MEETING DATE:
JUNE 25, 2024
SUBJECT:
Title
RESOLUTION NOS. 2024-9307 & 2024-9308 - HUGHES SMCC, LLC - APPEAL (AA24-0001) OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP22-0002), AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (EIR23-006) WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 67,410-SQUARE-FOOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
Body
Recommendation
Recommendation
ADOPT the following, in the order set forth below:
1. ADOPT resolution (2024-9307) to DENY the appeal and certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR23-006 / SCH No. 2023020497), associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, with Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Significant and Unavoidable Impacts related to Transportation; and
2. ADOPT resolution (2024-9308) to DENY the appeal and APPROVE the Site Development Plan (SDP22-0002) to allow the construction of a 67,410-square-foot light industrial building.
Body
Board or Commission Action (If not applicable, please state not applicable below)
On April 15, 2024, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR23-006 / SCH No. 2023020497), associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Significant and Unavoidable Impacts related to Transportation, and to approve the Site Development Plan (SDP22-0002).
Introduction
On April 15, 2024, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR23-006) and approve a Site Development Plan (SDP22-0002) to allow the construction of a 67,410-square-foot light industrial building located on a vacant 10.46-acre site on South Pacific Street approximately 750 feet south of Linda Vista Drive. On April 18, 2024, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed with the City (Attachment G). In accordance with San Marcos Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Chapter 20.545, the City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal and the decision of the City Council shall be the final determination of the City.
Background
On March 16, 2022, an application was received from the project applicant requesting approval of a Site Development Plan to allow the construction of a 67,410-square-foot light industrial building on a vacant 10.46-acre site located on South Pacific Street south of Linda Vista Drive, across the street from the existing Hughes Circuits campus. The proposed building would be located at the western-most portion of the project site, and the disturbance area associated with project construction would be limited to approximately 2.61 acres of the 10.46-acre project site, with the balance preserved as open space. Typically, this Site Development Plan would be approved by the City’s Development Advisory Committee (“DAC”). However, since the project included a request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), the Planning Commission was the final decision-maker on the project unless appealed to the City Council.
On April 25, 2022, a letter was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), requesting the City notify them on all notices and environmental documents related to the proposed project.
On February 5, 2024, a comment letter was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER, in response to the project’s public review of the Draft EIR. The letter says that “SAFER is concerned that the Draft EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. SAFER requests that the Community Development Department address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report (“RDEIR”) and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project.” A response to this comment letter was included in the Final EIR (Attachment D, Appendix K) and states in part that the comment does not raise any specific issues related to specific topics or mitigation measures in the Draft EIR that they believe are not adequately addressed.
On April 15, 2024, an additional comment letter was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER, which is included in Attachment F. In general, the letter states that the approval of the project and certification of the EIR will violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by failing to adopt the feasible and environmentally superior reduced-intensity alternative; relying on impermissibly narrow project objectives; failing to adequately disclose and mitigate impacts to sensitive biological resources; and failing to adequately respond to comments from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Included within this comment letter are two letters from Ecologist Shawn Smallwood, PhD dated March 29, 2024 and April 11, 2024. These letters were first received by the City on April 15, 2024. The comment letter was distributed to the Planning Commission for consideration. A representative of Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER, spoke at the Planning Commission meeting on April 15, 2024, and reiterated comments received in the letter submitted to the City.
On April 18, 2024, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed with the City by Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER (Attachment G). The letter requests an appeal of the entirety of the Planning Commission’s April 15, 2024, decision to certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report with a statement of overriding considerations (PC Resolution No. 24-5097) and decision to approve the project’s Site Development Plan (PC Resolution No. 24-5098). The letter includes the April 15, 2024, letter to the Planning Commission as the basis for the appeal. In accordance with San Marcos Municipal Code SMMC Chapter 20.545, the City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal and the decision of the City Council shall be the final determination of the City. A response to the appeal letter has been provided by Dudek, who prepared the project’s EIR (Attachment H).
