments
received up to the date of adoption of these Findings concerning the environmental impacts
identified and analyzed in the Final EIR;
WHEREAS, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, which is contained in the
attached Final EIR, clarify and amplify the environmental analyses therein;
WHEREAS, the City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable
commitment of resources toward the proposed project prior to certification of the Final EIR,
nor has the City previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the
proposed Project;
WHEREAS, copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR
and/or the Final EIR 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; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Encinitas has reviewed the Final
EIR.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission received,
reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifies the Final EIR, and
adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as
follows:
“ATTACHMENT A – FINDINGS OF FACT”
“ATTACHMENT B – MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM”
“ATTACHMENT C – FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT”
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17TH day of December, 2020 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Doyle, Ehlers, Farrow, Flicker, Sherod
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
_________________________
Bruce Ehlers, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________
Roy Sapa’u
Secretary
NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies time limits
for legal challenges.
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS OF FACT
Attachment A
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2020-28
Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
(SCH #2020039079)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
CEQA Findings of Fact
Fox Point Farms Project
Case No.: MULTI-3524-2019; CPP-3525-2019;
SUB-3526-2019; DR-3528-2019; and CDPNF-3529-2019
State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2020039079
Lead Agency:
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
Preparer:
Michael Baker International
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260
Carlsbad, CA 92008
November 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | i
CEQA Findings of Fact
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
A. Record of Proceedings .........................................................................................................3
B. Custodian and Location of Records ......................................................................................4
II. PROJECT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................5
A. Project Location ..................................................................................................................5
B. Project Description .............................................................................................................5
C. Proposed Land Use .............................................................................................................6
D. General Plan Land Use and Zoning ..................................................................................... 16
E. Discretionary Actions ........................................................................................................ 19
F. Statement of Objectives .................................................................................................... 20
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................... 21
IV. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA .......................................................................................... 21
V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .......................................................... 24
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ......................................................................... 24
A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels ............................................................... 24
B. Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant ........................................... 51
C. Growth-Inducing Impacts .................................................................................................. 59
D. Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 63
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 78
VIII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 81
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | ii Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
This page intentionally left blank.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 1
CEQA Findings of Fact
I. INTRODUCTION
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 Environmental Impact
Report (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 EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, 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 EIR.
(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 identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(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
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 2 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
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 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 applie d 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 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 EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR
and/or other information in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
The following Findings of Fact (Findings) are the findings that are required to be made by the
decision-making body prior to carrying out or approving the proposed project.
Having received, reviewed, and certified the Final EIR for the Fox Point Farms Project (the
project), State Clearinghouse No. 2020039079, 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 its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 3
CEQA Findings of Fact
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, t he 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;
• Written comments received on the NOP;
• Scoping Meeting(s) and written comments received at Scoping Meeting(s);
• The 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report and appendices for the proposed project;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public the Draft EIR and
Final EIR;
• All responses prepared by the City to written comments submitted by agencies or
members of the public on the Draft EIR and Final EIR;
• 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 EIR and the Final EIR;
• The Final EIR and all supplemental documents prepared for the Final EIR and submitted
to the City of Encinitas Planning Commission prior to the Planning Commission hearing;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and
local laws, ordinances, plans and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings;
• City staff report(s) prepared for the hearing(s) 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
pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e).
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 4 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
The Draft EIR and related technical studies were made available for review during the public
review period on the City’s website at http://www.encinitasca.gov/I-Want-To/Public-
Notices/Planning-Building-Public-Notices (under “Environmental Notices”). Additional
accommodations, such as the direct provision of hard copies, were provided as the public
comment period occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic.
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.A. above, are located at the City
Development Services Department, 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024. The City
Clerk 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’s Development Services Department. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 5
CEQA Findings of Fact
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The project site is located at the northwest corner of the Leucadia Boulevard/Quail Gardens Drive
intersection, in the Leucadia community of Encinitas (City), in central coastal San Diego County.
The existing San Diego County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) for the property is 254-612-12-
00. The Encinitas Ranch Golf Course is located to the east of the project site. Leucadia Boulevard
forms the southern boundary of the subject property. Existing single-family residential
development lies west of the project site. The Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve borders the
site along the entire northern property boundary.
The site is within walking/biking distance to Capri Elemen tary School (0.75 miles), shopping
centers on El Camino Real (0.75 miles), Paul Ecke Sports Park and the YMCA (0.85 miles), and is
0.7 miles from the Leucadia Boulevard/Interstate 5 interchange. Transit stops are located on
Leucadia Boulevard immediately adjacent to the site, providing residents with an affordable
means of transportation to these community resources and jobs. Indian Head Canyon, a
community resource for open space and trails, is located north of the Magdalena Ecke Open
Space Preserve.
B. Project Description
The Fox Point Farms Project (proposed project) proposes the development of an “agrihood”
community on a 21.48-acre site located at 1150 Quail Gardens Drive in the City of Encinitas. The
property would be subdivided into four lots. Lot 1 wou ld consist of 197 apartments, edible
landscaping, community gardens, trails, a bocce court, social spaces, an informal outdoor
community library, and a community recreation center. Lot 2 would consist of a shared
public/private agricultural amenity area including a farm-to-table restaurant1 (with alcohol sales
as an accessory use), farm stand, event lawns, discovery garden, outdoor dining areas,
greenhouse and community event space, and an outdoor education patio. Lot 3 would consist of
an organic farm operation, including farm operation buildings, an orchard, and a chicken coop.
Lot 4 would consist of 53 for-sale cottages/carriage units/townhomes. Two temporary
construction trailers would be located on-site during construction of the proposed project and
would be removed upon completion of construction.
The Urban Land Institute defines an agrihood as a single-family, multi-family, or mixed-use
community built with a working farm as a focus. The growing and harvesting of local food can be
assisted by real estate developments that (1) accommodate or financially support on-site
farming, greenhouses, or other commercial food-growing operations, (2) create community
1 Farm-to-table restaurant implies that ingredients used in the menu for the restaurant come from local sources, preferably
through direct acquisition from the producer. Such sources may include the on-site organic farm and orchard, and/or other
local businesses and operations (i.e., local wineries, breweries, ranches, fisheries, or other types of food or beverage
producers).
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 6 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
food-growing areas in residential or mixed-used projects, and (3) cluster walkable development
to preserve land for farming, open space, or both.2 The proposed project has been designed
around all three of these principles.
C. Proposed Land Use
The property would be subdivided into four lots. A brief summary of the uses within each lot is
included in Table 1, Land Use Summary.
Table 1: Land Use Summary
Project Area Land Use
Lot 1 (9.2 acres) 197 apartments, edible landscaping, community gardens, trails, a bocce court, social
spaces, an informal outdoor community library, and a community recreation center
Lot 2
(1.9 acres) Shared public/private agricultural amenity area including a farm-to-table restaurant
(with alcohol sales as an accessory use), farm stand, event lawns, discovery garden, outdoo r
dining areas, and an outdoor education patio
Lot 3 (5.5 acres) Organic farm operation, including farm operation buildings, an orchard, and a
chicken coop
Lot 4 (3.1 acres) 53 for-sale cottages/carriage units/townhomes
Not a part (1.8 acres) Existing Leucadia and Quail Gardens Drive right-of-way dedicated to public use
RESIDENTIAL USES
The project would accommodate development of 250 new residential units, including 197
apartment units and 53 for-sale condominium or small-lot detached residences. The Site Plan
and Tentative Map have been designed at a pedestrian scale, encouraging residents to walk along
edible paseos and utilize on-site amenity areas. All units, including the apartments, bungalows,
carriage units, and townhomes are alley-loaded, such that these homes front onto pedestrian
walkways or into open space areas, overlooking community gardens and landscaping.
A variety of housing types would allow for diversity in unit size and incomes. Apartments units
are spread across 6-plex, 7-plex and 13-plex buildings and range from 532 square-foot studios to
1,429 square-foot three bedroom units. The condominium/for sale units include:
• 710 square-foot, 1-bedroom carriage units;
• 1,100 square foot, 2-bedroom townhomes; and
• 1,600 square-foot 3-bedroom cottage units.
The project proposes 210 market-rate units and 40 very low income (affordable to households
earning no more than 50 percent of area median income) affordable residential units. Units
2 Urban Land Institute. Cultivating Development – Trends and Opportunities at the Intersection of Food and Real Estate. 2016.
https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Cultivating-Development-Trends-and-Opportunities-at-the-
Intersection-of-Food-and-Real-Estate.pdf.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 7
CEQA Findings of Fact
would range from two to three stories in height and would comply with the development
requirements of the City’s Housing Element Update, as adopted in 2019, including restrictions on
maximum average unit size (1,000 square feet average for apartments, 1,150 square feet average
for cottages/carriage units/townhomes).
The project site has been designated for 246 to 296 residential units in the Housing Element
Update. The proposed project’s 250 residential units are within the allowable unit count.
One occupied, existing single-family residence is present in the southwestern portion of the
property. This unit would be demolished by the proposed project.
AGRICULTURAL/AGRIHOOD USES
Local agriculture contributes to regional food systems and to the health and economic well-being
of communities. Local community farms grow food, plants, and other crops that may serve the
immediate community and provide opportunities for education, events, and agri -tourism.
Community farms at the local level can also provide a platform to educate consumers about the
complex issues of agriculture and the food system. This is the character of agricultural uses
historically practiced in Encinitas.
Despite their numerous benefits, small-scale farms struggle to compete with large-scale
industrial agriculture because they lack economies of scale and access to expensive equipment
and technology. Development pressure drives up land costs, often distancing farms from their
markets. This results in higher transportation costs and a lack of connectivity to the consumer.
Additionally, a high percentage of consumer profits are otherwise captured by distributors,
processors, and retailers.
As an agrihood, the proposed project would enable preservation of local agricultural uses. Lot 2
(agricultural amenity area – 1.96 acres) and Lot 3 (organic farm operation – 5.5 acres) would
serve as the key components of the project’s agrihood concept, integrating agriculture with on -
site residents as well as the larger public. These areas would include the following uses (all of
which are permitted uses per Section 6.6.2 of the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan for the ER-R-30,
Multi-Family Residential zone).
Organic Farm
Approximately 5.5 gross acres in the northern portion of the project site would remain in
agricultural use as an organic farm, including appurtenant structures. The existing operation on
the project site has historically functioned as a private, commercial enterprise. With the
proposed project, the agricultural operation would shift to a more public, community-serving
amenity, open to Fox Point Farms residents as well as the larger community of Encinitas. Produce
from the farm would be made available by various means, including an on-site farm stand, hosted
farm-to-table dinners, and at the on-site farm-to-table restaurant.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 8 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Agricultural Produce Sales (Farm Stand)
The farm stand would sell locally grown produce from the on -site organic farm to residents of
Fox Point Farms and to the larger public. It is planned to be located on the first level of the barn
building in the northern portion of the agricultural amenity area and would be open to the public
seven days a week (anticipated from 9 am to 5 pm).
Farm-to-Table Restaurant
The proposed farm-to-table restaurant would be the first of its kind in San Diego County, sourcing
its ingredients and produce from the adjacent organic farm operation. The restaurant would
include indoor and outdoor seating within the barn building (second level), with an expansive
deck overlooking the organic farm and the Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve in the distance.
The restaurant would be open to the public seven days a week (10 am to 10 pm) and would serve
beer, wine, and liquor. The provision of those beverages would be ancillary to the primary use of
the space as a farm-to-table restaurant. Parking would be provided in the adjacent parking lot
consistent with the Encinitas Municipal Code parking requirements (1 space per 100 square feet
of area); refer also to Parking, below.
Outdoor Dining Uses
The outdoor dining area would typically be used for hosted community dinners, with food
provided by the on-site organic farm and other locally grown food. The community dinners would
occur approximately once a month, likely on a Friday or Saturday evening from 5 pm to 8 pm,
and would be served by the on -site farmers and/or guest chefs. This area would also be used as
an informal dining/seating area for restaurant patrons. The outdoor dining area is proposed
adjacent to the barn building.
Outdoor Event Uses
Outdoor event uses would utilize the modern greenhouse structure, outdoor patio, commun ity
area, and event lawns for various types of events, including but not limited to: movie nights on
the green, collaborative educational events with the local school district, parties, yoga events,
and weddings. These uses are located in the southern portion of the agricultural amenity area.
Movie nights would occur approximately once a month and during the evening time (after 7 pm).
Educational events with the local school district would occur approximately once a month,
midweek, between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm. Parties would occur with varied frequency
depending on demand, and weddings would occur no more than three times per month. These
events would occur during regular hours of operation, with the limitation that any outdoor
amplified music or other entertainment would not occur past 10 pm and would be controlled by
the owner to ensure compliance with City requirements.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 9
CEQA Findings of Fact
Farm Operations Buildings
Two buildings in the northeast portion of the project site would be used for operation of the
organic farm. This would include one building for farm equipment and farm animals (goats,
chickens, etc.), and one building for office uses and the sorting and processing of fresh produce.
RECREATION CENTER AND OPEN SPACE
A recreation center is proposed southwest of the main entry to the community on Quail Gardens
Drive. The recreation center would be approximately 10,000 square feet and would serve as a
community gathering place for project residents and would include mail/parcel pick up, a leasing
office, lounge areas, and fitness and workout areas (including a yoga room and golf simulator).
The recreation center would also include outdoor passive and active uses including seating areas
and BBQ islands, a pool for project residents, a dog run, and landscape areas.
In addition to the recreation center, a central amenity area would run north/south through the
middle of the project site. This 30-foot wide linear park corridor would be amenitized with a
series of activity nodes, including community gardens, a community “reading room,” trails, open
lawn areas, and a bocce ball court. The linear park would total approximately 0.4 acres in size.
An edible paseo, consisting of a pedestrian pathway with fruit trees and other edible landscaping,
is proposed within a 50-foot setback buffer on the western boundary of the project site. The
edible paseo would continue as a trail along the northern edge of the project site and would
include active fitness nodes at various locations. Connections would be made to existing
pedestrian facilities including sidewalks along Leucadia Boulevard and Quail Garden Drive.
ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to the site would be provided at approximately the existing access point along Quail
Gardens Drive. Minor improvements would be made to the entry drive to provide two lanes.
Additionally, to accommodate the anticipated full length of the future southbound left-turn
queue on Quail Gardens Drive south of the project entrance, the proposed project would
reconstruct the median to lengthen the southbound left-turn storage pocket by 25 feet at the
Leucadia Boulevard/Quail Gardens Drive intersection and shorten the northbound left-turn
pocket at the project driveway since there is sufficient storage to serve the project-related vehicle
trips.
Interior circulation is proposed via a two-lane, 26-foot-wide roadway system that would connect
east-west through the site. An internal fire access loop road and series of private alleys would
provide vehicular access to all residential units. This roadway system would provide direct access
to private garages and would be privately owned and maintained. All private roadways have been
designed to meet City standards. Private pedestrian pathways are proposed along all internal
streets.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 10 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
While the project does not propose access to or from Sidonia Street, because the project site
includes frontage on Sidonia Street, the proposed project would widen and improve Sidonia
Street to meet the City’s standards for a local residential street . This includes the construction of
a sidewalk and landscaping along the project’s frontage with the eastern side of Sidonia Street,
consistent with the City’s Street Design Manual. This sidewalk would connect to sidewalks on
Leucadia Boulevard and existing sidewalks on Sidonia Street, north of the project site.
Emergency Access
The access point at Sidonia Street is proposed as gated emergency access only (no vehicular
access for residents), consistent with community feedback received during the NOP scoping
period and associated conversations with City staff.
PARKING
A total of 561 parking spaces would be provided as part of the project, through a combination of
garage parking and surface parking. This includes a parking lot which would serve the proposed
restaurant and event space on the eastern edge of the project site, within Lot 2.
Residential Parking
Of the 561 total parking spaces, 481 would be designated residential parking spaces, substantially
exceeding the State Density Bonus Law parking requirement of 395 residential parking spac es.
All residential parking (exclusive of guest parking) would be provided consistent with Municipal
Code parking requirements. Guest parking, while not provided for directly, would be shared with
surface residential parking spaces throughout the project. Residential parking would be provided
in a mix of 1- and 2-car private garages. A total of 309 garage parking spaces would be provided
for the 197 apartments, and 86 garage parking spaces would be provided for the 53 for -sale
condominiums. An additional 86 surface parking spaces would be provided throughout the
residential community.
Non-residential Parking
The remaining 80 non-residential parking spaces would be provided for the farm, farm stand,
restaurant, and event spaces as shown below in Table 2, Non-Residential Parking Requirements.
The non-residential uses (all of which are permitted uses per Section 6.6.2 of the Encinitas Ranch
Specific Plan for the ER-R-30, Multi-Family Residential zone) would be parked consistent with the
parking use categories and associated parking ratios identified in the Encinitas Municipal Code
(Section 30.54.030 – Schedule of Required Off-Street Parking). These parking use categories and
ratios are identified in Table 2.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 11
CEQA Findings of Fact
Table 2: Non-Residential Parking Requirements
Use Use Size
Parking Use Category
(per Municipal Code)
Parking
Ratio
Parking
Required
Farm 5.5 acres (gross) Horticulture 1 space per
2 acres 3
Restaurant
3,500 net square feet, 5,231 gross
square feet (includes indoor space,
decks, ground-level dining, and
back-of-house/bathrooms)
Restaurants
1 space per
100 square
feet of area
53
Farm Stand 1,232 net square feet, 3,213 gross
square feet
Agricultural Roadside
Stands 5 spaces 5
Event Space 2,160 gross square feet (includes
indoor space and outdoor space)
Places of Public
Assembly
1 space for
every 3
persons
19
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIRED: 80
TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROVIDED: 80
The 19 event parking spaces, per the required parking ratio, would accommodate events with up
to 57 people. Any proposed events larger than 57 people would require that the restaurant be
closed in order to utilize the 53 restaurant parking spaces (in addition to the 19 standard event
spaces) for those larger events. Events larger than 175 people would not be permitted. A parking
study would be completed during the first year of operations to assess actual parking demand
for all non-residential uses.
LANDSCAPING
Ornamental landscaping would be planted along the on -site roadway system, the agricultural
amenity area, private recreation center, central linear park, and in and around the bioretention
basins. Maintenance of all landscaping would be the responsibility o f the Master Homeowner’s
Association (HOA). A number of on-site mature trees along Leucadia Boulevard and Quail
Gardens Drive would also be maintained or replaced in -kind with project implementation. The
proposed project includes a variety of walls and fences on the south, west, north and east sides
of the project site, as well as internal walls and fences.
SIGNAGE
Signage is proposed at the entry along Quail Gardens Drive. The signage would be consistent with
City of Encinitas signage design standards for residential uses to minimize potential aesthetic
effects and to ensure consistency with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. In
addition, a water tower is proposed at this entry which would serve as an accessory use
compatible with the overall design of the project. The project proposes to use an identifying sign
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 12 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
or other symbol on the water tower in accordance with the City of Encinitas signage design
standards.
UTILITIES
Water
Public water service for the project would be provided by the San Dieguito Water District. Public
water service is currently provided to the agricultural operation and one on -site residence. To
receive water service, the project proposes to make a connection to the existing 20 -inch line in
Quail Gardens Drive and a connection to the existing 10-inch line in Sidonia Street and construct
a public water loop between these connections. The on -site public loop line would be located
within the private access driveway and has been preliminarily sized as 8 -inch to meet the
anticipated fire flow requirements for the project. Additional 8-inch public water system piping
would be extended from this main loop line. All on -site fire hydrants and building fire sprinkler
laterals would be connected to these public lines. The on -site public line is also anticipated to
supply the domestic service laterals and meters for each building.