Discussion
The 10.46-acre project site consists of two undeveloped parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 219-223-20-00 and 219-223-22-00) and is currently designated as Light Industrial (LI) under the City’s General Plan Land Use Map with a zoning designation of Light Industrial (L-I). The project site is bisected by two, approximately 100-foot-wide parcels, owned by the San Diego County Water Authority. The project site is generally flat and consists of mostly undeveloped lands, with a mix of native and non-native vegetation communities. The site is located at the northeast corner of South Pacific Street as South Pacific Street abuts the site’s western and southern boundary. Adjacent land uses include mixed commercial development to the north and south, Bradley Park to the west, and undeveloped land to the east.
The project applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) as required for development of an industrial building in the Light Industrial (L-I) Zone. The proposed project is intended to be an expansion of the existing Hughes Circuits campus located across the street to the south and is designed to contain a mix of manufacturing, office, and warehousing uses. A boundary adjustment between the two parcels will be processed to separate the developable footprint and the proposed open space area into separate parcels. A conservation easement will be recorded over the open space parcel prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The applicant will fund an endowment fund to manage the conservation area and a Land Manager will be identified to ensure that the open space parcel is managed and protected in perpetuity. Typically, this SDP would be approved by the City’s Development Advisory Committee (“DAC”). However, since the project applicant is requesting approval and adoption of an Environmental Impact Report, the Planning Commission is the final decision-maker on the project unless appealed to the City Council.
Site Development Plan
The proposed 67,410-square-foot light industrial building requires approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) within the Light Industrial (L-I) Zone. Under the SDP, the project design was reviewed for compliance with the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance and other regulatory provisions. The SDP addresses the design of the building, required amenity areas, and the floor plans and elevations of the project. Site and architectural plans for the proposed project are included in Attachment E.
Architecture/Floor Plans
The 67,410 square-foot light industrial building would include a 56,310-square-foot first floor and an 11,100-square-foot mezzanine and be up to 43-feet in height. The building would be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels and painted white and two different shades of gray. Tile inlay would be provided on portions of the exterior walls facing Pacific Street. The project would also include an electrical room, trash enclosure, and four at-grade loading docks, and it would incorporate approximately 9,700 square feet of rooftop mounted solar photovoltaic panels resulting in a 132.8-kilowatt system. Wall mounted light fixtures are provided along each building elevation to illuminate both the interior parking area and the exterior building frontage. The project complies with all development standards of the L-I Zone including setbacks of 15 feet from Pacific Street with parking areas at least 10 feet from interior property lines, a floor area ratio of 59% which is under the maximum 60% allowed, and a building height of 43 feet which is below the maximum 60 feet allowed.
Open Space/Landscaping
The 10.46-acre project site is undeveloped and contains a mix of disturbed and sensitive habitat. The project has been designed to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat. The building would be located at the western-most portion of the project site, and the disturbance area associated with project construction would be limited to approximately 2.61 acres of the project site. The remaining approximately 7.85 acres within the project boundary would remain in its current condition. A conservation easement will be recorded over the open space parcel prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The development footprint size and location are a result of early consultation between the applicant, City, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), and US Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”). The Wildlife Agencies requested that no more than 25 percent of the site be developed and that the project be developed on the western portion of the property to avoid the vernal pools and native grassland occupied by listed species including thread-leaved brodiaea, Orcutt’s brodiaea, San Diego button celery and spreading navarretia. Stormwater basins and associated landscaping would be incorporated along the perimeter of the development site. Landscaping throughout the project will consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to enhance the proposed building. A total of 54 trees will be planted with the project and 14 existing trees will be removed. All on-site landscaping will be maintained privately and will be required to comply with the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 20.330). A conceptual landscape plan has been provided in the project plans (Attachment E).
Grading/Utilities
Grading will consist of approximately 4,590 cubic yards (CY) of cut material and 21,290 CY of fill, requiring a net import of approximately 16,700 CY of material. Due to the topography of the project site, several retaining walls will be constructed along the project perimeter and generally do not exceed four feet in height. An existing open drainage will be rerouted under the site via storm drain pipes. An existing streetlight at the southwest corner of Pacific Street will be relocated across the street from the project due to frontage improvements. An additional streetlight is being added on S. Pacific Street near the driveway at the northwest corner of the project site. The project proposes to connect with existing water and sewer in S. Pacific Street, with services provided by the Vallecitos Water District.
Parking/Circulation
Parking requirements for the light industrial use are established by the Parking Ordinance (SMMC Ch. 20.340) which requires parking at different ratios for manufacturing, office, and warehousing. Ultimately, the proposed use requires a total of 68 parking spaces and 72 parking spaces are proposed (See Parking Table below). In accordance with the City’s Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) requirements, the project includes four Level 2 EV chargers. Additionally, the project includes nine carpool and zero-emission parking stalls, four accessible stalls, one U.S. Postal Service parking stall, and four short-term plus four long-term bicycle parking spaces. The parking area is illuminated by eight pole light fixtures, as well as from wall-mounted light fixtures along the building elevations. Access to the proposed building would be provided via two new driveways along S. Pacific Street, one at the northwestern boundary and the other at the southeastern boundary of the proposed building site. The project design provides adequate circulation on site for emergency vehicles and delivery trucks. The project will provide sidewalk connections for pedestrians to the sidewalk that will be constructed along the project frontage.
|
Parking Table |
|
Land Use |
Ratio Per Square Foot |
Square Footage |
Spaces Required |
|
Manufacturing |
1:500 SF |
15,000 SF |
30 |
|
Office |
1:300 SF |
8,000 SF |
27 |
|
Warehouse |
1:4,000 SF |
44,410 SF |
11 |
|
Total Required |
- |
- |
68 |
|
Total Provided |
- |
- |
72 |
Environmental Review
In accordance with the CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report (FEIR23-006/SCH No. 2023020497) (Attachment D) was prepared for the proposed project and circulated for 45-day public review from December 21, 2023 to February 5, 2024. The City conducted a Scoping Meeting which was noticed and held on March 9, 2023. No members of the public attended the workshop, but comments were received on the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”). Detailed responses to the comments received on the EIR are included in Attachment D/Final Environmental Impact Report. A brief summary is included here:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: The letter requests minor modifications to biological mitigation measures including clarifying long-term management of the preserved area and additional preconstruction surveys.
San Diego County Water Authority: The letter expresses concern over the drainage improvements and requests clarification that habitat restoration not impact the water authority’s parcel that bisects the site.
California Department of Transportation: The letter discusses VMT impacts in relation to the state’s VMT and emission reduction goals.
County of San Diego: The letter discusses the project’s proximity to a nearby closed landfill and potential impacts of the project on the closed landfill.
San Diego County Archeology Society: The letter agrees with the impact analysis and recommended monitoring program for Native American and archeological resources.
Lozeau Drury, LLP: The letter expresses concern that the DEIR fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s impacts.
Biological Resources
The project site is currently vacant and sensitive vegetation communities occur on the site. The project focuses development on the western portion of the site, minimizing biological impacts. Potentially significant impacts to sensitive habitat and sensitive species have been identified. However, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-13 would reduce potential impacts related to special status wildlife, would reduce potential impacts on sensitive natural communities, and would ensure that the appropriate permits are obtained and that impacts are compensated in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”), CDFW, and USFWS requirements. Impacts to sensitive vegetation will be mitigated on-site and a land manager will be identified to ensure that the open space parcel is managed and protected in perpetuity.
A conservation easement will be recorded over the open space parcel prior to the issuance of a grading permit. On-site habitat restoration will consist of the removal and restoration of invasive species, vernal pool restoration, and development of a habitat restoration plan. Invasive species will be removed, and these areas will be planted and seeded to establish native emergent wetland species found on the site. Vernal pool restoration will include some minor recontouring of the existing vernal pool basin where appropriate, mostly where vernal pools have been altered by road ruts, trail berms, and other past disturbances to the site. Additionally, weed control will also be conducted in the vernal pools and surrounding watershed areas.
With implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-13, impacts to biological resources as a result of project implementation would be reduced to a level of less than significant. The Final EIR (Attachment D) has been updated to include changes listed in the errata presented at the Planning Commission meeting on April 15, 2024, which includes correcting inconsistencies on project acreage, including biological impacts in acres identified in the Biological Technical Report and mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2.
Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources
While no resources were identified on the project site during the archaeological resources reconnaissance, it was determined that there could be a potential for unidentified resources to be encountered subsurface during project grading. Outreach to local tribes by the City, consistent with Assembly Bill 52, was conducted as part of the preparation of the environmental document. Based on information provided during consultation, the project would not affect tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the local or California Registrar of Historical Resources, or a significant resource pursuant to the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1. The City has developed standard mitigation measures via the tribal consultation process to reduce potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources during grading operations and will be implemented under mitigation measures MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Geology and Soils
The site is undeveloped, and most project and cumulative level geology and soil related impacts would be less than significant. However, impacts to paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Therefore, monitoring would be required for all disturbance within the middle-Eocene Santiago Formation and in areas of young alluvial flood plain deposits where underlying Pleistocene age deposits or Santiago Formation may be encountered at depth. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant.
Transportation (Vehicles Miles Traveled Analysis)
The project was required to analyze Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for employees under the Transportation Assessment required under CEQA. The proposed project is not located in an efficient VMT-per-employee area and therefore required a detailed VMT analysis. The project would need to achieve a VMT per employee of 16.07 in order to have a less than significant impact. The proposed VMT per employee is 16.36 after implementing feasible mitigation strategies including implementing a Ridesharing Program for employees as mitigation measure MM-TRA-1 and End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities as mitigation measure MM-TRA-2. A significant and unavoidable transportation impact exists because the proposed VMT of 16.36 per employee exceeds the 16.07 significance threshold.
Level of Service Analysis (Land Use and Planning)
Since Senate Bill 743 went into effect, analysis of traffic congestion based on the level of service (“LOS”) metric is not part of the CEQA impact assessment. However, the City requires a separate LOS-based traffic analysis to demonstrate that the project would maintain mobility performance goals outlined in the City’s General Plan (Mobility Policy M-1.4). As such, the LOS-based traffic study was submitted to the City under separate cover for review and approval (Appendix I-1 of the EIR).
The traffic study indicates that the proposed project anticipates generating 348 average daily trips (ADT), including 38 AM peak hour trips and 43 PM peak hour trips.
Near Term 2024
For Near Term 2024, all intersections and roadway segments analyzed are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better with the exception of intersection of S. Pacific Street and Linda Vista Drive, which operates at a LOS F during the PM peak hour in the “without project” scenario. The project would add more than 2.0 seconds of delay to this intersection, surpassing the threshold for requiring improvements. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for this intersection and concluded a traffic signal is not warranted for Near Term 2024. Therefore, the project is conditioned to pay a fair-share contribution for construction of a traffic signal at this intersection for Horizon Year 2050.
Horizon Year 2050
For Horizon Year 2050, two segments of South Pacific Street and one intersection operate below the minimum acceptable LOS D.
The two roadway segments of South Pacific Street between San Marcos Boulevard and Linda Vista Drive would operate at LOS F with and without project, and the segment exceeds the volume/capacity (V/C) ratio threshold of 0.02 for requiring improvements to a street operating at an unacceptable level of service without the project. However, an AM and PM peak hour arterial analysis for the northbound and southbound directions showed the roadway segment to operate at acceptable LOS during peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on traffic operations and would not result in a substantial effect to the surrounding roadway network. Improvements are not required.
The intersection of S. Pacific Street and Linda Vista Drive operates at a LOS F during the PM peak hour in the “with” and “without project” scenarios. The project is conditioned to pay a fair share contribution towards the construction of a traffic signal at this intersection to enhance traffic operations to better than pre-project conditions.
Additionally, the project will contribute toward City-wide traffic. Toto mitigate for potential cumulative impacts, the project is conditioned to financially participate in the Congestion Management Community facilities district (CFD 2011-01) which will assist in citywide efforts to reduce traffic congestion and impacts to State Route 78.
Bicycle Improvements
No bicycle facilities exist along the project frontage of S. Pacific Street between Linda Vista Drive and W. San Marcos Boulevard. To enhance the City’s bicycle network, the project will implement Class II buffered bicycle facilities along both sides of S. Pacific Street between Linda Vista Drive and W. San Marcos Boulevard. This will provide bicycle connectivity to the surrounding bicycle facilities on Linda Vista Drive and W. San Marcos Boulevard.
Alternatives
As required per CEQA, project alternatives were considered as part of the environmental review. The following two alternatives were considered with the EIR: No Project / No Development Alternative and Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. The potential alternatives were evaluated in terms of their ability to meet the basic objectives of the project which include expanding the existing Hughes Circuits facilities nearby for continued operation and success; restore, manage, and conserve sensitive on-site biological resources to the extent feasible; and promote in-fill development.