Sewer
Sewer service to the proposed project would be provided by the City of Encinitas (Encinitas
Sanitary District). The project site is situated at the very north end of the Encinitas Sanitary
District service area. Flows from this area are eventually conveyed to the Encinitas trunk sewer
line located south of the project site in Encinitas Boulevard. The existing sewer system in the
project vicinity consists of gravity sewer pipelines. There is an existing 8-inch gravity sewer line
in Quail Gardens Drive, as well as an existing 8-inch gravity sewer line in Sidonia Street. The
proposed project would sewer to the existing collection system in Leucadia Boulevard . Project
flows would be conveyed to Sidonia Street at the approximately location of the secondary access
point, and then would be conveyed south to a point of connection to the existing City sewer
system in Leucadia Boulevard.
Stormwater Facilities
Under current conditions, a majority of the site drains from east to west and enters into Sidonia
Street via surface/sheet flow. The eastern edge and northeast portion of the site flows northeast
via surface flow and is collected in a concrete brow ditch and conveyed north where it discharges
into the Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve located to the north of the project site. Drainage
from the existing entry driveway of the site travels southeast and is collected in a concrete brow
ditch where it is eventually collected and pumped to the existing reservoir located at the
southeast corner of Quail Gardens Drive and Leucadia Boulevard. Finally, drainage from the
southern portion of the site flows south into an existing swale and is collected and conveyed east
via storm drain and enters into the existing storm drain system within Quail Gardens Drive.
On-site improvements are proposed to enhance this existing infrastructure for the transport of
stormwater flows from the site. In particular, the existing drainage syst em that discharges from
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 13
CEQA Findings of Fact
the northwest corner of the site surface flows onto Sidonia Street and would be redirected to the
new proposed system conveying runoff directly into the City’s storm drain system rather than
across Sidonia Street. The improvements proposed with the project would enhance existing
drainage/storm water quality conditions by conveying this runoff to on-site biofiltration basins
and the City’s storm drain system.
The project includes a drainage network designed to control and filter stormwater runoff in
conformance with the requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) and the City of Encinitas. The proposed stormwater system would include the use of
on-site storage of stormwater in basins with outlets to regulate the flow rate and duration of
stormwater released, and bioretention basins to slow and sequester runoff. With incorporation
of these improvements, the project would alleviate the existing flooding issues on Sidonia Street
during large storm events.
Electricity
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) currently provides electrical services to the project site. All
existing and future on-site utilities (electrical lines) would be undergrounded with the proposed
improvements.
CONSTRUCTION PHASING
The project site is currently utilized as a commercial nursery. Greenhouses, sheds, restrooms, a
boiler room, and other supporting structures would be removed from the property to allow for
the proposed land uses and supporting infrastructure.
Development of the site would occur at one time and would not be phased. All proposed site
improvements are anticipated to be constructed within a period of approximately 6 to 8 months,
beginning in June 2021. Thereafter, an 18-month vertical construction schedule is anticipated to
build the 250 residential units and associated agrihood structures. Table 3, below, provides the
estimated project construction schedule.
Table 3: Anticipated Construction Schedule
Construction Phase Start Date End Date Duration
Demolition June 1, 2021 June 30, 2021 23 days
Grading July 1, 2021 September 30, 2021 69 days
Utilities and Infrastructure October 1, 2021 December 31, 2021 69 days
Paving January 1, 2022 January 31, 2022 23 days
Building Construction February 1, 2022 July 31, 2023 18 months
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 14 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
GRADING
The project site would be graded to allow for the proposed improvements. Grading required for
project implementation would include approximately 28,000 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 28,000
c.y. of fill in a balanced grading operation. Proposed maximum cut slopes would be 8 feet in
height; maximum fill slopes would be 5 feet in height. Approximately 6 to 8 cubic yards of diesel-
contaminated soil is present on-site and, in compliance with the County approved Soil
Management Plan, would require remediation as part of project grading. Grading activity is
anticipated to last approximately three months.
SUSTAINABILITY
The proposed project would promote sustainability through site design that would cons erve
energy, water, open space, and other natural resources. As part of this commitment, the project
would implement core sustainable development features, including the following which have
been incorporated into the project as design features:
1. The project would install low flow water fixtures in all residential units.
2. All lighting within the project would be designed using LED technology for both indoor
and outdoor areas.
3. The project would provide separate waste containers to allow for simpler material
separations, or the project would pay for a waste collection service that recycles the
materials in accordance with AB 341 to achieve a 75% waste diversion. 100% of all green
waste would be diverted from landfills and recycled as mulch and used on-site.
4. The project would not install hearth options in residential units.
5. The project would be required to utilize Tier 4 construction Equipment with Diesel
Particulate Filters (DPF) attached or equivalent.
6. The project would install 434 kilowatts (kW) of solar.
7. The project would provide circuit and capacity in all 250 residential garages for use by
electric vehicles, and would install 13 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations in surface
parking areas throughout the project site.
8. The project would install high-efficiency water heaters or solar water heater systems.
9. The project would comply with ENERGYSTAR appliance requirements, and would meet
ENERGYSTAR for Homes.
10. The project would install water efficient/drought tolerant and/or native landscape, use
smart evapotranspiration controllers, would use reclaimed water on non -agricultural
project landscaping areas and would limit conventional turf.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 15
CEQA Findings of Fact
11. The project would install high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems areas.
12. The project has been designed such that most buildings are oriented in a north/south
direction.
13. The project includes a mix of uses, including an on-site restaurant, on-site recreation
areas (community recreation center, trail system, linear park) and is within walking
distance of off-site retail and commercial centers areas.
14. The project would improve duct insulation 15 percent over 2013 Title 24.
15. The project would comply with CalGreen Tier II standards.
16. The project would install a storm water reuse system on-site to collect, filter and re-use
captured stormwater in landscaped areas.
17. The project would provide residential development within walking and biking distance of
local retail.
Many of the measures listed above are outlined in the City’s 2019 Housing Element Update
Environmental Assessment measure GHG-3, Table A, as recommended measures.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to
reduce automobile trips, both internal and external to the community. TDM measures proposed
for the project include:
Land Use Strategies
• “Mix of Uses” - The project provides a mix of land uses, including residential, commercial
and recreational uses, so that residents of the proposed project have access to basic
amenities without having to travel outside of the project site. This proximity would lower
vehicle miles traveled because residents can use non-automobile transportation modes
to reach the various uses available within the site.
• “Affordable Housing” - The project provides 40 very-low income affordable housing units,
which provide greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to jobs centers
and achieve jobs/housing match near transit and allow a greater number of families to be
accommodated within a given building footprint.
Travel and Commute Services for Residents and Employees
• “Pedestrian Connections” - The project would develop a pedestrian network that provides
accommodations on-site as well as convenient pedestrian access to Leucadia Boulevard
and Quail Gardens Drive.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 16 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
• “Multi-use Trail” - The project Conceptual Site Plan includes a multi-use path that loops
the site. Multi-use trails and paths comprise a total of nearly two miles within the site.
The multi-use trails and paths shall be constructed in conformance with that shown on
the approved final Conceptual Site Plan.
Commute Trip Reduction Strategies
• “Business Center”- The project would include a resident business center in the community
recreation center with Wi-Fi access for residents, printers/scanners, and other office
amenities to enable residents to work remotely rather than commuting to work.
• “TDM Marketing Program”
o Promote and advertise various transportation options, including promoting
information and resources regarding SANDAG’s iCommute program, which
provides support to commuters through a variety of TDM measures, such as
carpool matching services, vanpool, and other services.
o Promote formal and/or informal networks among residents for carpool/ vanpool
purposes.
o Promote available websites providing transportation options for residents.
o Create and distribute a “new resident” information packet addressing alternative
modes of transportation.
• “School Pool”- The project would coordinate and implement a “school pool” program
for project students.
D. General Plan Land Use and Zoning
The City of Encinitas General Plan Land Use Map designates the project site as SP -3 (Encinitas
Ranch Specific Plan). Existing zoning for the site is ER-AG. As mentioned previously, the project
site is included in the City of Encinitas Housing Element Update, which was adopted by the City
of Encinitas on March 13, 2019. As part of that Housing Element Update, the project site was
designated with an R-30 overlay and is required to be developed with a minimum of 246
residential units.
Under the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan, the project site is designated for a mix of ER-R-30 (30
units/acre residential uses) on approximately 14.2 acres, and agricultural uses (per the underlying
agricultural zoning) on approximately 9 acres. The ER-R-30 designation allows multifamily
residential uses up to 30 units/acre. The residential component of the project, as well as the five
“agricultural amenity area” uses identified above, are “permitted uses” within the ER -R-30 zone
in the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan. The language below is excerpted from Section 6.6 of the
Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan (as amended):
6.6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (“ER-R-30” ZONE)
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 17
CEQA Findings of Fact
6.6.1 DESCRIPTION OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
The multi-family residential zone establishes a density range of 25-30 dwelling units per net acre
(“ER-R-30”) consistent with the City of Encinitas General Plan Housing Element. The following uses
and development standards are specific to ER-R-30 zoned properties in the Specific Plan Area.
6.6.2 USES PERMITTED
A. Permitted Uses. All uses identified as “permitted by right” in the R-30 OL zone, as defined in
the Encinitas Municipal Code Zoning Matrix, shall be permitted uses within this Specific Plan zone
ER-R-30. Additionally, the following uses shall be permitted uses within the ER-R-30 zone.
Agricultural produce sales
Farmers Market
Outdoor dining uses
Outdoor event uses
Farm-to-Table Restaurant
B. Permitted Accessory Use. Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsection A above, may be
considered a permitted accessory use, provided that the Development Services Director finds that
the proposed accessory use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in
the designated subsections. Accessory uses are necessarily and customarily associated with, and
are appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to the primary use(s).
No changes to the existing land use or zoning are required or proposed to allow for project
implementation.
Density Bonus
A housing development including five or more residential units may propose a density bonus in
accordance with California Government Code Section 65915 et seq. (“Density Bonus Law”).
California’s Density Bonus Law is intended to encourage cities to offer bonuses and development
concessions to projects that would contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower
income housing in proposed housing developments.
The proposed project would adhere to Density Bonus Law by providing 40 “very low” (affordable
to households earning no more than 50 percent of area median income) affordable residential
units, which represent 16 percent of the overall unit count. While this allows the project to utilize
the maximum density bonus (up to a 50 percent increase in unit count), the proposed project is
not utilizing Density Bonus Law to increase density on the site.
Density Bonus Law allows projects to utilize up to three concessions and unlimited waivers. Three
concessions are proposed with the project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 18 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
1. Concession 1 – Project Setback from Leucadia Boulevard
The first concession requested for the project is a reduction in setback from Leucadia
Boulevard along the project’s southern boundary. Per the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan,
the required setback for structures is 45 feet from the edge of the City-owned right-of-
way. The project’s structures would be constructed with a setback of 25 feet, or 20 feet
less than the existing standard.3
2. Concession 2 – Internal Lot 4 Setback Reductions
The second concession requested is the accommodation of reduced setbacks for Lot 4
located adjacent to the apartment community of Lot 1. None of the reduced setbacks will
be readily visible from outside the project boundary. The reduced setbacks are necessary
to allow for the construction of a greater number of the 53 for-sale cottages/carriage
units/townhomes as 2-story structures. The project proposes 40 two-story for-sale
structures and three 3-story for-sale structures. Without the second concession, the
project would require that those 2-story for-sale structures be converted to 3-story
structures.
o Waiver 1: Side yard setbacks of structures within Lot 4 from the boundary of Lot 1
will be reduced from 10 feet to 2 feet. The section of Lot 1 adjacent to Lot 4
consists of a 26-foot-wide access road, not structures, and therefore the
requested setback reduction will not result in adjacency conflicts.
o Waiver 2: Rear yard setback requirements for structures on Lot 4 will be reduced
from 10 feet to 7 feet.
• Concession 3 – Reduction in Distance Between Buildings
The third concession requested for the project is the reduction of building separation
distance requirements in Encinitas Municipal Code section 30.16.010(A)(3)(p). Within the
R-30 overlay zone, for buildings taller than 16 feet in height, the EMC requires a
separation of 15 feet between structures. In various locations internal to the project site,
there is less than 15 feet of separation between structures. This condition occurs most
frequently in Lot 4 at various locations between the cottage/carriage for-sale units, at one
location in Lot 4 between the townhome for-sale units, and at three locations in Lot 1
between apartment buildings. Adherence to the 15 -foot building separation requirement
would result in less overall area for project development, creating the need to either 1)
reduce unit count, 2) reduce unit size, or 3) add additional height to the structures. All of
3 Other Housing Element sites typically require a setback of only 10 feet from adjacent rights-of way under the R-30-OL
designation.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 19
CEQA Findings of Fact
these responses would negatively affect the financial viability of the project, either
resulting in less revenue (reduced unit count or size) or higher costs (taller structures).
These waivers to implement the second concession would not have an adverse impact upon
health, safety, the physical environment, or any real property listed in the C alifornia Register of
Historical Resources. The proposed waivers would also not violate state or federal laws.
E. Discretionary Actions
The City of Encinitas is the lead agency for the project, as it is the agency with primary authority
over the project’s discretionary approvals. Several other agencies, identified as responsible and
trustee agencies, would also use the EIR for their consideration of approvals or permits under
their respective authorities. For the purposes of CEQA, the term trustee agency means a state
agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in
trust for the people of the state of California. The term responsible agency includes all public
agencies other than the lead agency that may have discretionary actions associated with the
implementation of the proposed project or an aspect of subsequent implementation of the
project. Accordingly, the approvals anticipated to be required from the lead agency, trustee
agencies, and/or responsible agencies are listed in Table 4, Required Approvals and Permits.
Table 4: Required Approvals and Permits
Permit/Action Required Approving Agency Lead/Trustee/Responsible Agency
Density Bonus Tentative Map City of Encinitas (City) Lead Agency
Coastal Development Permit (CDP) City Lead Agency
Design Review City Lead Agency
Landscape Plan City Lead Agency
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) City Lead Agency
General Construction Stormwater Permit San Diego RWQCB Responsible Agency
NPDES Permit San Diego RWQCB Responsible Agency
Construction Permit
and/or Encroachment Permit City Lead Agency
Stormwater Quality Management Plan/
Drainage Plan City Lead Agency
Grading Permit City Lead Agency
Building Permit City Lead Agency
Improvement Plans City Lead Agency
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 20 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
F. Statement of Objectives
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124(b) requires the project
description to contain a statement of objectives that includes the underlying purpose of the
proposed project. The objectives of the project are identified below. The underlying purpose of
the Fox Point Farms project is to create a highly-amenitized, pedestrian-oriented, sustainable
agrihood community which provides a mix of product types, creating opportunities for
attainably-priced housing across income groups in conformance with the City’s 2019 Housing
Element (Fifth Cycle). The Fox Point Farms project strives to serve as an innovative example for
other cities to follow. The project is guided by the following objectives:
• Provide visual and functional compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods,
other nearby land uses, development, and natural features.
• Provide for varying housing densities and diverse housing types to support an inclusive,
multi-generational community to meet the current and future housin g demand on a site
located near transit, retail, recreational amenities, and schools.
• Use agriculture as an organizing element of the overall neighborhood plan and provide
better public access to agricultural uses.
• Provide for the long-term preservation of agriculture through an urban farm and other
amenities that would serve as community assets and as a transition between urban uses
and agricultural land.
• Design buildings, spaces, and uses that enhance and respect the agricultural history of the
area and promote environmental stewardship.
• Create a walkable environment that promotes and enhances the pedestrian experience
throughout the site, with safe, convenient, and attractive connections, open space, parks,
paseos, agriculture, and other amenities.
• Provide a site plan that creates connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and transit while
respecting adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods by locating lower-density,
detached homes along the western portion of the project site.
• Provide a publicly-accessible loop trail system around the project site.
• Minimize visual impacts of the project site by locating two-story units around the
perimeter of the project site and focusing three-story structures more central to the
project site.
• Provide at least the minimum number of units and housing opportunities that are
consistent with the goals of the adopted City of Encinitas Housing Element, while
minimizing environmental effects and protecting surrounding natural and aesthetic
resources.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 21
CEQA Findings of Fact
• Provide affordable housing within the project for very low income families, thereby
helping to meet the State-mandated affordable housing requirements and further
encouraging diversity within the community.
• Provide homeownership opportunities and meet the growing demand fo r smaller
cottage/carriage homes, while at the same time encouraging multi-generational living
opportunities that are compatible with the visual character of the surrounding
community.
• Buffer existing open space areas adjacent to the project site (Magdalen a Ecke Open Space
Preserve) with an organic farm and focusing development further south to protect
sensitive habitat and views.
• Provide resident parking in accordance with the City of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance, and
encourage shared parking (consistent with the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan) among the
various non-residential uses within the project.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City distributed an NOP of the Draft EIR
to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies, and other interested parties
on March 27, 2020 for a 30-day public comment period. Various agencies and other interested
parties responded to the NOP. In addition, a Citizen Participation Program (CPP) public meeting
was held for the proposed project on February 27, 2020 from 6 p m to 9 pm at Encinitas City Hall
(Council Chambers). All property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project
site were mailed a copy of the neighborhood letter and the vicinity map. Approximately 80-90
individuals attended the CPP public meeting.
The Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for review and comment by the public agencies and
organizations for a 45-day public review period that began on August 28, 2020 and concluded on
October 12, 2020. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to the California State
Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research (SCH No. 2020039079). A Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIR for review was mailed to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the
project site as well as known public agencies, organizations and parties anticipated to have an
interest in the project. The Notice of Availability was also filed with the County 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 EIR ; refer to
Section 0.5, Comment Letters and Responses to Comments.
IV. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
CEQA Section 21002 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
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 22 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
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(a)(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 oth er
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 reason able period of time, taking
into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” CEQA 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.App.3d 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
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 23
CEQA Findings of Fact
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 EIR.
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.App.4th 316, 357-359).
LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these Findings conclude that various mitigation measures outlined in the Final
EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds
itself to require implementation of these measures. These Findings, therefore, constitute a
binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City formally approves the proposed
project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 24 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
The adopted mitigation measures are included in the MMRP adopted concurrently with these
Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementation of the Fox Point Farms
Project.
V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
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 Fox Point Farms Project, all responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identified below in Section VII, Findings Regarding Significant Impacts. 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 t he mitigation
measures for the project and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation
measures to guide future decisions.
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The Final EIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with
implementing the proposed project. The Final EIR concludes that all significant impacts
identified in the EIR can be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation
measures proposed with the exception of transportation impacts associated with vehicle-
miles-traveled (VMT) which are considered significant and unavoidable.
As the lead agency, the City of Encinitas must respond to each significant effect identified in this
EIR by making “findings” for each significant effect. As part of the decision -making process, the
City must determine whether or how to mitigate the associated significant effects of the project,
including whether to implement a project alternative. Approval of the project despite identified
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts would require a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, explaining why the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental effects,
as set forth in this document.
A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold of Significance Issue 1 (EIR Impact 3.3-1): Substantial Adverse Effect on Sensitive Species
A significant impact relative to this issue would occur if the project would have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish or Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 25
CEQA Findings of Fact
Impacts
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United
States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from
activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly
authorized in the regulations or by permit. The State of California has incorporated the protection
of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC).
All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 USC
Section 703 et seq.) and California statute (FGC Section 3503.5).
As discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIR, no sensitive species are located or were observed on the
project site. However, migratory birds and raptors have the potential to nest and forage on and
around the subject property due to the presence of on-site trees and natural open space that
abuts the northern property boundary. As such, the potential for project construction activities
to indirectly affect migratory bird or raptor nesting cycles within and adjacent to the project site
does exist. Such impacts would be considered potentially significant .