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented, and the project site would remain undeveloped and in its current condition. No grading or construction would occur on the project site under this alternative. Since the No Project/No Development Alternative would not directly provide for any development, overall impacts would be less than that of the project or eliminated entirely. Potential benefits of the project that would not be realized under this alternative, include providing additional job opportunities, maximizing development in areas with consistent land use and zoning designations, and restoring, managing, and conserving biological and potential (unknown) cultural/tribal cultural resources. As the No Project/No Development Alternative would not develop the site, this alternative would not fulfill project objectives.
Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, the project site would be developed with a 21,800-square-foot warehouse building. Similar to the project, this alternative would develop a light-industrial use consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site. Other improvements, such as circulation, landscaping and utility connections would occur as required. Off-site improvements beyond those required by mitigation measures would not occur under this alternative. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would potentially provide a slightly reduced level of impact in some environmental analysis areas including air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and tribal cultural resources. As described above, mitigation measures would still be required to mitigate impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives, except for the objective to maximize the allowable development footprint on site. Overall, it is determined that impacts associated with the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be less than those associated with development of the project.
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would potentially provide a reduced level of impact in some environmental analysis areas including air quality, greenhouse gas, and geology and soils. However, such impacts under this alternative would still remain as less than significant, similar to the project. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would also result in decreased footprint specific impacts, such as those related to cultural resources, biological resources, and tribal cultural resources. However, mitigation measures would still be required to mitigate impacts to these environmental resources. Under this alternative, significant and unavoidable transportation impacts under the project would be reduced to less than significant, as this alternative would screen out of VMT due to the 21,800-square-foot building size falling under the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Small Project criteria (i.e., less than 110 daily trips). As mentioned above, this alternative would meet all the project objectives except for the objective to maximize the allowable development footprint on site. Staff supports the proposed project over the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative since the environmental impacts are similar, the project maximizes site development while preserving sensitive biological resources, and the project would allow for additional employment and expansion capacity for the existing Hughes Circuits campus located to the south.
Public Comment
The City conducted a public workshop which was noticed and held on March 9, 2023. No members of the public attended the workshop, and no public comments were received on the proposed development. Comments on the environmental review (EIR) are discussed in the environmental section above and attached to the Final EIR (Attachment D). As previously mentioned, a comment letter Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER, was received prior to the Planning Commission meeting with concerns about the EIR. An additional comment letter was received from Dave Hogan with Sierra Club San Diego requesting his exchange with Dudek be added to the project record. These comment letters are included in Attachment F.
Planning Commission Meeting
At the Planning Commission meeting on April 15, 2024, a representative of Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER, spoke and reiterated comments received in the letter submitted to the City. A representative from Dudek, who prepared the EIR, responded to these comments. No other public comments were received at the hearing. The Planning Commissioners asked clarifying questions regarding the conservation easement, bike lanes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), solar installation, and the proposed business operations. Staff and the applicant answered the questions and the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to certify the EIR with the statement of overriding consideration and approved the Site Development Plan. The draft Planning Commission Minutes are included as Attachment I.
Appeal
On April 18, 2024, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed with the City by Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER (Attachment G). The letter requests an appeal of the entirety of the Planning Commission’s April 15, 2024 decision to certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report with a statement of overriding considerations (PC Resolution No. 24-5097) and decision to approve the project’s Site Development Plan (PC Resolution No. 24-5098). The letter includes the April 15, 2024, letter to the Planning Commission as the basis for the appeal. In accordance with SMMC Chapter 20.545, the City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal and the decision of the City Council shall be the final determination of the City.
The SAFER letter raised concerns about the proposed Hughes Circuits Project, as it relates to,
I. Consideration of the environmentally superior alternative;
II. Project objectives;
III. Biological resource mitigation; and,
IV. Response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Below is a summary of responses to the SAFER letter. A detailed response to all comments in the letter is attached to the report as Attachment H.
Comment: The City Must Adopt the Environmentally Superior Reduced-Intensity Alternative.
Response:. CEQA does not require the Lead Agency to select the environmentally superior alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15042-15043). Instead, CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(1), identifies factors to be taken into account to determine the feasibility of alternatives. The factors include site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans or regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. The ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision‐making body, the San Marcos City Council (see PRC Section 21081[a] [3].)