Additionally, there is a high potential for the coastal California gnatcatcher to occur on land north
of the project site in the natural open space area. The coastal California gnatcatcher is listed as
threatened by the USFWS and has been recorded in the Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve.
Due to the close proximity of suitable habitat, it is possible that project construction activities
could indirectly affect the species. Such impacts would be considered potentially significant.
Explanation
As evaluated in Section 3.3 of the EIR, no sensitive species were observed or recorded on the site,
and such species are not anticipated to occur on-site due to the due to existing conditions (i.e.,
developed land uses and highly disturbed conditions from uses past and present) and the
absence of suitable habitat. However, migratory birds and raptors have been historically
observed in the area, including the coastal California gnatcatcher; therefore, the potential for
nesting and foraging in the area does exist and indirect impacts to breeding birds and/or raptors
may occur during project construction activities (i.e., clearing or grading) if construction occu rs
during the nesting/breeding season (January to July). Mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2
would be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Pre-Construction General Nesting Bird Surveys and Protocols. If clearing, grubbing, or
other construction activities (for example, but not limited to, staging, site preparation,
grading) occurs within the nesting season (January 15 to August 31), the following
measures shall be implemented to address potential construction-period impacts to
migratory birds and raptors:
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 26 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
• Prior to the start of vegetation removal and/or construction activities within 300
feet of the Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve, a qualified biologist shall perform
focused surveys within 72 hours prior to the commencement of construction
activities. The survey areas shall include the construction area plus a 300 -foot
buffer. The qualified biologist shall stake and fence the construction and staging
limits. Survey findings shall be submitted to the City for revi ew and approval prior
to the initiation of any construction activities.
• If active nests are found during the nesting bird survey, appropriately sized no-work
buffers (generally 50 to 300 feet depending on species sensitivity) shall be
established around the active nests identified within and adjacent to the project
site. The qualified biologist, in consultation with the City, shall determine the
appropriate buffer size and level of nest monitoring necessary for species not listed
under the federal or state Endangered Species Act based on the species’ life
history, the species’ sensitivity to disturbances (e.g., noise, vibration, human
activity), individual behavior, status of nest, location of nest and site conditions,
presence of screening vegetation, anticipated project activities, ambient noise
levels compared to project-related noise levels, existing non-project-related
disturbances in vicinity, and ambient levels of human activity. Buffers shall be
marked (flagged or fenced with Environmentally Sensiti ve Area fencing) around
any active nests and periodic monitoring by the qualified biologist shall occur to
ensure the project does not result in the failure of the nest. The buffer(s) shall be
maintained around each nest until the nest becomes inactive as determined by the
qualified biologist. At the discretion of the qualified biologist, if a nesting bird
appears to be stressed as a result of project activities and the buffer does not
appear to provide adequate protection, additional minimization measures shall be
implemented. Buffer sizes may be adjusted (either increased or reduced), or the
extent of nest monitoring may be adjusted, at the discretion of the qualified
biologist based on the conditions of the surrounding area and/or the behavior of
the nesting bird. Any changes to buffer sizes and/or nest monitoring frequency
shall be documented.
• If active nests are found and delineated by the buffers, construction activities may
continue outside of the biological buffers.
• The qualified biologist shall have the following responsibilities: ensure that
restricted activities occur outside of the delineated buffers, check nesting birds for
any potential indications of stress, and ensure that installed fencing or flagging is
properly maintained during nest monitoring and any additional site visits.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 27
CEQA Findings of Fact
• Natural resource avoidance and minimization education (including bio-hygiene for
equipment) shall be required for all construction staff on, or prior to, their first day
of work on site.
• Any construction lighting adjacent to native open space shall be directed away
and/or shielded from native open space.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
BIO-2 Pre-Construction Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys and Protocols. If clearing,
grubbing, or other construction activities occur within the California gnatcatcher nesting
season (February 15 to August 31), the following measures shall be implemented to
address potential construction-period impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher that
may occupy native habitats adjacent to the construction area in the Magdalena Ecke
Open Space Preserve:
• Prior to the initiation of construction activities within 300 feet of habitat that could
support gnatcatchers, a biologist with necessary permits to conduct California
gnatcatcher surveys shall perform a minimum of three focused surveys, on
separate days, to determine the presence of active gnatcatcher nests within a
minimum of 300 feet of project construction activity proposed during the
gnatcatcher breeding season. The biologist shall conduct two surveys a maximum
of seven days prior to vegetation disturbance or project construction and one
survey the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. Survey findings shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the initiation of any
construction activities.
• If a gnatcatcher nest is found in or within 300 feet of initial vegetation disturbance
or project construction, additional coordination with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Services shall occur prior to construction and within 48 hours of the
discovery to determine what additional measures would need to be implemented,
if any, to avoid “take” of the species. Similar protocols for other federal or state
listed bird species may need to be implemented, based on finding of the biological
surveys.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 28 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Finding
The City finds that, 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 EIR to a level of insignificance. Specif ically, mitigation measures
BIO-1 and BIO-2 are feasible mitigation measures and shall be required as a condition of
approval. Mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 contain measurable performance standards
requiring specific feasible mitigation measures (if necessary) to reduce the project’s potential
indirect impact on sensitive avian species during construction that may be inhabiting the project
area to less than significant. With implementation of such mitigation, the project would not have
a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service .
Impacts would be reduced to less than significant .
Threshold of Significance Issue 4 (EIR Impact 3.3-4): Interfere with the Movement of Native Resident or
Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with Established Wildlife Corridors or Impede the Use of Wildlife
Nursery Sites
A significant impact relative to this issue would occur if the project would substantially interfere
with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Impacts
The project site is disturbed and does not support suitable hab itat or water bodies for migratory
species. Additionally, the project site is not located within any identified wildlife corridors, and
no native wildlife nursery sites exist in the surrounding area. However, migratory bird s and
raptors have the potential to nest and forage on-site due to the presence of on-site trees and the
Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve located to the north of the project site. Therefore, the
project has the potential to adversely affect migratory bird and raptor nesting cycles withi n or
adjacent to the property. Impacts are considered potentially significant.
Explanation
As evaluated in Section 3.3 of the EIR, the project site is disturbed and does not support suitable
habitat or water bodies for migratory species. The City’s Draft Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan
(MHCP) Subarea Plan identifies Wildlife Corridor Planning Zones in the Encinitas subarea. The
project site is not located within these corridors. The project would not impede the use of any
native wildlife nursery sites, as none exist in the area.
However, migratory birds and raptors have the potential to nest and forage on-site due to the
presence of on-site trees and Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve located to the north of the
project site. Therefore, mitigation measures are proposed to remove the potential for the project
to adversely affect migratory bird and raptor nesting cycles within or adjacent to the property.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 29
CEQA Findings of Fact
The project is subject to the requirements of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act which would
reduce the potential for temporary indirect impacts (e.g., noise, human presence) to migratory
birds and raptors during project construction. As mitigation for potentially significant impacts to
migratory birds and raptors, if project grading/construction activities are scheduled during the
nesting season for breeding raptors, mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be
implemented to reduce indirect impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures BIO-1 to BIO-2.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that, 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 EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures
BIO-1 and BIO-2 are feasible mitigation measures and shall be required as conditions of approval.
Mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 contain measurable performance standards requiring
specific feasible mitigation measures (if necessary) to reduce the project’s potential indirect
impact on migratory birds and raptors during construction. Actions would be required to ensure
that construction activities are restricted during the nesting/breeding season to avoid indirect
disturbance of such species. With implementation of such mitigation, the project would not
interfere substantially with wildlife movement or impede use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold of Significance Issue 7 (EIR Impact 3.3-7): Result in a cumulative impact on biological
resources
A significant impact relative would occur if the project would result in a cumulative effect related
to biological resources when considered with other past, present, or reasonable foreseeable
probable future projects within the identified study area.
Impacts
Although no sensitive species are located or were observed on the project site, the project would
have the potential to contribute to a significant cumulative effect on sensitive species (migratory
avian species and California gnatcatcher on adjacent lands) when considered with other
development projects. Project construction activities may indirectly affect migratory bird or
raptor nesting cycles within and adjacent to the project site and/or result in the potential to
interfere with wildlife movement through the area or region. Cumulative impacts would be
considered potentially significant.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 30 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Explanation
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to biological resources are identified in Table 3.0-1
of the EIR. The cumulative study area also includes all 2019 HEU sites to the extent they may
contribute to cumulative effects on biological resources (EIR Table 3.0-2).
The protection of biological resources in the City is generally enforced through the City of
Encinitas Draft Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Subarea Plan. The project site is not
located within the boundaries of the Draft Subarea Plan or an area identified as a m igratory
wildlife corridor. Furthermore, no other sensitive species have been documented on the project
site due to the lack of suitable habitat and level of disturbance, and no wetlands or riparian
habitat are present.
Cumulative projects located within the City’s Draft Subarea Plan area would be subject to the
goals and policies outlined in the plan, and would be required to implement mitigation measures
if a significant impact would occur as a result of project implementation. As such, direct and
indirect effects to special-status species would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. None of the
cumulative projects identified in Table 3.0-1 or Table 3.0-2 of the EIR are located within the
boundaries of City Draft Subarea Plan Preserve.
Project impacts would be limited to indirect construction impacts on migratory avian species and
potentially California gnatcatcher (if determined to be present in the adjacent
Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve to the north of the site). Impacts would be reduced to less
significant with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Therefore, with
implementation of the mitigation measures proposed, the proposed project’s contribution to a
cumulative impact on biological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures BIO-1 to BIO-2.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that, 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 EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measures
BIO-1 and BIO-2 are feasible mitigation measures and shall be required as conditions of approval.
Mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 contain measurable performance standards requiring
specific feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s potentia l cumulative impact on
biological resources. With implementation of such mitigation, the project would not contribute
to a substantial adverse cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 31
CEQA Findings of Fact
any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species, nor would the project contribute to a
cumulative effect due to interference with wildlife movement in the project area or region or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project’s cumulative impacts would be
reduced to less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold of Significance Issues 1 and 2 (EIR Impacts 3.4-1 and 3.4-2): Substantial Adverse Change in the
Significance of a Historical or Archaeological Resource
A significant impact relative to this issue would occur if the project were to result in substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Impacts
As discussed in EIR Section 3.4, no known historical or archaeological resources having
significance have been identified on the project site (ECORP 2020; see EIR Appendix E). However,
the project area has been historically occupied by Native Americans and, due to the presence of
sediments associated with human occupation of the region and the presence of previously
recorded pre-contact resources in the surrounding area, the potential for subsurface resources
is considered moderate to high. Therefore, the potential exists for unknown historic or
archaeological resources to be present on-site. The potential for project-related ground-
disturbing construction activities to impact unknown historic and/or archaeological resources on-
site is considered to be significant.
Explanation
As discussed in EIR Section 3.4, two historic-period resources were recorded on-site. After
evaluation using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR) eligibility criteria, both resources were determined to be ineligible for listing.
Therefore, such resources are not considered historical resources under CEQA and no impacts
would occur. No known archaeological resources have been identified on -site that would be
eligible for listing under NRHP or CRHR criteria, although a number of archaeological resources
have been previously recorded within one mile of the site; therefore, no impacts to known
archaeological resources would occur with project implementation.
However, there is the potential that unknown historic or archaeological resources on the site
may have been obscured by pavement or other materials over the years or buried beneath the
ground surface. Therefore, the potential exists for unknown historic or archaeological resources
to be present on-site. The potential for project-related ground-disturbing construction activities
to adversely affect unknown historic and archaeological resources on-site is considered to be
significant. Mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 would ensure that project impacts on unknown
historic or archaeological resources are reduced to less than significant.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 32 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. A Cultural Resource Mitigation Monitoring
Program shall be conducted to provide for the identification, evaluation, treatment, and
protection of any cultural resources that are affected by or may be discovered during the
construction of the proposed project. The monitoring shall consist of the full -time
presence of a qualified archaeologist and a traditionally and culturally affiliated (TCA)
Native American monitor (San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians) shall be retained to
monitor all ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction, including
vegetation removal, clearing, grading, trenching, excavation, or other activities that may
disturb original (pre-project) ground, including the placement of imported fill materials
and related roadway improvements (i.e., for access).
• The requirement for cultural resource mitigation monitoring shall be noted on all
applicable construction documents, including demolition plans, grading plans, etc.
• The qualified archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall attend all
applicable pre-construction meetings with the Contractor and/or associated
Subcontractors.
• The qualified archaeologist shall maintain ongoing collaborative consultation with
the TCA Native American monitor during all ground disturbing or altering activities,
as identified above.
• The qualified archaeologist and/or TCA Native American monitor may halt ground
disturbing activities if archaeological artifact deposits or cultural features are
discovered. In general, ground disturbing activities shall be directed away from
these deposits for a short time to allow a determination of potential significance,
the subject of which shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist and the TCA
Native American monitor, in consultation with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians (“San Luis Rey Band”). Ground disturbing activities shall not resume until
the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA Native American monitor,
deems the cultural resource or feature has been appropriately documented and/or
protected. At the qualified archaeologist’s discretion, the location of ground
disturbing activities may be relocated elsewhere on the project site to avoid further
disturbance of cultural resources.
• The avoidance and protection of discovered unknown and significant cultural
resources and/or unique archaeological resources is the preferable mitigation for
the proposed project. If avoidance is not feasible a Data Recovery Plan may be
authorized by the City as the lead agency under CEQA. If a data recovery is required,
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 33
CEQA Findings of Fact
then the San Luis Rey Band shall be notified and consulted in drafting and finalizing
any such recovery plan.
• The qualified archaeologist and/or TCA Native American monitor may also halt
ground disturbing activities around known archaeological artifact deposits or
cultural features if, in their respective opinions, there is the possibility that they
could be damaged or destroyed.
• The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all tribal cultural resources collected
during the cultural resource mitigation monitoring conducted during all ground
disturbing activities, and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations
on the project site to the San Luis Rey Band for respectful and dignified treatment
and disposition, including reburial, in accordance with the Tribe’s cultural and
spiritual traditions. All cultural materials that are associated with burial and/or
funerary goods will be repatriated to the Most Likely Descendant as determined by
the Native American Heritage Commission per California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
CR-2 Prepare Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation Report. Prior to the release of the
Grading Bond, a Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation Report, which describes the
results, analysis and conclusions of the cultural resource mitigation monitoring efforts
(such as, but not limited to, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program) shall be
submitted by the qualified archaeologist, along with the TCA Native American monitor’s
notes and comments, to the City’s Development Services Director for approval.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
CR-3 Identification of Human Remains. As specified by California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the project site during construction or
during archaeological work, the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her
authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Coroner’s
office by telephone. No further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the qualified
archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor) shall occur until the Coroner has
made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources
Code 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall
be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be protected
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 34 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
(as determined by the qualified archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor),
and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. As furthe r defined by
state law, the Coroner would determine within two working days of being notified if the
remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be
Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Herit age Commission
(NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely
Descendent. If Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ
(“in place”), or in a secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and the
analysis of the remains shall only occur on-site in the presence of the TCA Native
American monitor.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that with implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 to CUL-3, construction of
the proposed project would not result in impacts to unknown cultural resources because all
construction activity would be monitored and construction halted if resources are encountered
until they can be documented. Therefore, because there are no known cultural resources on -
site and because CUL-1 to CUL-3 would mitigate potential impacts to unknown resources, the
project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Impacts would be
reduced to less than significant.
Threshold of Significance Issue 3 (EIR Impact 3.4-3): Disturb Human Remains
A significant impact relative to this issue would occur if the project were to disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Impacts
No known cemeteries are located on-site and no such resources were identified during the
records searches, consultation efforts, or field survey. Due to the presence of sediments
concurrent with human occupation of the region and the presence of previously recorded pre -
contact resources in the surrounding area, the potential for subsurface resources is considered
moderate to high.
As such, there is the potential that undiscovered human remains may be located beneath the
ground surface. Therefore, the potential exists for human remains to be present on -site and
impacts are considered to be significant.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 35
CEQA Findings of Fact
Explanation
Although no known human remains have been identified on -site, the potential for project
ground-disturbing activities to result in impacts to unknown resources does exist. The proposed
project would comply with regulatory requirements for the treatment of Native American human
remains contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California
PRC Section 5097. Implementation of mitigation measure CR-3 would reduce impacts on
undiscovered human remains to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measure CUL-3.
Finding
The City finds that with implementation of mitigation measure CUL-3, the proposed project
would comply with regulatory requirements for the treatment of Native American human
remains contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California
PRC Section 5097 if remains were discovered; therefore, the project would not result in a
significant impact to undiscovered human remains. Impacts would be reduced to less than
significant.
Threshold of Significance Issue 4 (EIR Impact 3.4-4): Result in a cumulative impact on cultural resources
A significant impact relative would occur if the project would result in a cumulative effect related
to historical or archaeological resources or human remains when considered with other past,
present, or reasonable foreseeable probable future projects within the identified study area.
Impacts
No known historical or archaeological resources, or human remains, having significance have
been identified on the project site. However, as the project area has been historically occupied
by Native Americans and, due to the presence of sediments associated with human occupation
of the region and the presence of previously recorded pre -contact resources in the surrounding
area, the potential for subsurface resources is considered moderate to high. Therefore, the
potential for project-related ground-disturbing construction activities to contribute to a
significant cumulative impact on unknown historic and/or archaeological resources, including
human remains, is considered to be significant.
Explanation
The geographic area of analysis for cultural resources includes the site, adjacent properties, and
those properties identified in Table 3.0-1 of the EIR, including all 2019 HEU sites to the extent
they may contribute to cumulative effects on cultural resources. This geographic scope of analysis
is appropriate because the archaeological, historical, and cultural resources within this area are
expected to be similar to those that may occur within the site vicinity.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 36 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Urban development over past decades in San Diego County has resulted in adverse impacts on
cultural resources. No known cultural resources of significance or human remains have been
documented on the project site, and therefore, no such known resources would be affected by
development of the proposed project. However, construction activities resulting from the
proposed project would include grading and excavation in previously disturbed areas, which may
have the potential to result in the encounter of undiscovered subsurface resources.
Implementation of the proposed project could therefore contribute to potential cumulative
impacts on cultural resources, including unknown archaeological and historic resources, as well
as unknown buried human remains. Past, present, and foreseeable projects have similarly
affected, or would have the potential to affect, cultural resources throughout the region over
time.
Mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 address the discovery and recovery of unknown archaeological
and historical resources through construction monitoring, identification of potential cultural
resources, and evaluation of the significance of a find. Mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 would
be implemented to reduce potential cumulative impacts from project construction on
undiscovered resources, if encountered, to less than significant. Similarly, with conformance to
applicable federal, state, and local regulations, combined with the evaluation of resource
significance and implementation of mitigation measures in compliance with applicable
legislation, it is anticipated that other cumulative development projects w ould be adequately
addressed and impacts on historical and cultural resources and/or human remains would be
reduced to the extent feasible. As such, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on
cultural resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that, 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 project’s
significant cumulative effect as identified in the Final EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically,
mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 are feasible mitigation measures and shall be required as
conditions of approval. Mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 contain measurable performance
standards requiring specific feasible mitigation measures to reduce the proje ct’s potential
cumulative impact on unknown cultural resources during construction. Actions would be
required to ensure that construction activities are properly monitored , and the results
documented, and/or conducted to ensure proper adherence to applicable regulations pertaining
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 37
CEQA Findings of Fact
to the discovery and treatment of any resources. With implementation of such mitigation, the
project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource, nor disturb human remains. The project’s cumulative impacts would be
reduced to less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Threshold of Significance Issue 9 (EIR Impact 3.6-9): Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site
or Unique Geological Feature
A significant impact relative to this issue would occur if the project would directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.
Impacts
The project site is considered sensitive for to be sensitive for paleontological resources.
Therefore, the project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geological feature. Impacts are considered potentially significant.
Explanation
Fossil remains, fossil sites, fossil-producing geologic formations, and geologic formations with the
potential for containing fossil remains are considered paleontological resources or have the
potential to be paleontological resources. The potential for impacts on fossils depends on the
sensitivity of the geologic unit and the amount and depth of grading and excavation.
The project site is generally underlain by very old paralic deposits (Lindavista Formation) and
Santiago Formation. The Lindavista Formation is assigned a moderate paleontological sensitivity
and the Santiago Formation is considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. The
maximum depth of project grading and/or excavation is approximately five feet. Therefore,
project grading and/or excavation activities may result in the unanticipated discovery of
paleontological resources, or damage or destruction of unknown paleontological resources, that
may be present below the ground surface. This would constitute a significant impact. Mitigat ion
measure GEO-1 would address the inadvertent discovery of previously unknown paleontological
resources and would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 Paleontological Data Recovery and Monitoring Plan: A Data Recovery and Monitoring
Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City. The plan shall document
paleontological recovery methods.
1. Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall implement a
paleontological monitoring and recovery program consisting of the following
measures, which shall be included on project grading plans to the satisfaction of the
Development Services Department:
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 38 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
a. The project applicant shall retain the services of a qualified paleontologist to
conduct a paleontological monitoring and recovery program. A qualified
paleontologist is defined as an individual having an MS or PhD degree in
paleontology or geology, and who is a recognized expert in the identification of
fossil materials and the application of paleontological recovery procedures and
techniques. As part of the monitoring program, a paleontological monitor may
work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. A paleontological monitor
is defined as an individual having experience in the collection and salvage of fossil
materials.
b. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the project preconstruction meeting to
consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning the grading plan
and paleontological field techniques.
c. The qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be on-site on a full-
time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed portions of the
underlying very old paralic deposits. If the qualified paleontologist or
paleontological monitor ascertains that the noted formations are not fossil-
bearing, the qualified paleontologist shall have the authority to terminate the
monitoring program.
d. If fossils are discovered, recovery shall be conducted by the qualified
paleontologist or paleontological monitor. In most cases, fossil salvage can be
completed in a short period of time, although some fossil specimens (such as a
complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In
these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall have the
authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil
remains in a timely manner.
e. If subsurface bones or other potential fossils are found anywhere within the
project site by construction personnel in the absence of a qualified paleontologist
or paleontological monitor, the qualified paleontologist shall be notified
immediately to assess their significance and make further recommendations.
f. Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage shall be cleaned, sorted,
and catalogued. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes,
photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution
with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, a final summary report outlining the results of the
mitigation program shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist and submitted
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 39
CEQA Findings of Fact
to the Development Services Department for concurrence. This report shall include
discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected,
and significance of recovered fossils, as well as appropriate maps.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit; Prior to issuance of a building
permit
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that the project would have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. Implementation of mitigation
measure GEO-1 would reduce project impacts to less than significant.
Threshold of Significance Issue 10 (EIR Impact 3.6-10): Result in a cumulative impact related to geology
and soils
A significant impact relative could occur if the project would result in a cumulative effect related
to geology and soils when considered with other past, present, or reasonable foreseeable
probable future projects. Such effects include if the project would d irectly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture
of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or
landslides; result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on soi ls that would be unstable
as a result of the project resulting in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse; be located on expansive soils; have soils incapable of supporting
alternative wastewater disposal systems; and/or directly or indirectly result in destruction of a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Impacts
Similar to other development project within the region, the project site is located in a seismically
active area. All areas of San Diego County are considered seismically active to a lesser or greater
extent depending on their proximity to active regional faults. Impacts of the proposed project
would be cumulatively considerable if the project, in combination with related pr ojects, would
result in significant cumulative impacts. However, the effects of the cumulative projects are not
of a nature to cause cumulatively significant effects from geologic impacts, or on-site soils,
because such impacts are site-specific and would only have the potential to combine with
impacts of the proposed project if they occurred in the same location. Therefore, the project is
not anticipated to contribute to a significant cumulative impact relative to seismic hazards, soil
instability, or other such geologic conditions.
The project site is considered sensitive for to be sensitive for paleontological resources and
therefore, with consideration for other development projects, may have the potential to directly
or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature within
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 40 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
the area or region. Project-related cumulative impacts are considered potentially cumulative
considerable.
Explanation
Cumulative projects that would have the potential to be considered in a cumulative context with
the project relative to geology and soils are identified in Table 3.0-1 of the EIR. Cumulative
projects were chosen based on proximity to the proposed project.
The project would require grading of portions of the subject property to allow for development
as proposed. The resulting project site would not be visually or topographically different from
existing development surrounding the project site. Although construction activities would have
the potential to result in erosion on the project site, adherence to the recommendations in the
geotechnical report and other grading and building requirements would mitigate erosion impacts
to less than significant levels. Other cumulative projects would adhere to similar requirements,
thereby minimizing cumulative scenario erosion impacts. Specifically, all planned projects in the
vicinity of the proposed project would be subject to environmental review and would be required
to conform to the City’s General Plan and California Building Code.
Other cumulative projects may be located in areas considered sensitive for paleontological
resources. Such projects would be required to implement mitigation similar to mitigation
measure GEO-1 identified for the project to reduce potential impacts to paleontological
resources to less than significant levels. With adherence to grading and building requirements,
the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts for geologic, seismic hazards, or related
events because the project and other cumulative projects in the area would be required to
demonstrate compliance with local, state, and federal building and safety standards prior to City
issuance of grading and/or building permits. As a result, the project’s contribution to cumulative
impacts related to geology and soils would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measure GEO-1.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that, 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 EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
GEO-1 is a feasible mitigation measure and shall be required as conditions of approval. Mitigation
measure GEO-1 contains measurable performance standards requiring specific feasible
mitigation measures to reduce the project’s potential cumulative impact on unknown
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 41
CEQA Findings of Fact
paleontological resources during construction. Actions would be required to ensure that
construction activities are properly monitored and that any discovered resources are
documented, recovered, and evaluated to avoid impacts to such resources. With implementation
of such mitigation, the project would not have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The project’s cumulative
impacts would be reduced to less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Threshold of Significance Issue 2 (EIR Impact 3.7-2): Release of Hazardous Materials into the
Environment
A significant impact relative to this issue would occur if the project would create a 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
Due to the age of the existing buildings on -site, asbestos and lead based paints may be present
that are considered to be hazardous materials. Historic agricultural operations on the project site
have also included the use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. Additionally, a leaking trash
compactor was documented as resulting in contaminated soils on-site due to the potential
presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and petroleum hydrocarbons. As such, project
impacts pertaining to the potential release of such hazardous materials into the environment are
considered to be significant.
Explanation
Based on the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Geotek 2020; see EIR
Appendix J) and subsequent on-site soil sampling (Geotek 2020; see EIR Appendices K-1 to K-3),
the following Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) are associated with the project site:
• The Phase I ESA identified a leaking trash compactor in the northern portion of the site
that appeared to have impacted a substantial volume of soil near the transformer. As
such, the contaminated soil represents a REC due to the potential presence of PCBs and
petroleum hydrocarbons.
• Due to the age of the existing structures on-site, it is possible that the structures may
contain lead-based paint or asbestos-related construction products since these products
were prevalent prior to the 1970s. Prior to demolition of the existing buildings, an
asbestos and lead material survey will be required to evaluate potential hazards with
demolition and disposal.
• The project site currently supports an active botanical nursery. Herbicides, pesticides, and
fertilizers used in association with the nursery are considered to be a li kely contaminant
impacting on-site soils. Additionally, general housekeeping practices (i.e., handling and
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 42 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
storage of these substances) were found to be less than optimal for the variety and
quantity of chemical products used in on-site operations. The project would reduce the
area of agricultural operations on-site by more than 50 percent as compared to existing
conditions and would therefore be expected to utilize fewer pesticides than the current
agricultural operation.
Subsequent to preparation of the Phase 1 ESA, GeoTek performed additional soil sampling at 15
locations ranging at depths between the surface and 2 feet below surface across the project site,
including around the trash compactor (EIR Appendix K-1). The samples were analyzed for total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), organo-chlorinated pesticides (OCPs), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, and selectively for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The additional soil sampling revealed evidence of sub surface
contamination with heavy oils resulting from the leaking trash compactor. Specifically, TPH in the
diesel range (diesel range organics [DROs]) and mid-range organics (MROs) were found to be
24,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 44,000 mg/kg, respectively. However, the sample
taken at a depth of 2 feet and 5 feet to the north (directly downgradient) at the surface and 2
feet below the surface showed DROs and MROs below 100 mg/kg. Therefore, the impacted soil
related to heavy oils observed is estimated to be approximately 6 to 8 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil
(EIR Appendix K-1). Two additional areas along the western boundary of the site were also
determined to require remediation as petroleum-based constituents (TPH) were detected above
respective reporting limits in shallow soils. Impacted soils at these two locations is estimated to
be approximately 2 to 3 cubic yards of soil each (EIR Appendix K-1).
Five borings and 10 soil samples were collected around the perimeter of the site and 8 borings
and 16 soil samples were collected within the footprint of the active botanical nursery on -site.
During the oil sampling investigation, 2 nursery buildings were not sampled due to an active
application of pesticide spray. Although sampling was not performed within these two buildings,
sample results collected from other on-site buildings indicated that conditions are consistent
throughout the nursery buildings. Analytical results for OCPs, while detecting minor
concentrations of DDE, Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Toxaphine, did not detect these chemicals
in concentrations above the Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). Analytical results also did not
detect VOCs or PCBs, nor were metals detected above RSLs. The metals detected below RSLs are
considered to be background levels (EIR Appendix K-1).
Additional on-site soils testing was performed in May 2020, at the request of County DEH (EIR
Appendix K-3). The additional sampling was intended to analyze the potential for OCPs and
arsenic on-site. Although a number of the samples detected measurable quantities of the OCP
constituent DDD, DDE, DDT, Dieldrin, Endosulfan I and II, Endosulfan Sulfaet, Heptchlor and
Toxaphene, as well as arsenic, all concentrations of such substances were found to be below the
environmental screening levels for residential soils. Therefore, such substances do not represent
a risk to the environment or to human health and no additional investigation is required at the
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 43
CEQA Findings of Fact
project site with respect to the historic on-site agricultural use (EIR Appendix K-3). As shown in
the Voluntary Assistance Program Concurrence Letter, the County DEH has reviewed and
accepted the findings of the Limited Additional Soil Sampling and Report of Supplemental
Sampling Results and no additional soil testing is required (EIR Appendix K-4).
At the request of the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, a Soil Management
Plan (EIR Appendix K-2) was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with County
standards and requirements and was submitted to the County DEH for review and approval. The
Soil Management Plan is intended to ensure that the exposure and handling of any contaminated
soils are properly addressed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local standards.
The County DEH has reviewed and accepted the findings of the Soil Management Plan.
The REC sites identified in the Phase 1 ESA represent the only potentially significant impacts
involving the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment. As described in
mitigation measure HAZ-1, the project applicant would implement the Soil Management Plan in
accordance with the County’s approval prior to receiving a No Further Action letter from DEH.
Mitigation measure HAZ-1 would also require the project applicant to coordinate with the County
DEH and participate in the Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) for the excavation and disposal
of heavy-oil impacted soils identified near the existing on-site trash compactor and at two
additional locations located along the western boundary of the site. Mitigation measure HAZ-1
would ensure that the contaminated soils are properly removed and disposed of off -site as
deemed appropriate by the City of Encinitas Planning Division and the County DEH.
Mitigation measure HAZ-2 would require additional testing of the existing structures on-site to
verify the absence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-related construction materials and any
additional remediation during demolition/deconstruction required to safely transport and
dispose any lead-based paint and/or asbestos. Mitigation measure HAZ-3 would require that the
project applicant submit a “Closure Letter” issued by the San Diego County DEH to the Encinitas
Development Services Department. Mitigation measures HAZ-4 through HAZ-6 outline the
procedures to address the potential discovery of asbestos and lead based materials on-site.
With implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 to HAZ-6, project impacts related hazards
and hazardous materials occurring as the result of reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be reduced
to less than significant.
No long-term operational impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials were identified.
The project would not result in a significant impact in this regard.
Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall demonstrate that a qualified
consultant has been retained to ensure implementation of the project’s Soil
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 44 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Management Plan (Geotek, Inc., 6/2/20). The project applicant shall be responsible for
ensuring all provisions of the Soil Management Plan are implemented to the satisfaction
of the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The remediati on
measures contained in the Soil Management Plan shall be included in the project’s
grading plans to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, and/or
demolition permit
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
HAZ-2 Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a
remediation closure report and closure request to the San Diego County DEH Voluntary
Assistance Program and Encinitas Development Services Department for review and
approval. The closure report shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and document
compliance with the Soil Management Plan and any deviations from the plan. In
addition, the report shall provide a discussion of remedial activities, site observations,
soil analytical results, and volume of waste material disposed.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, and/or
demolition permit
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
HAZ-3 Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall submit a “Closure Letter”
issued by the San Diego County DEH to the Encinitas Development Services Department.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, and/or
demolition permit
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
HAZ-4 Prior to demolition permit issuance, an asbestos and lead material survey shall be
conducted by a qualified consultant to determine if the existing structures on -site
contain lead-based paint and/or asbestos-related construction materials. If substances
containing lead and/or asbestos are found on -site, an abatement work plan shall be
prepared by the consultant for the proper removal and disposal of the materials in
accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The asbestos and lead
survey results and any necessary work plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
of Encinitas Development Services Department (Planning Division).
Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, and/or
demolition permit
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 45
CEQA Findings of Fact
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
HAZ-5 If on-site abatement of asbestos and/or lead materials is required, a licensed abatement
contractor shall implement the approved abatement work plan prior to demolition of
affected structures.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, and/or
demolition permit
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
HAZ-6 Prior to building permit issuance, an abatement close -out report shall be prepared by
the abatement contractor and submitted by the project applica nt to the Development
Services Department for review and approval.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, and/or
demolition permit
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to hazards
and hazardous conditions (upset or accident conditions resulting in release of hazardous
materials into the environment). Implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 to HAZ-6 would
reduce this impact to less than significant.
Threshold of Significance Issue 8 (EIR Impact 3.7-8): Result in a cumulative impact related to hazards
and hazardous materials
A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project would create a s ignificant hazard to
the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials; create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving t he release of hazardous materials into the
environment; emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; be located on a
site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment; result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport; or, impair implementation
of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan; or, expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 46 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Impacts
Project construction activities could result in the transport, use, and dispos al of hazardous
materials such as gasoline fuels, asphalt, lubricants, paint, and solvents. Although care will be
taken to transport, use, and dispose of small quantities of these materials by licensed
professionals, there is a possibility that upset or accidental conditions may arise which could
release hazardous materials into the environment. Accidental releases of hazardous materials
are those releases that are unforeseen or that result from unforeseen circumstances, while
reasonably foreseeable upset conditions are those release or exposure events that can be
anticipated and planned for.
Project construction activities would occur in accordance with all applicable local standards
adopted by the City of Encinitas, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements
intended to minimize hazardous materials risk to the public, such as Cal/OSHA requirements, the
Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Protection Program, and the
California Health and Safety Code. The proposed project would also prepare and implement a
Construction General Storm Water Permit (Order 2012 -0006-DWQ) and stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP). The contractor would be required to implement such regulations
relative to the transport, handling, and disposal of any hazardous materials, including the use of
standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid or minimize the potential
for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices
would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated
as required by local and state laws.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed for the proposed project identified a
leaking trash compactor in the northern portion of the site that appeared to have impacted a
substantial volume of soil near the transformer. As such, the contaminated soil represents a REC
due to the potential presence of PCBs and petroleum hydrocarbons. Due to the age of the existing
structures on-site, it is possible that the structures may contain lead-based paint or asbestos-
related construction products since these products were prevalent prior to the 1970s.
Additionally, the project site currently supports an active botanical nursery. He rbicides,
pesticides, and fertilizers used in association with the nursery are considered to be a likely
contaminant impacting on-site soils. General housekeeping practices (i.e., handling and storage
of these substances) were found to be less than optimal for the variety and quantity of chemical
products used in on-site operations.
As such, mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation measure HAZ-1 would require the applicant to coordinate with the San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health and participate in the Voluntary Assistance Program
regarding the excavation and disposal of the heavy-oil impacted soils identified near the existing
on-site trash compactor and at two additional locations located along the western boundary of
the site. Mitigation measure HAZ-1 would ensure that the contaminated soils are properly
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 47
CEQA Findings of Fact
removed and disposed of off-site as deemed appropriate by the City of Encinitas Planning Division
the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. Additionally, mitigation measure
HAZ-1 would also require that the applicant to implement the Soil Management Plan prior to
issuance of a building permit to ensure that the exposure and handling of any contaminated soils
are properly addressed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local standards.
Additionally, mitigation measure HAZ-2 would require additional testing of the existing structures
on-site to verify the absence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-related construction materials
and any additional remediation during demolition/deconstruction required to safely transport
and dispose any lead-based paint and/or asbestos. In addition to compliance with applicable local
and state laws and requirements, implementatio n of mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2
would reduce short term impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Explanation
The geographic scope when considering cumulative impacts from hazards and hazardous
materials includes specific projects identified in Table 3.0-1 of the EIR. The cumulative setting for
hazards associated with the proposed project generally consists of existing and future uses in
Encinitas in proximity to the Fox Point Farms project.
Impacts associated with hazardous materials are generally site-specific. The proposed project
must comply with all applicable local and state laws and requirements regarding the transport,
handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and substances. Additionally, the proposed project
would implement mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 to ensure that the project would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction activities occurring
within the project site would not restrict access for emergency vehicles that respond to incidents
on the site or in surrounding areas.
The City Fire Department would review the proposed development plans prior to project
approval to ensure adequate emergency access and circulation, as well as conformance with
other fire protection requirements (e.g., sprinkler systems, fire hydrant locations). Additionally,
the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death from wildfires as the project would be designed to reduce the ri sk of hazards from a
wildfire event through buffering of on-site uses and establishment of fuel modification zones (as
applicable).
As with the proposed project, the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.0 -1 of the EIR would also
be required to avoid and/or mitigate impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials. The
proposed project would involve the storage, use, disposal, and transport of limited amounts of
hazardous materials to varying degrees during construction and operation/occupancy. Impacts
from these activities are anticipated to be less than significant, and similar development projects
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 48 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
would also be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and
policies.
Implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 to HAZ-6 prior to project construction would
minimize the potential for the accidental release or upset of hazardous materials or substances.
Additionally, other cumulative projects would be required to coordinate with the City of Encinitas
and the City Fire Department to ensure that they do not impede the implementation of an
emergency plan or prevent emergency access in the affected area. As a result, the project’s
contribution to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures HAZ-1 to HAZ-6.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that, 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 EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure
HAZ-1 to HAZ-6 are feasible mitigation measures and shall be required as conditions of approval.
Mitigation measures HAZ-1 to HAZ-6 contain measurable performance standards requiring
specific feasible mitigation measures to minimize the potential for the accidental rele ase or upset
of hazardous materials or substances, such as prepare and submit a remediation closure report
and closure request to the San Diego County DEH Voluntary Assistance Program and Encinitas
Development Services Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
With implementation of such mitigation measures, the project would not result in a cumulative
impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. The project’s cumulative impacts would be
reduced to less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold of Significance Issue 1 (EIR Impact 3.13-1): Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the
Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource
A significant impact relative to this issue would occur if the project would have the potential to
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Impacts
As discussed in Section 3.13 of the EIR, there are no known tribal cultural resources located on
the project site. However, due to the known cultural sensitivity of the area, the potential for
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 49
CEQA Findings of Fact
project-related ground-disturbing construction activities to adversely affect unknown tribal
cultural resources on-site is considered to be significant.