As outlined in Chapter 4 of the Hughes Circuits EIR, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would potentially provide a reduced level of impact in some environmental analysis areas including air quality, greenhouse gas, and geology and soils. However, such impacts under this alternative would still remain as less than significant, similar to the project. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would also result in decreased footprint specific impacts, such as those related to cultural resources, biological resources, and tribal cultural resources. However, mitigation measures would still be required to mitigate impacts to these environmental resources. Under this alternative, significant and unavoidable transportation impacts under the project would be reduced to less than significant, as this alternative would screen out of VMT analysis due to the 21,800-square-foot building size threshold that is below the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Small Project criteria (i.e., less than 110 daily trips). This alternative would meet all of the project objectives, with the exception of Objective 3, as this alternative would not maximize the allowable development footprint on site. Objective 3 of the project is to develop a fiscally sound and employment-generating land use that maximizes the light-industrial zoned area. The proposed project land use would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and Zoning for the site, which is Light Industrial (LI)/(L-I). The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would not allow for the applicant to maximize the allowable development footprint on-site, would not meet the building size required by the applicant to increase the scale of operations needed, and would likely reduce the number of total employees generated in comparison to the project. Development of an alternative layout one-third the size of the proposed project would not be economically feasible for the project applicant, as this alternative development would not meet the existing Hughes Circuits determined needs for increased operations.
The project would be consistent with programs, plans, ordinances and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Implementation of the project would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies addressing circulation, would not increase hazards, and would not result in inadequate emergency access. However, related to VMT, even with implementation of the proposed TDM Program, the resulting 16.36 miles per employee exceeds the 16.07 miles threshold by 0.29 mile. Therefore, since the proposed mitigation measures would not fully reduce the VMT per employee to less than significant levels, the impact is only partially mitigated, and the project is considered to have a significant and partially mitigated impact. The project’s VMT per employee is not anticipated to fall under the significance threshold as the project site is located in an area primarily composed of industrial and commercial land uses where employees travel longer-than-average distances for work compared to the region. A 21,800 square foot building or smaller would be required on-site for the industrial land use designation in order to fall under the Small Project criteria (i.e., less than 110 daily trips) and avoid VMT impacts.
Notably, the proposed project would only develop 2.61 acres (25%) of the 10.46-acre project site and would preserve and restore the remaining 7.85 acres (75%) of the project site, at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If the proposed project was not approved, this would not preclude future development on site, as industrial uses would still be allowed under the current Light Industrial land use designation for the site. Other development may not agree to preservation of 75% of the site as the proposed project does. Although the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources as that of the proposed project and would require similar mitigation measures to that proposed for the project, the applicant’s agreed upon financially responsibilities of the restoration and enhancement of the preserved portion of the project site could differ under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative.
I. Comment: The Project objectives Are Impermissibly Narrow.
Response: in accordance with Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must present a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. A description of the project’s objectives defines the project’s intent and facilitates the formation of project alternatives.
Objective #3 does not limit the project nor any alternative projects to considering a project at least as large as the project’s proposed 67,000 square-feet building, as Lozeau Drury states in their comment. As outlined in Chapter 2 of the EIR, Objective #3 states the following: “Develop a fiscally sound and employment-generating land use that maximizes the use of the light-industrial zoned area.” There is no building size limitations associated with this objective. Rather, the objective allows for an employee-generating light industrial land use that is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site. Any light industrial use on-site, consistent with the land use designation, would be required to comply with the Light Industrial Zone Development Standards as outlined in Chapter 20.230 of the City’s Municipal Code. The minimum lot area requirement for a Light Industrial zoned site is 20,000 square feet; however, there is no building square footage/site coverage minimum or maximum associated with the Light Industrial zoning.
II. The EIR Fails to Adequately Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Impacts on Biological Resources.
Response: The applicant team, City staff, and the environmental consultants/biologists who prepared the EIR/BTR have been in coordination with USFWS/CDFW since inception of the project to discuss Wildlife Agency expectations, recommendations, and mitigation for the site. The Wildlife Agencies reviewed the BTR, and additional biological resource surveys completed per their request, prior to release of the public review Draft EIR. The BTR adequately discloses and mitigates for the project’s impacts to biological resources.