Explanation
As discussed in EIR Section 3.13, no known tribal cultural resources or sacred lands have been
identified on the project site. The project area has historically been occupied by Native Americans
and, due to the presence of sediments associated with human occupation of the region and the
presence of previously recorded pre-contact resources in the surrounding area, the potential for
subsurface resources is considered moderate to high. The City has consulted with the potentially
associated Native American Tribes in conformance with the requirements of California Assembly
Bill 52 (AB 52); however, such consultation has not resulted in the identification of any known
tribal cultural resources on-site.
Subsurface construction disturbances (e.g., trenching, excavation, gr ading) associated with the
project would have the potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources. To ensure proper
protection of any unknown resources, should they be encountered during project-related ground
disturbance activities, Native American monitoring is required. Monitoring would allow for any
discovery of unknown resources to be readily managed in accordance with federal and state law
to prevent potential damage to such resources. Implementation of mitigation measures CR-1 to
CR-3 would reduce project impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that the proposed project would have the potential to cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of unknown tribal cultural resources. Implementation of mitigation
measures CUL-1 to CUL-3 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Threshold of Significance Issue 2 (EIR Impact 3.13-2): Result in a cumulative impact related to tribal
cultural resources
A significant impact relative would occur if the project would result in a direct or indirect
cumulative effect related to tribal cultural resources when considered with other past, present,
or reasonable foreseeable probable future projects within the identified study area.
Impacts
There are no known tribal cultural resources located on the project site. However, due to the
known cultural sensitivity of the area, the potential for project -related ground-disturbing
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 50 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
construction activities to adversely contribute to a cumulative impact on tribal cultural resources
within the area or region is considered to be potentially cumulatively considerable.
Explanation
Cumulative projects that would have the potential to be considered in a cumulative context with
the proposed project’s incremental contribution, and that are included in the analysis of
cumulative impacts relative to tribal cultural resources, are identified in Table 3.0-1 of the EIR. In
addition, the geographic scope includes all 2019 HEU sites to the extent they may contribute to
cumulative effects on tribal cultural resources.
Although no known tribal cultural resources of significance or human remains have been
documented on the project site, implementation of the proposed project could contribute to
potential cumulative impacts on unknown tribal cultural resources, as well as buried human
remains. Past, present, and foreseeable projects have affected, or would have the potential to
affect, tribal cultural resources throughout the region over time. The adoption of state and
federal laws related to tribal cultural resources, such as AB 52, provide a mechanism for
consultation between California Native American tribes and lead agencies to address potential
impacts of development activities on known and/or unknown tribal cultural resources. These
laws have led to the discovery, recordation, preservation, and curation of artifacts and historic
structures. Although inadvertent discoveries and potential impacts may still result on a project
by project basis based on location, development type, and availability of data, compliance with
regulatory procedures generally mitigate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.
The proposed project would implement mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3, which address the
discovery and recovery of unknown tribal cultural resources through construction monitoring,
identification of potential tribal cultural resources, and evaluation of the significance of a
discovery. Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potential impacts from project
construction on undiscovered resources, if encountered, to less than significant. Similarly, with
conformance to applicable federal, state, and local regulations, combined with the
implementation of mitigation, it is anticipated that other cumulative development projects
would be adequately addressed and impacts on tribal cultural resources would be reduced to the
extent feasible.
Therefore, individual project-level impacts associated with tribal cultural resources would be less
than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 and the proposed project
and cumulative projects would be subject to conformance with applicable federal, state, and
local requirements for the protection of such resources. The project’s contribution to a significant
cumulative impact on tribal cultural resources is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 51
CEQA Findings of Fact
Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Planning Division
Finding
The City finds that, 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 EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, mitigation measure CR-
1 to CR-3 are feasible mitigation measures and shall be required as conditions of approval.
Mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 contain measurable performance standards requiring specific
feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s potential cumulative impact on unknown
tribal cultural resources during construction. Actions would be required to ensure that
construction activities are monitored and that the discovery of any resources is properly
documented, evaluated, and recovered, as appropriate. With implementation of such mitigation,
the project would not directly or indirectly impact unknown tribal cultural resources on the
project site during the construction phase. The project’s cumulative imp acts would be reduced
to less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
B. Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant
The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the EIR
and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the proposed project and related approvals
cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is therefore included herein:
TRANSPORTATION
Threshold of Significance Issue 2 (EIR Impact 3.12-2): Conflict and be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3(b)
A significant impact relative to this issue would occur if the project would conflict and be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Impacts
Under the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Regional Transportation Impact Study (TIS)
Guidelines, projects that generate greater than the minimum allowable average daily traffic
(ADT) threshold (500 ADT or 1,000 ADT), but fewer than 2,400 ADT are required to conduct a
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis using the VMT calculation tool generated by the San Diego
Associated of Governments (SANDAG). Projects that generate greater than 2,400 ADT are
required to conduct a VMT analysis using the SANDAG Regional Model.
The project would generate 2,024 ADT. Based on the Regional TIS Guidelines, the project does
not fall below the ADT screening threshold of 1,000 ADT; therefore, a VMT/Capita and
VMT/Employee analysis was conducted using the SANDAG Series 13 Travel Demand Model.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 52 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Based on the results of the SANDAG model, the proposed project would have a potentially
significant VMT-related transportation impact. To reduce the VMT/Capita and VMT/Employee
associated with the proposed project to a less than significant level, VMT reducing measures are
proposed. However, implementation of the proposed Transportation Demand Measures (TDM)
measures would not reduce project related impacts levels below the established thresholds and
transportation impacts relative to VMT would remain significant and unavoidable.
Explanation
The method used to derive and evaluate project VMT is determined based on a project ’s trip
generation. Trip generation rates for the project were developed utilizing SANDAG ’s (Not So)
Brief Guide to Vehicular Trip Generation (SANDAG 2002). Table 3.12-2 (excerpted from the EIR)
identifies daily project trip generation for the project.
Table 3.12-2 Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Trip Rate Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Existing Land Uses
Flower Mart1 18 acres Driveway Count -334
Proposed Land Uses
Apartment 197 DU 6/DU 1,182
Condominiums 53 DU 8/DU 424
Restaurant 3,500 SF 100 KSF 350
Open Space 5.5 acres 2/acre 11
Farm Stand 1,232 SF2 40/KSF3 50
Nursery4 0.07 acres 90/acre 7
Subtotal 2,024
Total 1,690
Source: SANDAG (not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002
Notes:
1. Based on driveway counts collected on a midweek day in October 2019.
2. This is net square feet from the 3,213 gross square feet for farm stand.
3. Garden nursery rate, which is also consistent with specialty retail/commercial retail trip generation.
4. Based on the project components in the first project submittal to the City as well as in the project’s NOP, a nursery was included in the
project trip generation analysis in the Vehicle Operations and Queuing Analysis (Appendix O-2). Although a nursery is no longer proposed as
part of the project, the ADT from this use (7 ADT) is included in the analysis in this EIR to be conservative and to over-estimate total trip
generation.
DU = dwelling units; SF = square feet; KSF = thousand square feet
The proposed project would generate 2,024 ADT. Implementation of the proposed project would
also replace the existing 334 daily trips associated with the existing agricultural operations, and
therefore, the project’s net increase is 1,690 ADT. Based on the Regional TIS Guidelines, the
project does not fall below the ADT screening threshold of 1,000 ADT; therefore, a VMT/Capita
and VMT/Employee analysis was conducted using the SANDAG Series 13 Travel Demand Model.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 53
CEQA Findings of Fact
To calculate the average VMT/Capita and VMT/Employee generated by the project, the project’s
land uses outlined in Table 3.12-2 were incorporated into the SANDAG Series 13 Travel Demand
Models for the Base Year (2012) and RTIP Year (2020). A Select Zone as signment was conducted
for the project Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) which tracked and calculated the project VMT
by user type. The results of the Select Zone assignment are provided in Table 3.12-3 below
(excerpted from the EIR).
The proposed residential uses are anticipated to generate a VMT/Capita of 18.7 miles during the
RTIP Year (2020), which exceeds the 85% significance threshold. For the commercial uses, the
proposed project’s restaurant uses are anticipated to generate a VMT/Capita of 27.6 miles during
the RTIP Year (2020), which exceeds the 85% significance threshold for all area averages.
Therefore, the project would have a potentially significant VMT related transportation impact.
Table 3.12-3 VMT Results Impact Analysis
Metric
Proposed
Project
Region
Average
Project %
of Region
Average
Significant
Impact?1
Encinitas
Average
Project % of
Encinitas
Significant
Impact?
VMT/Capita 21.1 17.6 119.9 Yes 20.8 101.4 Yes
VMT/Employee 28.8 25.9 111.2 Yes 29.2 98.6 Yes
VMT/Capita 18.7 16.4 114.0 Yes 18.9 98.9 Yes
VMT/Employee 27.6 24.9 110.8 Yes 27.4 100.7 Yes
1. Significant impact if greater than 85%.
Source: Chen Ryan, 2020 (EIR Appendix O-1).
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) analysis was conducted using the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Associates (CAPCOA) resource document “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures,” August 2010 (CAPCOA Report) to identify the type and magnitude of TDM
features the project would need to implement to reduce project VMT to less than significant
levels. To quantify the potential reduction in project -generated VMT, the VMT based reduction
strategies were applied to the relevant features con tained in the project’s design and TDM plan.
Implementation of the TDM plan is aimed at vehicle trip reduction, increased use of alternative
travel modes, and better traffic management in the vicinity of the project area. The TDM program
is organized in the following three strategy types: Land Use Strategies, Neighborhood/Site
Enhancements, and Commute Trip Reduction Strategies. The majority of the measures are
included in the project while enforceable additive measures are listed under mitigation measure
TR-1 below. TDM measures proposed for the project include:
Land Use Strategies
• “Mix of Uses” - The project provides a mix of land uses, including residential,
commercial and recreational uses, so that residents of the proposed project have
access to basic amenities without having to travel outside of the project site. This
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 54 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
proximity would lower vehicle miles traveled because residents can use non -
automobile transportation modes to reach the various uses available within the
site.
• “Affordable Housing” - The project provides 40 very-low income affordable housing
units, which provide greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to
jobs centers and achieve jobs/housing match near transit and allow a greater
number of families to be accommodated within a given building footprint.
Travel and Commute Services for Residents and Employees
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements
• “Pedestrian Connections” - The project would develop a pedestrian network that
provides accommodations on-site as well as convenient pedestrian access to
Leucadia Boulevard and Quail Gardens Drive.
• “Multi-use Trail” - The project Conceptual Site Plan includes a multi-use path that
loops the site. Multi-use trails and paths comprise a total of nearly two miles within
the site. The multi-use trails and paths shall be constructed in conformance with
that shown on the approved final Conceptual Site Plan.
Commute Trip Reduction Strategies
• “Business Center” - The project would include a resident business center in the
community recreation center with Wi-Fi access for residents, printers/scanners,
and other office amenities to enable residents to work remotely rather than
commuting to work.
• “TDM Marketing Program”
o Promote and advertise various transportation options, including promoting
information and resources regarding SANDAG’s iCommute program, which
provides support to commuters through a variety of TDM measures, such as
carpool matching services, vanpool, and other services.
o Promote formal and/or informal networks among reside nts for carpool/
vanpool purposes.
o Promote available websites providing transportation options for residents.
o Create and distribute a “new resident” information packet addressing
alternative modes of transportation.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 55
CEQA Findings of Fact
• “School Pool” - The project would coordinate and implement a “school pool”
program for project students.
To determine the overall VMT reduction associated with the project, the VMT reduction for each
individual strategy was adjusted to reflect the condition that some of the strategies may be
redundant or applicable to the same populations. The total VMT reduction associated with the
TDM measures would be 4.1% for employment-related VMT attributable to transit pass
subsidies, and 1.0% for residential-related VMT (even though the total summation of the VMT
reductions for residential-related TDM measures is greater than 1.0%). Table 3.12-4 (excerpted
from the EIR) summarizes the reduction percentages needed to reduce the project’s VMT/Capita
and its VMT/Employee impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Table 3.12-4 VMT Percentage Reduction Requirements by Geographic Area
Metric
Project
TDM VMT Reduction
Region Average City of Encinitas
% Reduction
to Mitigate Mitigated?
% Reduction to
Mitigate Mitigated?
VMT/ Capita 1.0% 40.7 No 19.2 No
VMT/ Employee 4.1% 30.9 No 16.1 No
VMT/ Capita 1.0% 34.5 No 16.1 No
VMT/ Employee 4.1% 30.9 No 18.5 No
Source: Chen Ryan, 2020 (EIR Appendix O-1).
As shown, implementation of the proposed TDM measures would not reduce project related
impact levels below the established thresholds. Therefore, transportation impacts relative to
VMT would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
TR-1 The following Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs) shall be implemented to further
reduce potential effects relative to vehicle miles traveled.
• “E-Bike Share” - The project shall implement an electric bike share program to link
to local Encinitas destinations and reduce motorized vehicle trips. The electric bike
share program would provide for the availability of 10 electric bikes for the
exclusive use of project residents to provide sustainable transportation as a
substitute for individual vehicle ownership/use. In addition to the E-Bike program,
high quality bike parking would be provided for project residents.
• “Car share dedicated parking” - Two parking spaces west of the community
recreation center shall be dedicated to accommodate car sharing opportunities.
• “Transit Passes Subsidies” - NCTD Regional Transit passes shall be offered to the 20
on-site employees as an alternative to parking at the project site.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 56 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Even with implementation of TR-1, the project’s VMT/Capita and VMT/Employee are not
anticipated to fall under the significance threshold as the project site is located in a suburban
area that includes single-family homes with higher automobile ownership as compared to the
region. While the proposed project is located on an infill site, would contain a mix of uses on-site,
includes a suite of project design features to enhance sustainability, would provide for a variety
of housing types including “very low” income affordable housing, and is consistent with City’s
General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan, Climate Action Plan, and
SANDAG’s The Regional Plan, impacts related to VMT/capita and VMT/employee would not be
reduced to 85% of the regional average.
It is noted this impact is primarily a result of the geographic location of the proposed project in a
suburban neighborhood, as trip characteristics of the surrounding residential land uses are used
as a surrogate to estimate proposed project trip characteristics, regardless of the inherent
differences between the land uses (described above). Therefore, VMT may be overestimated for
the project, as the model assumes travel patterns reflective of the surrounding single-family
neighborhoods.
As described in Section 5.0, Alternatives, a VMT Reduction Alternative (Alternative 3) was
analyzed with the purpose of reducing the number of daily vehicle trips through a combination
of reduced parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in order to avoid
or reduce significant and unavoidable impacts associated with VMT. This alternative would (1)
provide the minimum number of residential parking spaces required under state density bonus
law, and (2) implement unbundled parking, whereby parking spaces are not included in the cost
of each residential unit; rather, residents would be required to pay for parking spaces.
Unbundled parking is expected to reduce VMT by 7.5% (SANDAG 2019).
Alternative 3 would provide 395 residential parking spaces which is the minimum number of
parking spaces required under the reduced parking req uirements allowed under state Density
Bonus law. This equates to 1.58 parking space per unit (395 parking spaces / 250 units). Since
1.58 spaces per unit is higher than ITE’s rate, there would not be a quantifiable VMT reduction
for limiting parking supply. While there are qualitative benefits of reducing parking, such as
limiting potential vehicles within the proposed project, there are no supported, quantifiable
reductions to VMT allocable to this alternative based on meeting State Density Bonus minimum
parking requirements.
It is also noted that, although Alternative 3 would reduce impacts related to VMT compared to
the proposed project, impacts to VMT would remain significant and unavoidable (similar to the
proposed project) because even with implementation of unbundled parking and limited parking
supply, overall VMT would not reach the 15% reduction threshold.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 57
CEQA Findings of Fact
Furthermore, SANDAG specifically states that their “3A. Parking Pricing” TDM measure, which is
akin to unbundled parking, (7.5% VMT reduction) “works best in areas wh ere on-street parking
is managed (e.g., priced parking, residential permit programs, time limits, etc.) to reduce
unintended consequences of parking in adjacent neighborhoods.” . The City similarly finds that
the implementation of a neighborhood parking management program (permit only parking) in
the neighboring community is not desirable in keeping with the character of surrounding
communities, and could in fact cause additional unwanted downstream parking and circulation
effects (i.e. “kicking the can down the road”). The City finds that the relatively modest reduction
in VMT afforded by this alternative is outweighed by these associated undesirable outcomes.
Timing/Implementation: During Plan Check and operational phase
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Engineering and Planning Divisions
Finding
The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measure TR-1, transportation
impacts associated with VMT would remain significant and unavoidable. As feasible mitigation
measures are not available that would fully mitigate the impact to a less than significant level, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is included herein.
Threshold of Significance Issue 5 (EIR Impact 3.12-5): Result in a cumulative impact related to
transportation
A significant impact relative would occur if the project would result in a direct or indirect
cumulative effect related to transportation when considered with other past, present, or
reasonable foreseeable probable future projects within the identified study area.
Impacts
The project would not contribute to a significant cumulative transportation impact resulting from
conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities; hazards due to a geometric design
feature or incompatible uses; or, inadequate emergency access. Development projects would be
evaluated on a project-specific basis for their potential to contribute to a cumulative effect in this
regard. Additionally, all cumulative projects would be required to make payment of the City’s
Transportation Fees to ensure that transportation facilities continue to be adequately provided
and maintained. As the proposed project was determined to have a less than significant impact
relative to these thresholds, it is not anticipated that the project would contribute to a significant
cumulative impact.
The project would have the potential to conflict and be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). As direct impacts pertaining to VMT were determined to be
significant and unavoidable, it is anticipated that the project would have the potential to, when
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 58 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
considered with other development projects within the identified study area, contribute to a
significant cumulative impact in this regard.
Explanation
The geographic study area for transportation impacts includes those projects that would have
the potential to be considered in a cumulative context with the project’s incremental
contribution, and that are included in the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to
transportation. The cumulative projects are identified in Table 3.0 -1 of the EIR and also include
all 2019 HEU sites to the extent they may contribute to a cumulative effect relative to
transportation.
When using an absolute VMT metric (i.e., total VMT, as recommended for retail and
transportation projects), analyzing the combined impacts for a cumulative impact analysis may
be appropriate. However, metrics such as VMT/Capita or VMT/Employee (i.e., metrics framed in
terms of efficiency, as recommended below for use on residential and office projects), cannot be
summed because they employ a denominator.
A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term
environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the
project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less than significant project impact would imply a less
than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa.
According to ITE’s Regional TIS Guidelines, the proposed project does not fall below the ADT
screening threshold of 1,000 ADT. The proposed residential uses are anticipated to generate a
VMT/Capita of 18.7 miles during the RTIP Year (2020), which exceeds the 85% significance
threshold. For the commercial uses, the proposed project’s restaurant uses are anticipated to
generate a VMT/Capita of 27.6 miles during the RTIP Year (2020), which exceeds the 85%
significance threshold for all area averages. Although mitigation measure TR-1 would be
implemented to reduce the proposed project’s VMT, it would remain above established
thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, the project would result
in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact related to VMT.
The proposed project would result in the construction of 250 residential units (including 197
apartments) generating an estimated 628 residents, consistent with the HEU. It is not anticipated
that the proposed project would create a significant new demand on existing transportation
facilities either locally or on a regional level. Further, similar to other cumulative projects
considered, the proposed project would be subject to payment of the Ci ty’s Transportation
Impact Fees to ensure that the City’s transportation facilities are adequately maintained over the
long-term.
Based on the reasons discussed above, however, and that project -related cumulative impacts
relative to VMT would be significant and unavoidable, even with the incorporation of mitigation
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 59
CEQA Findings of Fact
measure TR-1, which would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to the
maximum extent feasible along with other sustainability-related design features, the project’s
contribution to VMT impacts is considered to be cumulatively considerable.
It is similarly noted that this impact is primarily a result of the geographic location of the proposed
project in a suburban neighborhood, as trip characteristics of the surrounding residen tial land
uses are used as a surrogate to estimate proposed project trip characteristics, regardless of the
inherent differences between the land uses (described above). Therefore, VMT may be
overestimated for the project, as the model assumes travel patterns reflective of the surrounding
single-family neighborhoods.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measure TR-1.
Timing/Implementation: During Plan Check and project operational phase
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Encinitas Engineering and Planning Divisions
Finding
The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measure TR-1, the project’s
contribution to cumulative transportation impacts associated with VMT would remain significant
and unavoidable. As feasible mitigation measures are not available that would fully mitigate the
project’s contribution to a cumulative impact to a less than significant level, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is included herein.
C. Growth-Inducing Impacts
State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d) requires an evaluation of growth inducing impacts that
may result from a proposed project. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15126.2(d); EIR, Section 6.3,
Growth-Inducing Impacts) Growth-inducing impacts fall into two (2) general categories, direct
and indirect. Direct growth inducing impacts are generally associated with the provision of urban
services to an undeveloped area. The provision of these services to a site, and the subsequent
development, can serve to induce other landowners in the vicinity to convert their property to
urban uses. Indirect, or secondary growth-inducing impacts, consist of growth induced in the
region by the additional demands for housing, goods and services associated with the population
increase caused by, or attracted to, a new project. However, the CEQA Guidelines do not require
that an EIR predict (or speculate) specifically where such growth would occur, in what form it
would occur, or when it would occur. The answers to such questions require speculation, which
CEQA discourages (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15145).
REMOVAL OF A BARRIER TO GROWTH
Several types of projects can induce population growth by removing obstacles that prevent
growth. An example of this type of project would be the expan sion of a wastewater treatment
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 60 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
plant, which would accommodate additional sewer connections within a service area and
therefore would allow future construction and growth.
Development of the project site would result in the improvement and extension of infrastructure
facilities located in and/or adjoining the project site. Extensions of utility lines (water, sewer) or
other infrastructure or services (e.g., fire protection services) may result in growth inducement,
as such improvements allow for not only the development responsible for expanding the
infrastructure, but also other projects proposed in the surrounding area due to the availability of
new (i.e., previously inaccessible) infrastructure. However, the area surrounding the proposed
project is already developed with similar residential and commercial uses which are currently
served by existing utility infrastructure and adequate public services (e.g., required fire service
response times can be met without new or expanded facilities or personnel). Fur ther, utilities
would be sized only to accommodate the proposed project and would not provide for additional
capacity that may induce new development. As such, the proposed project would not be
expected to induce growth as a result of new infrastructure or services.
Obstacles to surrounding the project site are primarily due to the existing developed condition
of the surrounding area, feasibility of development, economic constraints, permitting, or other
development restrictions and regulations promulgated by local agencies. The proposed project
is consistent with, and would not modify, approved land use and zoning designations and;
therefore, would not foster growth, remove direct growth constraints, or add a direct stimulus
to growth. Therefore, growth-inducing impacts are precluded because the infrastructure is sized
to serve the proposed project and because the project would not affect the feasibility of
development in the area, remove an obstacle to growth, or affect local agencies’ development
restrictions.
ECONOMIC GROWTH
The timing, magnitude, and location of land development and population growth in a community
or region are based on various interrelated land use and economic variables. Key variables
include regional economic trends, market demand for residential and nonresidential uses, land
availability and cost, the availability and quality of transportation facilities and public services,
proximity to employment centers, the supply and cost of housing, and/or regulatory policies or
conditions.
The proposed project would have the potential to result in economic growth through the
construction of the proposed project and operation of the on -site commercial facilities (organic
farm, farm stand, farm-to-table restaurant, and event space). Project construction would be
performed by independent contractors hired by the developer. In general, construction workers
would be drawn from the local labor pool. If contract workers were employed, they would not
cause growth in the area due to the short-term and temporary nature of their employment.
Operation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in approximately 20 full -time
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 61
CEQA Findings of Fact
permanent employees that are expected to be filled by the local workforce. Given that minimal
number of permanent employees and the temporary nature of construction, the proposed
project is not expected to significantly affect economic growth in the City.
Homeowners would pay property taxes to the City that would improve the financial resources of
the City. Residents of the proposed project would also support the local economy by shopping at
local businesses and paying sales taxes. Therefore, the proposed project would support the local
economy in the short and long term.
POPULATION GROWTH
CEQA requires the consideration of the pote ntial direct and indirect growth-inducing impacts of
a proposed project. According to the HEU, the project site is designated with an R-30 overlay,
which requires a minimum of 246 residential dwelling units, and which would permit up to 575
units through the application of Density Bonus. The proposed project would construct 250
homes, which represents the low-end of permitted intensity on the project site. As a result, the
proposed project would increase the City population by 628 residents which would repr esent
approximately 1% increase in the City’s population (refer to Section 4.3, Population and Housing).
It is noted that due to the inclusion of 39 affordable housing units, some portion of the project
residents may already live in the City in larger households and qualify as eligible to rent one of
the very-low income rental units; therefore, this population estimate is considered conservative.
The environmental effects of increasing the City’s population due to development of the project
site are evaluated in the EIR. Mitigation measures are identified where appropriate to reduce
such effects to a less than significant level. All impacts would be less than significant, with the
exception of transportation impacts related to VMT, which would remain significant and
unavoidable (refer to Section 3.12, Transportation). This significant, unavoidable impact is
primarily a result of the location of the proposed project in a suburban neighborhood, as
previously discussed.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRECEDENT SETTING ACTION
A Density Bonus Tentative Map, Coastal Development Permit, Design Review, and other
discretionary approvals are required to allow for the proposed development. These actions are
not considered precedent-setting actions (defined as any act, decision, or case that serves as a
guide or justification for subsequent situations), as they are commonly undertaken on a regular
basis by many jurisdictions. All future discretionary projects in the project area would be
processed through the City and evaluated for consistency with the General Plan, as appropriate.
Such projects would be evaluated for growth -inducing effects and their potential to enable or
encourage growth not intended or anticipated with buildout of the General Plan. Development
of the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Program,
Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan, and HEU as the project site is designated with an R-30 overlay.
Therefore, approval of the project would not represent a precedent-setting action that would
encourage or allow for unplanned future growth within the area.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 62 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
ENCROACH ON OPEN SPACE
All construction activities would occur within the project site. The project site currently supports
a botanical nursey, private greenhouses, and one single-family home. The existing structures
would be demolished to allow for construction of the proposed project within the same general
footprint on-site. No designated open space occurs on-site, and therefore, the project would not
encroach into or physically disturb any such areas.
The 29.8-acre Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve, owned by the County of San Diego, abuts
the northern property boundary. The proposed project would implement mitigation measures to
reduce potential indirect impacts to species within the preserve during construction, such as
noise (refer to mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources). With
implementation of these measures, potential indirect impacts to open space would be less than
significant.
FINDING
Although the proposed project would construct 250 homes, which would account for
approximately 628 residents, the proposed project would not result in a significant growth
inducing impact as all of the environmental impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level
besides impacts associated with VMT which are significant and unavoidable. Furthe rmore, a
portion of the project’s residents are anticipated to be provided by the surroundings areas
instead of new residents to the City, so the project’s population estimate is considered
conservative. Construction and operation of the on -site commercial facilities have the potential
to result in economic growth in the region, but given the temporary nature of construction and
limited full-time employees during operation, the proposed project is not expected to
significantly affect economic growth in the City. Furthermore, the City finds, on the basis of the
entire record, the project would not remove an impediment to growth, establish a precedent -
setting action, or develop or encroach on an isolated or adjacent area of open space. Therefore,
no growth-related impacts beyond the environmental impacts discussed in Section 6.0, Other
CEQA Considerations, of the EIR are anticipated.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires an EIR to discuss the significant irreversible
environmental changes that would result from implementation of a proposed project. Examples
include a project’s primary or secondary impacts that would generally commit future generations
to similar uses (e.g., highway improvements at the access point), use nonrenewable resources
during the initial and continued phases of the project (because a large commitment of such
resources make removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely), and/or result in irreversible damage from
any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.
Project construction and occupancy/operation of the buildings and infrastructure proposed
would require the commitment of energy, natural resources, and building materials. The
proposed project would not result in an unusually high demand for nonrenewable resources fo r
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 63
CEQA Findings of Fact
construction or operation/occupancy of the project. It would implement many state and local
goals and policies directed at moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels and encouraging
renewable energy. The proposed project would include 434 kW of solar an d 263 Level II EV
charging stations that would reduce energy demand of nonrenewable resources. Furthermore,
the proposed project would incorporate other energy-saving features such as low-flow water
fixtures, drought-tolerant landscaping, ENERGY STAR appliances, high-efficiency HVAC systems,
and stormwater reuse systems on-site to collect, filter, and reuse captured stormwater in
landscaped areas. The proposed project would also include a TDM Program to reduce VMT and
associated air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise levels. Therefore, the City finds,
that the proposed project would not result in significant and irreversible environmental changes.
D. Alternatives
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or a range of reasonable alternatives to the location of the project,
that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. An EIR does not need to consider
every conceivable alternative project, but it does have to consider a range of potentially feasible
alternatives that will facilitate informed decision-making and public participation.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the discussion of alternatives must include
several different issues. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives to the project,
or to the project location, which will avoid or substantially reduce any significant effects of the
project, even if the alternatives would be costlier or hinder to some degree the attainment of the
project objectives. The “No Project” alternative must also be evaluated. The “No Project” analysis
must discuss the existing conditions and what would reasonably be expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the proposed project was not approved. The range of alternatives required
is governed by a “rule of reason.” Therefore, the EIR must only evaluate those alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives must be limited to only ones that would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project.
Additionally, an EIR should not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably
ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The CEQA Guidelines also
require an EIR to state why an alternative is being rejected. If the County ultimately rejects any
or all alternatives, the rationale for rejection will be presented in the findings that are required
before the County certifies the EIR and takes action on the proposed p roject. According to Section
15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, among the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing feasibility of alternatives are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic
viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, policy preferences, regulatory
limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the applicant could reasonably acquire,
control, or otherwise have access to the alternate site.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 64 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
The project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic
project objectives, while significantly reducing or avoiding any significant effects of the proposed
project. The proposed project objectives are outlined in the Project Objectives subsection, in
Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR.
The objectives of the proposed project include the following:
1. Provide visual and functional compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods,
other nearby land uses, development, and natural features.
2. Provide for varying housing densities and diverse housing types to support an
inclusive, multi-generational community to meet the current and future housing
demand on a site located near transit, retail, recreational amenities, and schools.
3. Use agriculture as an organizing element of the overall neighborhood plan and
provide better public access to agricultural uses.
4. Provide for the long-term preservation of agriculture through an urban farm and other
amenities that would serve as community assets and as a transition b etween urban
uses and agricultural land.
5. Design buildings, spaces, and uses that enhance and respect the agricultural history
of the area and promote environmental stewardship.
6. Create a walkable environment that promotes and enhances the pedestrian
experience throughout the site, with safe, convenient, and attractive connections,
open space, parks, paseos, agriculture, and other amenities.
7. Provide a site plan that creates connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and transit
while respecting adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods by locating lower-
density, detached homes along the western portion of the project site.
8. Provide a publicly-accessible loop trail system around the project site.
9. Minimize visual impacts of the project site by locating two -story units around the
perimeter of the project site and focusing three-story structures more central to the
project site.
10. Provide at least the minimum number of units and housing opportunities that are
consistent with the goals of the adopted City of Encin itas Housing Element, while
minimizing environmental effects and protecting surrounding natural and aesthetic
resources.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 65
CEQA Findings of Fact
11. Provide affordable housing within the project for very low income families, thereby
helping to meet the State-mandated affordable housing requirements and further
encouraging diversity within the community.
12. Provide homeownership opportunities and meet the growing demand for smaller
cottage/carriage homes, while at the same time encouraging multi-generational living
opportunities that are compatible with the visual character of the surrounding
community.
13. Buffer existing open space areas adjacent to the project site (Magdalena Ecke Open
Space Preserve) with an organic farm and focusing development further south to
protect sensitive habitat and views.
14. Provide resident parking in accordance with the City of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance,
and encourage shared parking (consistent with the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan)
among the various non-residential uses within the project.
Consistent with the requirements of the applicable CEQA Guidelines, the EIR analyzed potential
environmental impacts associated with the required “No Project” alternative as well as three
other ealternatives, compared those impacts to the impacts of the Project. The analyzed
alternatives include:
• Alternative 1: No Project
• Alternative 2: Increased Intensity of Existing Agricultural Operations
• Alternative 3: VMT Reduction
Table 5-1, Comparison of Alternative Project Impacts to the Proposed Project , of the EIR
compares the project alternatives considered and their potential resulting environmental
impacts.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Description of Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be adopted, and future
development would not occur. As such, the existing agricultural operations would continue to
occur on-site in the same capacity as existing conditions. As no new development would occur,
this alternative would not include the proposed improvements to the City’s storm drain
infrastructure that, under current conditions, results in flooding along Sidonia Street during large
storm events (refer to Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Although found to be a less than
significant impact in this EIR, and therefore not further evaluated in this alternative analysis, this
alternative would generally reduce effects related to aesthetics, air quality, energy conservation
and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, and recreation as no new development
would occur on-site and the existing intensity of the site would remain as current conditions. It
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 66 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
should be noted that this alternative would not be consistent with the City’s requirement to
provide for housing per the HEU and the City’s obligations under the Regional Housing Need s
Assessment.
Impact Comparison
Biological Resources
Since the project site is largely void of biological resources, it is unlikely that this alternative would
result in impacts to biological resources by continuing the existing agricultural operations on -site.
Mitigation measures would not be required as construction activities are not proposed by this
alternative. As such, potential impacts to migratory birds and raptors as well as the coastal
California gnatcatcher would not occur as a result of this alternative. Therefore, impacts to
biological resources would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural and tribal resources generally occurs during ground disturbing activities. As
this alternative does not include such activities, direct and indirect impacts to unknown cultural
and tribal cultural resources is unlikely to occur with this alternative. Therefore, impacts to
cultural and tribal cultural resources would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.
Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
The project site is generally underlain by very old paralic deposits (Lindavista Formation) and
Santiago Formation. The Lindavista Formation is assigned a moderate paleontologi cal sensitivity
and Santiago Formation is considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Impacts to
paleontological resources generally occurs during ground disturbing activities. As this alternative
does not include such activities, direct and indirect impacts to paleontological resources are
unlikely to occur with this alternative. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be
reduced when compared to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the proposed project requires mitigation measures to
reduce the potentially significant impacts involving the potential release of hazardous materials
into the environment. Mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would require the applicant to
coordinate with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and participate in
the Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) regarding the excavation and disposal of the heavy -oil
impacted soils identified near the existing on-site trash compactor and at two additional locations
located along the western boundary of the site. Mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would
ensure that the contaminated soils are properly removed and disposed of off -site as deemed
appropriate by the City of Encinitas Planning Division the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 67
CEQA Findings of Fact
Mitigation measures HAZ-4 through HAZ-6 would require additional testing of the existing
structures on-site to verify the absence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-related construction
materials and any additional remediation during demolition/deconstruction required to safely
transport and dispose any lead-based paint and/or asbestos.
The continued use of the existing agriculture operations may lead to an increase in the transport,
use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials on-site since heavy chemicals and compounds (e.g.
pesticides, herbicides, diesel, gasoline) are generally required to support agriculture operations.
However, Alternative 1 would not implement these mitigation measures since construction is not
proposed. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, the potential for significant hazards to
the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is increased as a result of this
alternative. Impacts would be greater as compared to the proposed project.
Transportation
As shown Section 3.12, Transportation, the proposed project would generate 1,967 ADT.
However, the project would also replace the existing 334 daily trips associated with the existing
flower mart, and; therefore, the project’s net increase is 1,690 ADT. Additionally, the proposed
project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. However, based on the Te chnical
Advisory and Regional TIS Guidelines, the project does not fall below the ADT screening
thresholds of either 110 ADT or 1,000 ADT. Therefore, the VMT/Capita and VMT/Employee
analysis was prepared using the SANDAG Series 13 Travel Demand Model. Based on this analysis,
the proposed project would exceed 85% of the regional VMT/capita or VMT/employee. As a
result, mitigation measure TR-1 requires implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program which includes measures to reduce the pr oposed project’s VMT.
Total VMT reduction for the proposed project would be 4.1% for employment related VMT and
1.0% for residential related VMT which does not meet the 15% reduction threshold. As such, the
proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
As no project would be built under Alternative 1, the existing agriculture operations would
continue to operate at current conditions which is approximately 334 ADT. As such, no impacts
would occur and this alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to VMT that
would occur from implementation of the proposed project. It is noted that the VMT/employee
of the existing operation may exceed 85% of the regional average. Specifically, because the
analysis for the proposed project determined that VMT/employee was greater than 85% of the
regional average, and because the SANDAG model is regional and based on the location of the
project site, it is reasonable to conclude that the No Project Alternative VMT/employee would
be similar to that of the proposed project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 68 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Alternative 1 Summary and Finding
Since the project site is largely void of biological resources, it is unlikely that this alternative would
result in impacts to biological resources (e.g., potential to affect nesting avian species) by
continuing the existing agricultural operations on-site. Impacts relative to cultural, tribal cultural,
and paleontological resources (e.g., potential to inadvertently discover unknown resources)
would be reduced as the project site would not be developed and existing operations would be
maintained at their current capacity. This alternative would result in less transportation impacts
as fewer daily vehicle trips would be generated by existing operations as compared to the
proposed project. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the No Project Alternative
VMT/employee would be similar to that of the proposed project. The continued use of the
existing agriculture operations may lead to an increase in the transport, use, and/or disposa l of
hazardous materials on-site since heavy chemicals and compounds (e.g. pesticides, herbicides,
diesel, gasoline) are generally required to support agriculture operations.
As shown in Table 5-1, Comparison of Alternative Project Impacts to the Proposed Project, this
alternative would result in reduced impacts relative to biological resources, cultural resources,
tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources, as compared to the proposed project
while transportation impacts would be similar to the proposed project. However, because no
remediation activities for potentially hazardous conditions on-site would occur, impacts relative
to hazards and hazardous materials are considered to be greater as compared to the proposed
project since the site would remain in its current state.
It should also be noted that, based on the analysis included in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water
quality because it would result in addition pervious area and implement a storm drain system
and water quality treatment basins that would reduce runoff from the project site and treat
water quality to standards consistent with the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
permit. As a result, the proposed project would eliminate the flooding that occurs under existing
conditions due to the overall amount of impervious area on the project site. Although not
analyzed herein because project impacts were determined to be less than significant, such
improvements would not be installed with Alternative 1 and the existing flooding condition
would remain. While this is part of the baseline under CEQA, it represents a greater impact to
water quality and hydrology than the proposed project. Impacts relative to hydrology/water
quality would therefore be greater with Alternative 1 as compared to the proposed project.
Finding
The City finds that the implementation of Alternative 1, No Project Alternative, would reduce
potential environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. However, Alternative
1 would not meet any of the project objectives. Therefore, while Alternative 1 would result in
less environmental impact relative to the proposed project, none of the basic project objecti ves
would be met by Alternative 1. The City therefore rejects Alternative 1.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 69
CEQA Findings of Fact
ALTERNATIVE 2: INCREASED INTENSITY OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS
Description of Alternative
Under this alternative, development proposed by the project would not occur. However, in
contrast to the “No Project” Alternative that would maintain existing operations, the Increased
Intensity of Existing Agricultural Operations Alternative would increase the intensity of the
agricultural operations on-site, such as constructing new greenhouses and accessory structures.