The proposed project would preserve and restore the existing vernal pools on-site, as outlined in EIR. Coastal California gnatcatcher surveys were conducted based upon 1997 USFWS survey protocol, which is the current protocol to follow. No CAGN were detected. In addition, the site has poor quality habitat for CAGN with minimal coastal sage scrub. The CSS onsite consists of only a few broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) plants. The few CSS plants are spread out and do not offer nesting potential. The site is surrounded by urban development and therefore has low potential for CAGN to move onto the site. No vernal pools will be impacted by development of the proposed project, as outlined in the BTR and EIR.
Of the approximately 10.46 acres within the project, site, approximately 2.61 acres will be permanently impacted on-site. Specifically, the western portion of the parcel will be impacted by proposed development. The project will result in the preservation of 7.1 acres of sensitive upland vegetation communities and 0.75 acres of wetland vegetation communities (including 0.02 acres of restored wetland vegetation). Implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-13 would reduce identified potential impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measures as proposed serve the entirety of the project site, including both the proposed developed and undeveloped portions of the site based on project impacts determined as part of the Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the project.
Furthermore, the methodologies used by the commenter’s biologist to determine the project’s impacts on biological resources do not provide credible evidence. Their biologist relies upon studies of bird productivity from 1948 in a pond in Madison, Wisconsin to determine bird productivity at the project site. Additionally, their biologist bases traffic impacts to wildlife upon studies conducted on a county road in rural Contra Costa County in comparison to the project site which is located in an industrially developed area. The studies and surveys completed for this project in consultation with USFWS/CDFW properly characterized the biological resources of the project site and the mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to the biological resources.
III. Comment: Response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Response: As outlined in the response to USFWS’ February 12, 2024 comment letter on the Draft EIR (included in Appendix K to the Final EIR), USFWS acknowledges correspondence with the applicant and City and the measures implemented by the City to avoid impacts to vernal pools and native grassland occupied by federally listed species. City staff met with USFWS staff, the applicant representatives, and environmental consultants on the project site in May 2023 for a site visit and to review biological resource findings. At that site visit, USFWS requested completion of additional California gnatcatcher and brodiaea surveying as a result of the wet winter/spring season that had occurred.
A 2023 focused California gnatcatcher survey report was completed for the site on June 29, 2023, and was submitted to USFWS for review. This June 2023 report found that no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed during any survey. Thirty-eight species of wildlife were detected during the surveys and are provided in Appendix A of the subject report. No rare species were detected within the impact area, and the report re-confirmed that the impact area on site is highly disturbed compared to the rest of the site, which is consistent with the findings of the BTR prepared for the project. In USFWS’ February 12, 2024 letter, they recommended the applicant establishes a non-wasting endowment for an amount approved by the Service based on a Property Analysis Record, and that ongoing funding needs to be secured for the perpetual management, maintenance, and monitoring of the biological conservation area by an agency, non-profit, or other entity approved by the service. In response to this recommendation, the City confirmed that a PAR-like analysis will be completed and the cost for an endowment will be developed as part of the Mitigation Plan. Mitigation measures MM-BIO-2 and MM-BIO-13 have been modified in Section 3.3 of the Final EIR to address USFWS comments.
Attachment(s)
Adopting Resolutions:
1. Resolution No. 2024-9307 to DENY the appeal and certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR23-006 / SCH No. 2023020497), associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, with Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Significant and Unavoidable Impacts related to Transportation; and
2. Resolution No. 2024-9308 to DENY the appeal and APPROVE the Site Development Plan (SDP22-0002) to allow the construction of a 67,410-square-foot light industrial building.
A. Vicinity Map
B. Requested Entitlements
C. Site & Project Characteristics
D. Environmental Impact Report (EIR23-006)
E. Project Plans
F. Public Comments
G. Appeal Letter from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER dated April 17, 2024
H. Response to Appeal Letter from Dudek dated May 2024
I. Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 15, 2024
Prepared by: Chris Garcia, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Saima Qureshy, Principal Planner
Stephanie Kellar, Deputy City Engineer
Submitted by: Joseph Farace, Planning Division Director
Isaac Etchamendy, Development Services Director / City Engineer
Approved by: Michelle Bender, City Manager