Based on the City’s Proposition A, the height of the agriculture building could be up to 30 feet
without additional approval. Under this Alternative, buildings on-site would be replaced and/or
renovated in conformance with the Agricultural zoning standards.
This alternative would not include improvements for ingress/egress to accommodate traffic
associated with the increased business intensity (e.g., deliveries, transport of goods, employee
traffic) as the current operations is a by-right use. Furthermore, this alternative would not include
the proposed improvements to the City’s storm drain infrastructure that presently results in
flooding along Sidonia Street during large storm events (refer to Section 3.8, Hydrology and
Water Quality). An analysis of the potential effects of the Alternative is included below.
Impact Comparison
Biological Resources
Since the project site is largely void of biological resources, this alternative would generally not
be expected to directly or indirectly impact sensitive wildlife or plant species. However, due to
the increased intensity of the agricultural operations, construction activities may o ccur to
physically expand operations on-site, such as the construction of new greenhouses. As with the
proposed project, construction on the subject site under this alternative would have the potential
to indirectly affect avian species if determined to b e present at the time construction is
undertaken. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would be considered similar to those that
would result with the proposed project, and the same mitigation measures as identified with the
project would be required.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Due to the increased intensity of the agricultural operations, construction activities may occur to
physically expand operations on-site, such as the construction of new greenhouses. As such,
direct and indirect impacts to unknown cultural and tribal cultural resources may occur from the
various subsurface construction disturbances associated with this alternative. Therefore, similar
mitigation measures as the proposed project would be required to address undiscove red cultural
resources. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project and considered less than significant
with mitigation.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 70 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
The project site is generally underlain by very old paralic deposits (Lindavista Formation) and
Santiago Formation. The Lindavista Formation is assigned a moderate paleontological sensitivity
and Santiago Formation is considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Impacts to
paleontological resources generally occurs during ground disturbing activities. Since this
alternative may include construction activities, such as the construction of additional
greenhouses, direct impacts to unknown paleontological resources may occur from the various
subsurface construction disturbances associated with this alternative. As such, similar mitigation
measures as the proposed project would still be required to address the recovery of unknown
paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated which is similar to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the proposed project requires mitigation measures to
reduce the potentially significant impacts involving the potential release of hazardous materials
into the environment. Mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would require the applicant to
coordinate with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and participate in
the Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) regarding the excavation and disposal of the heavy-oil
impacted soils identified near the existing on-site trash compactor and at two additional locations
located along the western boundary of the site. Mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would
ensure that the contaminated soils are properly removed and disposed of off-site as deemed
appropriate by the City of Encinitas Planning Division the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health. Mitigation measures HAZ-4 through HAZ-6 would require additional
testing of the existing structures on-site to verify the absence of lead-based paint and/or
asbestos-related construction materials and any additional remediation during
demolition/deconstruction required to safely transport and dispose any lead -based paint and/or
asbestos.
Alternative 2 would not implement the mitigation measures unless construction of the expanded
facilities disturbed the contaminated soil or required the demolition of the existing residence on -
site. Furthermore, the increased intensity of the site may lead to an increase in the transport,
use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials on-site since heavy chemicals and compounds (e.g.
pesticides, herbicides, diesel, gasoline) are generally required to support agriculture operations.
Therefore, compared to the proposed project, the potential for significant hazards to the public
or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment is increased as a result of this alternative.
Impacts would be greater as compared to the proposed project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 71
CEQA Findings of Fact
Transportation
Under this alternative, the intensity of the existing agricultural operations on-site would be
increased, such as constructing new greenhouses and accessory structures. The existing buildings
on-site would be replaced and/or renovated as needed and the existing residence would be
demolished for additional greenhouses. This alternative would not include improvements for
ingress/egress to accommodate traffic associated with the increased business intensity (e.g.,
deliveries, transport of goods, employee traffic) as the current operations is a by -right use.
It is expected that ADT would increase greater than existing conditions (334 ADT), but less than
the proposed project (1,690 ADT) since this alternative would not include residential housing on -
site. Furthermore, since the operations are a by-right use, the project site is not required to
reduce VMT. It is noted that the VMT/employee of the existing operation may exceed 85% of the
regional average. Specifically, because the analysis for the proposed project determined that
VMT/employee was greater than 85% of the regional average, and because the SANDAG model
is regional and based on the location of the project site, it is reasonable to conclude that the
VMT/employee for this alternative would be similar to that of the proposed project.
Alternative 2 Summary and Finding
It is anticipated that this alternative would decrease impacts relative to transportation as f ewer
daily vehicle trips would be generated by horticultural uses as compared to the proposed project.
However, it is reasonable to conclude that the No Project Alternative VMT/employee would be
similar to that of the proposed project. Further, the increas ed intensity of the site would result
in additional truck trips (e.g., large delivery trucks, semi -trailers, and dump trucks) which may
lead to temporary congestion on Quail Gardens Drive and surrounding intersections. Impacts
relative to biological resources (e.g., potential to affect nesting avian species) and cultural
resources (e.g., potential to inadvertently discover unknown resources) would be similar to the
project as the development footprint of Alternative 2 would generally be the same in order t o
accommodate the expanded agricultural facilities and operations.
Although the increased intensity of the site is anticipated to increase ADT greater than existing
conditions (334 ADT), it is unlikely that this alternative would generate greater ADT than the
proposed project (1,690 ADT) since this alternative would not include residential housing on-site.
As such, transportation impacts would be similar as compared to the proposed project. The
increased intensity of the site may lead to an increase in the transport, use, and/or disposal of
hazardous materials on-site since heavy chemicals and compounds (e.g. pesticides, herbicides,
diesel, gasoline) are generally required to support agriculture operations; therefore, impacts
relative to hazards and hazardous materials are considered to be greater as compared to the
proposed project since the site would remain in its current state.
As stated, this alternative would not include the proposed improvements to the City’s storm drain
infrastructure that, under current conditions, presently results in flooding along Sidonia Street
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 72 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
during large storm events. Based on the analysis in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water qu ality
because it would result in addition pervious area and implement a storm drain system and water
quality treatment basins that would reduce runoff from the project site and treat water quality
to standards consistent with the municipal separate storm s ewer system (MS4) permit. As a
result, the proposed project would eliminate the flooding that occurs under existing conditions
due to the overall amount of impervious area on the project site.
Although not analyzed herein because project impacts were determined to be less than
significant, under Alternative 2, such improvements would not be installed, and the existing
flooding condition would remain because the construction/expansion of greenhouse use would
maintain the total impervious area on-site. While this is part of the baseline under CEQA, it
represents a greater impact to water quality and hydrology than the proposed project. Impacts
for Alternative 2 would be greater relative to hydrology/water quality as compared to the
proposed project.
Finding
The City finds that the implementation of Alternative 2, Increased Intensity of Existing
Agricultural Operations Alternative, would reduce potential environmental impacts when
compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 may decrease impacts relative t o transportation
as fewer daily vehicle trips would occur on-site, however, the intensity of the site may lead to
additional truck trips. Impacts relative to biological resources (e.g., potential to affect nesting
avian species) and cultural resources (e.g., potential to inadvertently discover unknown
resources) would be similar to the project as the development footprint of Alternative 2 would
generally be the same in order to accommodate the expanded agricultural facilities and
operations. Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials may increase as a result of
implementation of Alternative 2.
While Alternative 2 would result in less environmental impact relative to the proposed project,
it would come at the expense of a primary goal of providing a range of housing options on the
site to help meet the City’s critical housing shortage. This site is specifically identified in the
Housing Element Update as a suitable site to support residential development and help the City
meet future housing demand. The City therefore rejects Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3: VMT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE
Description of Alternative
The VMT Reduction Alternative focuses on reducing the number of daily vehicle trips through a
combination of reduced parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in
order to avoid or reduce significant and unavoidable impacts associated with VMT. This
alternative would (1) provide the minimum number of residential parking spaces required under
state density bonus law, and (2) implement unbundled parking, whereby parking spaces are not
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 73
CEQA Findings of Fact
included in the cost of each residential unit; rather, residents would be required to pay for
parking spaces.
Specifically, this alternative would provide 395 residential parking spaces (all of wh ich would be
in garages) and would charge renters $25/month for each space. The overall project design would
remain largely unchanged, with the exception that approximately 86 residential surface parking
spaces in the residential areas of the proposed proj ect would be converted to landscaping or
other green spaces. The parking area in the agricultural amenity area would be for visitors/users
of that area exclusively and residential guests or residents would not be permitted to park in this
area.
Other alternatives to reduce VMT, such as alternative project locations near the COASTER station,
reducing the size of residential units, or providing more studio and 1 -bedroom units, were
considered but rejected because they were either not feasible, did not redu ce the identified
impacts, and/or did not meet the majority of the project objectives. The VMT Reduction
Alternative was developed in accordance with CEQA Section 15126.6(a) which states that an EIR
shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives “… which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (emphasis added)
Impact Comparison
Biological Resources
Since the project site is largely void of biological resources, this alternative would generally not
be expected to directly or indirectly impact sensitive wildlife or plant species, similar to the
proposed project. As with the proposed project, construction on the subject site under this
alternative would have the potential to indirectly affect avian species if determined to be present
at the time construction is undertaken. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would be
considered similar to those that would result with the proposed project, and the same mitigation
measures as identified with the project would be required.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
As with the proposed project, construction on the subject site under this alt ernative would have
the potential to directly and/or indirectly impact unknown cultural and tribal cultural resources.
Therefore, similar mitigation measures as the proposed project would be required to address
undiscovered cultural resources. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project and
considered less than significant with mitigation.
Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
The project site is generally underlain by very old paralic deposits (Lindavista Formation) and
Santiago Formation. The Lindavista Formation is assigned a moderate paleontological sensitivity
and Santiago Formation is considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Impacts to
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 74 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
paleontological resources generally occurs during ground disturbing activities. This altern ative
would require similar mitigation measures as the proposed project to address the recovery of
unknown paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the proposed project requires mitigation measures to
reduce the potentially significant impacts involving the potential release of hazardous materials
into the environment. Mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would require the applicant to
coordinate with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and participate in
the Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) regarding the excavation and disposal of the heavy -oil
impacted soils identified near the existing on-site trash compactor and at two additional locations
located along the western boundary of the site. Mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would
ensure that the contaminated soils are properly removed and disposed of off -site as deemed
appropriate by the City of Encinitas Planning Division the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health. Mitigation measures HAZ-4 through HAZ-6 would require additional
testing of the existing structures on-site to verify the absence of lead-based paint and/or
asbestos-related construction materials and any additional remediation during
demolition/deconstruction required to safely transport and dispose any lead -based paint and/or
asbestos.
As with the proposed project, development of this alternative would require the implementation
of mitigation measures to address the excavation and disposal of the heavy-oil impacted soils
identified on-site. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the proposed project and considered
less than significant with mitigation.
Transportation
For land use development projects, the Technical Advisory and Regional TIS Guidelines requires
the following metrics be analyzed to determine if a project would result in a significant
transportation-related impact:
• VMT/Capita: Includes all vehicle-based person trips grouped and summed to the home
location of individuals who are drivers or passengers on each trip. This metric includes
both home-based and non-homebased trips. The VMT for each home is then summed for
all homes in a particular census tract and divided by the population of that census tract
to arrive at Resident VMT/Capita.
• VMT/Employee: Includes all vehicle-based person trips grouped and summed to the work
location of individuals on the trip. This includes all trips, not just work -related trips. The
VMT for each work location is then summed for all work locations in a particular census
tract and then divided by the total number of employees of that census tract to determine
the VMT/Employee.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 75
CEQA Findings of Fact
Per the OPR Technical Advisory and the Regional TIS Guidelines, if the project average is lower
than either 85% of the regional average or 85% of the average for the city or community in which
the project is located, the VMT impacts of the project can be presumed less than significant.
As described in Section 3.12, Transportation, the proposed project would implement
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the project’s VMT. Total VMT
reduction for the proposed project would be 4.1% for employment related VMT and 1.0% for
residential related VMT which does not meet the 15% reduction threshold. As such, the proposed
project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Under Alternative 3, transportation impacts related to VMT would be reduced compared to the
proposed project. Specifically, impacts related to vehicle miles traveled per capita would be
reduced by 7.5% which represents the expected VMT reduction achieved with implementation
of reduced parking and implementation of unbundled parking as described below:
Unbundled parking is expected to reduce VMT by 7.5% (SANDAG 2019).
CAPCOA calculates the VMT reduction for limited parking supply using the following equation:
% VMT Reduction = (ITE Parking Generation Rate – Actual Parking Provision) / ITE Parking Trip
Generation Rate) x 0.54
The reduction is based on ITE’s Parking Trip Generation Rate (not the City’s Municipal Code),
which is 1.5 spaces/du for mid-rise multi-family units. Below are VMT reductions for example
parking ratios that are less than ITE’s:
• 1.4 spaces/DU = 3.3%
• 1.3 spaces/DU = 6.7%
• 1.2 spaces/DU = 10%
• 1.1 spaces/DU = 12.5% (maximum reduction allowed)
Alternative 3 would provide 395 residential parking spaces as shown in Table 5 -2, which is the
minimum number of parking spaces required under the reduced parking requirements allowed
under state Density Bonus law. This equates to 1.58 parking space per unit (395 parking spaces /
250 units). Since 1.58 spaces per unit is higher than ITE’s rate, there would not be a quantifiable
VMT reduction for limited parking supply. While there are qualitative benefits of reducing
parking, such as limiting potential vehicles within the proposed project, there are no supported,
quantifiable reductions to VMT allocable to this alternative based on meeting State Density
Bonus minimum parking requirements. Therefore, impacts related to vehicle miles traveled per
4 Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p. 16),
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAnalysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 76 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
capita would be reduced by 7.5%. While this represents a reduced VMT/capita, impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable (and therefore similar to the proposed project).
Other transportation impacts, including providing emergency access and hazards due to
geometric design features, would remain the same as the proposed project under this
alternative. Although Alternative 3 would reduce impacts related to VMT compared to the
proposed project, impacts to VMT would remain significant and unavoidable because even with
implementation of unbundled parking and limited parking supply overall VMT would not reach
the 15% reduction threshold. Furthermore, SANDAG specifically states that their “3A. Parking
Pricing” TDM measure (7.5% VMT reduction) “works best in areas where on -street parking is
managed (e.g., priced parking, residential permit programs, time limits, etc.) to reduce
unintended consequences of parking in adjacent neighborhoods.” As the project app licant
cannot guarantee that this measure would also be implemented in the adjacent neighborhood
(Fox Point – Sidonia Street), this reduction is not wholly supportable. Further, reducing parking
supply, while a permitted reduction under state density bonu s, would conflict with the City of
Encinitas Off-street Parking standards.
Alternative 3 Summary and Finding
Impacts relative to biological resources (e.g., potential to affect nesting avian species), cultural
resources (e.g., potential to inadvertently discover unknown resources), and hazardous materials
(e.g. excavation and disposal of the heavy-oil impacted soils) would be similar to the project
because the development footprint of Alternative 3 would be the same as the proposed project
(refer to Table 5-1). Although not considered a significant impact in the EIR, operational impacts
to air quality would be similar but slightly reduced compared to the proposed project while
construction air quality impacts would be the same as the proposed project. Spe cifically, mobile-
source emissions may be reduced by up to 7.5% which represents the expected VMT reduction
achieved with implementation of reduced parking and implementation of unbundled parking.
Similarly, operational impacts to energy usage (i.e., petro leum usage) and greenhouse gases
(mobile source emissions) would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
Although Alternative 3 would reduce impacts related to VMT compared to the proposed project,
impacts to VMT would remain significant and unavoidable (similar to the proposed project)
because even with implementation of unbundled parking and limited parking supply, overall VMT
would not reach the 15% reduction threshold. Furthermore, SANDAG specifically states that their
“3A. Parking Pricing” TDM measure (7.5% VMT reduction) “works best in areas where on -street
parking is managed (e.g., priced parking, residential permit programs, time limits, etc.) to reduce
unintended consequences of parking in adjacent neighborhoods.” As the City cannot guarantee
at this time that this measure can be feasibly implemented in the adjacent neighborhood (Fox
Point – Sidonia Street), this reduction is not wholly supportable. Impacts would therefore be
similar to that resulting with the proposed project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 77
CEQA Findings of Fact
Finding
The City finds that the implementation of Alternative 3, VMT Reduction Alternative, would
reduce transportation impacts related to VMT compared to the proposed project. However,
impacts would still be considered significant and unavoidable with additional mitigation (i.e.
unbundled parking and limited parking supply).
As noted above, SANDAG guidelines indicate that this type of TDM measure is better suited to
urban centers and other areas where parking management plans (e.g. metered parking and the
like) are the norm. The City similarly finds that the implementation of a neighborhood parking
management program (permit only parking) in the neighboring community is not desirable in
keeping with the character of surrounding communities, and could in fact cause additional
unwanted downstream parking and circulation effects (i.e. “kicking the can down the road”). The
City finds that the relatively modest reduction in VMT afforded by this alternative is outweighed
by these associated undesirable outcomes.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified; that is, an alternative
that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. If the No Project
Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(2) requires that another alternative that could feasibly attain most of the project’s
basic objectives be chosen as the environmentally superior alternative.
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified; that is, an alternative
that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. If the No Project
Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(2) requires that another alternative that could feasibly attain most of the project’s
basic objectives be chosen as the environmentally superior alternative.
The No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), a secondary alternative must be chosen since the
No Project Alternative is environmentally superior. Therefore, Alternative 3, VMT Reduction
Alternative, would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because this
alternative potentially reduces a significant and unavoidable impact.
However, as noted above, a neighborhood parking management program (permit only parking)
in the neighboring community is not desirable in keeping with the character of surrounding
communities, and could in fact cause additional unwanted downstream parking and circulation
effects (i.e. “kicking the can down the road”). The City finds that the relatively modest reduction
in VMT afforded by this alternative is outweighed by these associated undesirable outcomes.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 78 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the project
against its potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether
to approve the project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.”
As noted above and described in EIR Section 3.12, Transportation, the proposed project would
have a potentially significant VMT-related transportation impact. To reduce the VMT/Capita and
VMT/Employee associated with the proposed project to a less than significant level, VMT
reducing measures would need to be implemented. However, implementation of the proposed
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures available and identified would not reduce
project related impacts levels below the established thresholds and transportation impacts
relative to VMT would remain significant and unavoidable.
The EIR evaluated a VMT Reduction Alternative (see EIR Section 5.4, Alternatives). Specifically,
Alternative #3 was developed to directly address the project’s significant and unavoidable impact
relative to Vehicle Miles Traveled. As explained on page 5.0-10 of the EIR:
…This alternative would (1) provide the minimum number of residential parking spaces required
under state density bonus law, and (2) implement unbundled parking, whereby parking spaces
are not included in the cost of each residential unit; rather, residents would be required to pay
for parking spaces….Specifically, this alternative would provide 395 residential parking spaces (all
of which would be in garages) and would charge renters $25/month for each space. The overall
project design would remain largely unchanged, with the exception that approximately 86
residential surface parking spaces in the residential areas of the proposed project would be
converted to landscaping or other green spaces.
Potential VMT reductions were analyzed in the EIR that would be accomplished under the VMT
Reduction Alternative (EIR pages 5-12 through 5-14). By reducing the number of on-site parking
spaces to the minimum required under State Density Bonus law and unbundling parking, analysis
in the EIR determined that the proposed project’s “impacts related to vehicle miles traveled per
capita would be reduced by 7.5%.” However, reducing the number of parking spaces to
approximately 1.58 spaces per unit was “higher than ITE’s rate, [and] there would not be a
quantifiable VMT reduction for limited parking supply.” Analysis in the EIR further concluded that
SANDAG’s Parking Pricing TDM measure “‘works best in areas where on-street parking is
managed (e.g., priced parking, residential permit programs, time limits, etc.) to reduce
unintended consequences of parking in adjacent neighborhoods.’” As stated in the EIR, since
“the project applicant cannot guarantee that this measure would also be in implemented in the
adjacent neighborhood (Fox Point – Sidonia Street), this reduction is not wholly supportable.” As
a result, “impacts related to vehicle miles traveled per capita would be reduced” but that
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 79
CEQA Findings of Fact
“impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (and therefore similar to the proposed
project).”
Analysis in the EIR also considered other alternatives to reduce impacts to VMT including
“alternative project locations near the COASTER station, reduci ng the size of residential units, or
providing more studio and 1-bedroom units” however, these were “rejected because they were
either not feasible, did not reduce the identified impacts, and/or did not meet the majority of
the project objectives” (EIR page 3.12-11).
The City finds that except for the project, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR would prohibit
the realization of project objectives and/or specific economic, social, and other benefits that the
City finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives, and/or would result in similar
or even increased overall impacts on the environment.
The City declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the
project to the fullest extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures contained in the EIR;
having considered the entire administrative record on the project ; and having weighed the
benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, each of the
social, economic, environmental, and other benefits of the project—including providing
affordable housing within the project for very low income families, thereby helping to meet the
State-mandated affordable housing requirements and further encourage diversity within the
community—have been determined to separately and individually outweigh the potential
unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts
acceptable upon the following overriding considerations:
SOCIAL BENEFITS
1. The project would provide visual and functional compatibility with adjacent
residential neighborhoods, other nearby land uses, development, and natural
features.
2. The project would create a walkable environment that promotes and enhances the
pedestrian experience throughout the site, with safe, convenient, and attractive
connections, open space, parks, paseos, agriculture, and other amenities.
3. The project would provide a site plan that creates connectivity to adjacent
neighborhoods and transit while respecting adjacent single-family residential
neighborhoods by locating lower-density, detached homes along the western portion
of the project site.
4. The project would provide a publicly-accessible loop trail system around the project
site.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Page | 80 Fox Point Farms Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
5. The project would provide for varying housing densities and diverse housing types to
support an inclusive, multi-generational community to meet the current and future
housing demand on a site located near transit, retail, recreational amenities, and
schools.
6. The project would provide affordable housing within the project for very low income
families, thereby helping to meet the State-mandated affordable housing
requirements and further encouraging diversity within the community.
7. The project would provide homeownership opportunities and meet the growing
demand for smaller cottage/carriage homes, while at the same time encouraging
multi-generational living opportunities that are compatible with the visual character
of the surrounding community.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
8. The project would provide at least the minimum number of units and housing
opportunities that are consistent with the goals of the adopted City of Encinitas
Housing Element, while minimizing environmental effects and protecting surrounding
natural and aesthetic resources.
9. The project would buffer existing open space areas adjacent to the project site
(Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve) with an organic farm and focusing
development further south to protect sensitive habitat and views.
10. The project would minimize visual impacts of the project site by locating two-story
units around the perimeter of the project site and focusing three-story structures
more central to the project site.
11. The project would provide for the long-term preservation of agriculture through an
urban farm and other amenities that would serve as community assets and as a
transition between urban uses and agricultural land.
12. The project would provide for the design of buildings, spaces, and uses that enhance
and respect the agricultural history of the area and promote environmental
stewardship.
Accordingly, the City of Encinitas adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, recognizing
that the significant and unavoidable tra nsportation (VMT) impact would result from
implementation of the project. Having (1) determined that the alternatives evaluated in the EIR
either would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable tr ansportation
impact or would be infeasible; and (2) recognized all unavoidable significant impacts, the City of
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment A
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 81
CEQA Findings of Fact
Encinitas hereby finds that each of the separate benefits of the project, as stated herein, is
determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that
warrants approval of the project and outweighs and overrides its significant and unavoidable
impacts, and thereby justifies approval of the Fox Point Farms Project.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The City finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and
further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full
compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIR reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City. The City declares that no evidence of new significant impacts
as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the City after
circulation of the Draft EIR, which would require recirculation. Therefore, the City hereby certifies
the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including but not limited to the
findings and conclusions reached herein.
ATTACHMENT B
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28
Attachment B
Fox Point Farms Project
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(SCH #2020039079)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Fox Point Farms Project
Case No.: MULTI-3524-2019; CPP-3525-2019;
SUB-3526-2019; DR-3528-2019; and CDPNF-3529-2019
State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2020039079
Lead Agency:
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
Preparer:
Michael Baker International
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260
Carlsbad, CA 92008
November 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
I. INTRODUCTION
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Fox Point
Farms Project (proposed project). An MMRP is required for the proposed project because the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project has identified s ignificant adverse
impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. This MMRP has been
prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires
public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the
project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects
on the environment.”
II. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As the lead agency, the City of Encinitas (City) will be responsible for monitoring compliance with
all mitigation measures. Different City departments may be responsible for various aspects of the
project. The MMRP identifies the department with the responsibility for ensuring that each
individual mitigation measure is completed; however, it is expected that one or more
departments will coordinate efforts to ensure such compliance.
The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP
are described briefly below.
• Potential Significant Impact: The significance threshold is restated to describe the
potentially significant impact.
• Mitigation Measure: The mitigation measures to be adopted (as identified in the EIR) are
restated.
• Timeframe of Mitigation: Identifies at which stage of the project the mitigation measure
shall be completed.
• Monitoring, Enforcement and Reporting Responsibility: Identifies the department within
the City with responsibility for mitigation monitoring.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
2 | Page Fox Point Farms Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28 – Attachment B
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
Biological Resources
Impact 3.3-1 Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
BIO-1 Pre-Construction General Nesting Bird Surveys and Protocols. If
clearing, grubbing, or other construction activities (for example, but
not limited to, staging, site preparation, grading) occurs within the
nesting season (January 15 to August 31), the following measures
shall be implemented to address potential construction-period
impacts to migratory birds and raptors:
Prior to the start of vegetation removal and/or construction
activities within 300 feet of the Magdalena Ecke Open Space
Preserve, a qualified biologist shall perform focused surveys
within 72 hours prior to the commencement of construction
activities. The survey areas shall include the construction area
plus a 300-foot buffer. The qualified biologist shall stake and
fence the construction and staging limits. Survey findings shall
be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the
initiation of any construction activities.
If active nests are found during the nesting bird survey,
appropriately sized no-work buffers (generally 50 to 300 feet
depending on species sensitivity) shall be established around
the active nests identified within and adjacent to the project
site. The qualified biologist, in consultation with the City, shall
determine the appropriate buffer size and level of nest
monitoring necessary for species not listed under the federal or
state Endangered Species Act based on the species’ life history,
the species’ sensitivity to disturbances (e.g., noise, vibration,
human activity), individual behavior, status of nest, location of
nest and site conditions, presence of screening vegetation,
anticipated project activities, ambient noise levels compared to
project-related noise levels, existing non-project-related
disturbances in vicinity, and ambient levels of human activity.
Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
4 | Page Fox Point Farms Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
Buffers shall be marked (flagged or fenced with Environmentally
Sensitive Area fencing) around any active nests and periodic
monitoring by the qualified biologist shall occur to ensure the
project does not result in the failure of the nest. The buffer(s)
shall be maintained around each nest until the nest becomes
inactive as determined by the qualified biologist. At th e
discretion of the qualified biologist, if a nesting bird appears to
be stressed as a result of project activities and the buffer does
not appear to provide adequate protection, additional
minimization measures shall be implemented. Buffer sizes may
be adjusted (either increased or reduced), or the extent of nest
monitoring may be adjusted, at the discretion of the qualified
biologist based on the conditions of the surrounding area and/or
the behavior of the nesting bird. Any changes to buffer sizes
and/or nest monitoring frequency shall be documented.
If active nests are found and delineated by the buffers,
construction activities may continue outside of the biological
buffers.
The qualified biologist shall have the following responsibilities:
ensure that restricted activities occur outside of the delineated
buffers, check nesting birds for any potential indications of
stress, and ensure that installed fencing or flagging is properly
maintained during nest monitoring and any additional site visits.
Natural resource avoidance and minimization education
(including bio-hygiene for equipment) shall be required for all
construction staff on, or prior to, their first day of work on the
site.
Any construction lighting adjacent to native open space shall be
directed away and/or shielded from native open space.
BIO-2 Pre-Construction Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys and
Protocols. If clearing, grubbing, or other construction activities occur
within the California gnatcatcher nesting season (February 15 to
August 31), the following measures shall be implemented to address
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 5
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
potential construction-period impacts to the coastal California
gnatcatcher that may occupy native habitats adjacent to the
construction area in the Magdalena Ecke Open Space Preserve:
Prior to the initiation of construction activities within 300 feet of
habitat that could support gnatcatchers, a biologist with
necessary permits to conduct California gnatcatcher surveys
shall perform a minimum of three focused surveys, on separate
days, to determine the presence of active gnatcatcher nests
within a minimum of 300 feet of project construction activity
proposed during the gnatcatcher breeding season. The biologist
shall conduct two surveys a maximum of seven days prior to
vegetation disturbance or project construction and one survey
the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. Survey
findings shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to the initiation of any construction activities.
If a gnatcatcher nest is found in or within 300 feet of initial
vegetation disturbance or project construction, additional
coordination with the United States Fish and Wildlife Services
shall occur prior to construction and within 48 hours of the
discovery to determine what additional measures would need
to be implemented, if any, to avoid “take” of the species. Similar
protocols for other federal or state listed bird species may need
to be implemented, based on finding of the biological surveys.
3.3-4 Would the project interfere
substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Implement mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
3.3-7 Would the project result in
cumulative impacts related to biological
resources?
Implement mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
6 | Page Fox Point Farms Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
Cultural Resources
3.4-1 Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5?
CR-1 Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. A Cultural Resource
Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be conducted to provide for the
identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural
resources that are affected by or may be discovered during the
construction of the proposed project. The monitoring shall consist of
the full-time presence of a qualified archaeologist and a traditionally
and culturally affiliated (TCA) Native American monitor (San Luis Rey
Band of Mission Indians) shall be retained to monitor all ground -
disturbing activities associated with project construction, including
vegetation removal, clearing, grading, trenching, excavation, or
other activities that may disturb original (pre-project) ground,
including the placement of imported fill materials and related
roadway improvements (i.e., for access).
The requirement for cultural resource mitigation monitoring
shall be noted on all applicable construction documents,
including demolition plans, grading plans, etc.
The qualified archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor
shall attend all applicable pre-construction meetings with the
Contractor and/or associated Subcontractors.
The qualified archaeologist shall maintain ongoing collaborative
consultation with the TCA Native American monitor during all
ground disturbing or altering activities, as identified above.
The qualified archaeologist and/or TCA Native American
monitor may halt ground disturbing activities if archaeological
artifact deposits or cultural features are discovered. In general,
ground disturbing activities shall be directed away from these
deposits for a short time to allow a determination of potential
significance, the subject of which shall be determined by the
qualified archaeologist and the TCA Native American monitor, in
consultation with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians (“San
Luis Rey Band”). Ground disturbing activities shall not resume
until the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA
Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 7
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
Native American monitor, deems the cultural resource or
feature has been appropriately documented and/or protected.
At the qualified archaeologist’s discretion, the location of
ground disturbing activities may be relocated elsewhere on the
project site to avoid further disturbance of cultural resources.
The avoidance and protection of discovered unknown and
significant cultural resources and/or unique archaeological
resources is the preferable mitigation for the proposed project.
If avoidance is not feasible a Data Recovery Plan may be
authorized by the City as the lead agency under CEQA. If a data
recovery is required, then the San Luis Rey Band shall be notified
and consulted in drafting and finalizing any such recovery plan.
The qualified archaeologist and/or TCA Native American
monitor may also halt ground disturbing activities around
known archaeological artifact deposits or cultural features if, in
their respective opinions, there is the possibility that they could
be damaged or destroyed.
The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all tribal cultural
resources collected during the cultural resource mitigation
monitoring conducted during all ground disturbing activities,
and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on
the project site to the San Luis Rey Band for respectful and
dignified treatment and disposition, including reburial, in
accordance with the Tribe’s cultural and spiritual traditions. All
cultural materials that are associated with burial and/or
funerary goods will be repatriated to the Most Likely
Descendant as determined by the Native American Heritage
Commission per California Public Resources Code Section
5097.98.
CR-2 Prepare Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation Report. Prior to the
release of the Grading Bond, a Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation
Report, which describes the results, analysis and conclusions of the
cultural resource mitigation monitoring efforts (such as, but not
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
8 | Page Fox Point Farms Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
limited to, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program) shall be
submitted by the qualified archaeologist, along with the TCA Native
American monitor’s notes and comments, to the City’s Development
Services Director for approval.
CR-3 Identification of Human Remains. As specified by California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the
project site during construction or during archaeological work, the
person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized
representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County
Coroner’s office by telephone. No further excavation or disturbance
of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains (as determined by the qualified archaeologist
and/or the TCA Native American monitor) shall occur until the
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a discovery
occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established
surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be
protected (as determined by the qualified archaeologist and/or the
TCA Native American monitor), and consultation and treatment
could occur as prescribed by law. As further defined by state law, the
Coroner would determine within two working days of being notified
if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner
recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall
contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24
hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely
Descendent. If Native American remains are discovered, the remains
shall be kept in situ (“in place”), or in a secure location in close
proximity to where they were found, and the analysis of the remains
shall only occur on-site in the presence of the TCA Native American
monitor.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 9
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
3.4-2 Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
Implement mitigation measures CR-1 and CR-2 Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
3.4-3 Would the project disturb any
human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Implementation mitigation measure CR-3 Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
3.4-4 Would the project result in
cumulative impacts related to historical
and archaeological resources?
Implement mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Geology and Soils
3.6-9 Would the project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
GEO-1 Paleontological Data Recovery and Monitoring Plan: A Data
Recovery and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction
of the City. The plan shall document paleontological recovery
methods.
1. Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall
implement a paleontological monitoring and recovery program
consisting of the following measures, which shall be included on
project grading plans to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Department:
a. The project applicant shall retain the services of a qualified
paleontologist to conduct a paleontological monitoring and
recovery program. A qualified paleontologist is defined as
an individual having an MS or PhD degree in paleontology
or geology, and who is a recognized expert in the
identification of fossil materials and the application of
paleontological recovery procedures and techniques. As
part of the monitoring program, a paleontological monitor
may work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.
Prior to issuance of
a grading permit;
Prior to issuance of
a building permit
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
10 | Page Fox Point Farms Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual having
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.
b. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the project
preconstruction meeting to consult with the grading and
excavation contractors concerning the grading plan and
paleontological field techniques.
c. The qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor
shall be on-site on a full-time basis during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed portions of the underlying
very old paralic deposits. If the qualified paleontologist or
paleontological monitor ascertains that the noted
formations are not fossil-bearing, the qualified
paleontologist shall have the authority to terminate the
monitoring program.
d. If fossils are discovered, recovery shall be conducted by the
qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. In most
cases, fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of
time, although some fossil specimens (such as a complete
large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage
period. In these instances, the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall have the authority to
temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery
of fossil remains in a timely manner.
e. If subsurface bones or other potential fossils are found
anywhere within the project site by construction personnel
in the absence of a qualified paleontologist or
paleontological monitor, the qualified paleontologist shall
be notified immediately to assess their significance and
make further recommendations.
f. Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage shall
be cleaned, sorted, and catalogued. Prepared fossils, along
with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps,
shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 11
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
with permanent paleontological collections such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, a final summary report
outlining the results of the mitigation program shall be prepared
by the qualified paleontologist and submitted to the
Development Services Department for concurrence. This report
shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic
section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of
recovered fossils, as well as appropriate maps.
3.6-10 Would the project result in
cumulative impacts related to geology and
soils?
Implement mitigation measure GEO-1 Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.7-2 Would the project emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
HAZ-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall
demonstrate that a qualified consultant has been retained to ensure
implementation of the project’s Soil Management Plan (Geotek, Inc.,
6/2/20). The project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring all
provisions of the Soil Management Plan are implemented to the
satisfaction of the San Diego County Department of Environmental
Health (DEH). The remediation measures contained in the Soil
Management Plan shall be included in the project’s grading plans to
the satisfaction of the Development Services Department.
HAZ-2 Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall prepare
and submit a remediation closure report and closure request to the
San Diego County DEH Voluntary Assistance Program and Encinitas
Development Services Department for review and approval. The
closure report shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and
document compliance with the Soil Management Plan and any
deviations from the plan. In addition, the report shall provide a
discussion of remedial activities, site observations, soil analytical
results, and volume of waste material disposed.
Prior to issuance of
a grading permit,
building permit,
and/or demolition
permit
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
12 | Page Fox Point Farms Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
HAZ-3 Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall submit
a “Closure Letter” issued by the San Diego County DEH to the
Encinitas Development Services Department.
HAZ-4 Prior to demolition permit issuance, an asbestos and lead material
survey shall be conducted by a qualified consultant to determine if
the existing structures on-site contain lead-based paint and/or
asbestos-related construction materials. If substances containing
lead and/or asbestos are found on-site, an abatement work plan
shall be prepared by the consultant for the proper removal and
disposal of the materials in accordance with federal, state, and local
laws and regulations. The asbestos and lead survey results and any
necessary work plan shall be reviewed and approved by the C ity of
Encinitas Development Services Department (Planning Division).
HAZ-5 If on-site abatement of asbestos and/or lead materials is required, a
licensed abatement contractor shall implement the approved
abatement work plan prior to demolition of affected structures.
HAZ-6 Prior to building permit issuance, an abatement close-out report
shall be prepared by the abatement contractor and submitted by the
project applicant to the Development Services Department for
review and approval.
3.7-7 Would the project result in a
cumulative impact related to hazards and
hazardous materials?
Implement mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of
a grading permit,
building permit,
and/or demolition
permit
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Transportation
3.12-2 Would the project conflict with or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
TR-1 The following Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs) shall be
implemented to further reduce potential effects relative to vehicle
miles traveled:
“E-Bike Share” - The project shall implement an electric bike
share program to link to local Encinitas destinations and reduce
motorized vehicle trips. The electric bike share program would
During Plan Check
and project
operational phase
City of Encinitas
Engineering and Planning
Divisions
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
Fox Point Farms Project Page | 13
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
provide for the availability of 10 electric bikes for the exclusive
use of project residents to provide sustainable transportation as
a substitute for individual vehicle ownership/use. In addition to
the E-Bike program, high quality bike parking would be provided
for project residents.
“Car share dedicated parking” - Two parking spaces west of the
community recreation center shall be dedicated to
accommodate car sharing opportunities.
“Transit Passes Subsidies” - NCTD Regional Transit passes shall
be offered to the 20 on-site employees as an alternative to
parking at the project site.
3.12-5 Would the project result in
cumulative transportation impacts?
Implement mitigation measure TR-1 During Plan Check
and project
operational phase
City of Encinitas
Engineering and Planning
Divisions
Tribal Cultural Resources
3.13-1 Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
Implement mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2020-28, Attachment B
14 | Page Fox Point Farms Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Timeframe of
Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement, and
Reporting Responsibility
A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
3.13-2 Would the project result in
cumulative impacts related to tribal
cultural resources?
Implement mitigation measures CR-1 to CR-3 Prior to and during
construction
activities
City of Encinitas Planning
Division
ATTACHMENT C
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR)