PC13-147Resolution PC 13-147
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MENIFEE FINDING THAT NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS
REQUIRED
Whereas, on August 21, 2012, PacTen Partners applied to the City of Menifee for the
approval of a development agreement for its Commerce Pointe project, (PP 2009-006) which
consists of a total of 827,777 square feet of office industrial development (the "Project") on
approximately 50.88 gross acres within the City; and
Whereas, the development agreement provides for expedited road improvements and
dedication of conservation areas in exchange for certain vested development rights such as
defining minor modifications for administrative approval, subdivision of the properties, and
defining subsequent environmental review; and
Whereas, the development agreement does not intensify or otherwise change the
Project; and
Whereas, the City is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"); and
Whereas, the approval of the development agreement constitutes a discretionary
approval which is part of a "project" as that term is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 and
which itself requires review under CEQA; and
Whereas, on April 7, 2009, the City of Menifee City Council certified that Environmental
Impact Report (SCH 2O06121062), which analyzed the environmental impacts which would
result from the development of the Commerce Pointe project, had been prepared in full
compliance with CEQA (the "EIR"); and
Whereas, the EIR found that air quality impacts of the Commerce Pointe project could
not be mitigated to less than significant levels; and
Whereas, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations in
connection with its approval of the Commerce Pointe project; and
Whereas, the Commerce Pointe project analyzed in the EIR consisted of a total of
827,777 square feet of office and industrial buildings; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on October
8, 2013, where the public was allowed to comment on the absence of any need for additional
environmental review; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission has carefully considered all of the comments
received from the public as well as the information provided by the City's staff in order to provide
a recommendation to the City Council regarding environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee, California, hereby
recommends to the City Council that:
Resolution PC 13-147
Development Agreement 2012-116 - CEQA
1. The EIR fully analyzed the environmental impacts of the Commerce Pointe project as it
was approved in 2009; and
2. The Project will result in similar impacts as those analyzed in the EIR; and
3. Neither a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required because the review of the Project,
the development agreement and the EIR shows that:
Q
A. The proposed approval of the development agreement contains no
substantial changes in the Commerce Pointe project requiring major
revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the Commerce Pointe project is undertaken
which will require major revisions of the EIR;
C. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was
not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, at the time the EIR was certified; and
D. There are no newly feasible, or considerably different, mitigation
measures or alternatives which would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the Commerce Pointe project but which the Project
proponent declines to adopt.
No further environmental review of the Project is required under CEQA and that the
adoption of the development agreement is sufficiently analyzed by the EIR including the
statement of overriding considerations set out in Resolution No. 09-66, attached and
incorporated as if fullv set forth here
Approved as to form:
2
Scott A. Mann
Mayor
Wallace W. Edgerton
Deputy Mayor
John V. Denver
Councilmember
Thomas Fuhrman
Councilmember
Greg August
Councilmember
29714 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Phone 951.672.6777
Fax 951.6793843
w .cityofinenifee.us
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF MENIFEE )
I, Jennifer Allen, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Menifee, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC13-147 was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the
81h day of October, 2013 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Liesemeyer, Matelko, Phillips, Sobek, Thomas
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
nifer Allen, Planning Commission Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 09-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MENIFEE CERTIFYING FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2006121062,
MAKING FINDINGS, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the proposed project includes development of two industrial parks (Commerce
Pointe I & II), including the construction of buildings, parking, landscaping, and utilities located
on the east side of Zeiders Road, south of Scott Road and North of Keller Road; road
improvements along Zeiders Road and Bailey Park Road; and the construction of Cicotti Street;
with approximately 209,858 square feet of floor area within 18 buildings on the northern portion
of the project site and approximately 617,919 square feet of floor area within 33 buildings on the
southern portion of the project site (the "Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the City as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") determined to prepare an environmental
impact report ("EIR") for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside ("County") prior to the City's incorporation prepared an
initial study and notice of preparation ("NOP") of an EIR which was distributed on December 11,
2006; and,
WHEREAS, the County conducted a public scoping meeting on the Project on January 22, 2007
at which public comments were received; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Draft EIR for the Project which was available for public
review on December 15, 2008, and comments were received from the following agencies and
interested persons:
1. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Gordon E. Mize)
2. Native American Heritage Commission (Dave Singleton)
3. Pechanga Cultural Resources Temecula Band of Luiseno Indians
(Anna M. Hoover), and,
4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana
Region (Adam Fischer); and,
WHEREAS, responses to comments were prepared and were provided to commenting
agencies at least ten (10) days before consideration of the Final EIR ("FEIR") by the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring Program required by Public Resources Code Section
21081.6 is contained in Section V of the FEIR and incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and
reviewed and considered public testimony and materials in the staff report and accompanying
documents for the FEIR, Environmental Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
41380625.1
Considerations for the Project, along with all oral and written comments regarding the Project;
and,
WHEREAS, the EIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA and Sections
15000 through 15387 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines); and,
WHEREAS, the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the FEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis; and,
WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require
recirculation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Menifee, California,
hereby does the following:
Certifies Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2006121062 for the Project; and
2. Adopts the Environmental Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
attached and incorporated as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April, 2009 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: ,
NOES:VM.&W
ABSENT:%) J
ABSTAIN:vYLO�- nli o 1
Wallace W. Edgerton, Mayor
ATTEST:
g9aWL0
Kathy Bennett, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Elizabelfh Martyn, City Att rney
41380625.1 2
EXHIBIT "A"
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE
COMMERCE POINTE INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
Change of Zone #7476 & Plot Plan #s 21452 & 22280
(SCH No. 2006121062)
Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the
Public Resources Code:
The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Commerce Pointe Industrial Park
Project ("the Proposed Project") identified significant environmental impacts which will result
from the implementation of the Proposed Project. However, the City of Menifee finds that the
inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of project approval will reduce most, but not all,
of those potential significant effects to a less -than -significant level. Those impacts which are not
reduced to a less -than -significant level are identified and overridden due to specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other feasibility considerations. As required by CEQA, the City of
Menifee ("City") in adopting these Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
("Findings"), also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Proposed Project. The City
finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is incorporated by reference and made a
part of these findings as Section V of the FEIR, meets the requirements of Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended
to mitigate potentially significant effects of the Proposed Project. In accordance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of the approval of the Proposed
Project in conjunction with the certification of the FEIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21082.1(c) (3), the City also finds that the FEIR reflects the City's independent
judgment as the lead agency for the Proposed Project.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21081) and
the CEQA Guidelines (the Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regulations, Section 15091) require that:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an E/R 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:
41380625.1
a. 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 E/R.
b. 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.
c. 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
E/R."
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with
implementation of the Proposed Project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required,
however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with
another agency. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091 (a), (b).)
For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level, the public
agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment (see, Pub. Res. Code
Section 21081(b)). The Guidelines state in section 15093 that:
"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. "'
1.2 Record of Proceedings
The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the
City's decision is based can be found in the custody of the City Clerk at the following location:
City Hall, City of Menifee, 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92584.
SECTION 2: UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
Based on the analysis contained in the FEIR, the proposed project would create the following
unavoidable significant impacts after the application of mitigation measures:
(a) Air Quality short-term construction - Project specific emissions for:
(i) Mass grading - nitrogen oxide (NOx);
(ii) Fine grading - nitrogen oxide (NOx), respirable particulate matter
(PM,o), and particulate matter TWO;
(iii) Building construction - nitrogen oxides (NOx); and
(iv) Architectural coatings - reactive organic gases (ROG);
will exceed significance thresholds, which are significant and unavoidable.
41380625.1 4
(b) Air Quality long-term operational — Project specific emissions for Vehicles -
nitrogen oxides (NO,,) and carbon monoxide (CO) will exceed significance
thresholds during the summer (smog season), which are significant and
unavoidable.
2.1 Air Quality Short Term Construction. Impact IV.D-2 of the Draft EIR, as revised and
corrected in the FEIR, describes the analysis of construction -related emissions and concludes
that construction -related daily emissions would continue to exceed SCAQMD peak daily
significance thresholds for NOx during mass grading, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 during fine
grading and NOx during building construction related to off -road construction vehicles. In
addition, construction related daily emissions would continue to exceed SCAQMD peak daily
significance thresholds for ROG during the application of architectural coatings.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.D-1 through IV.D-5 will reduce emissions and ensure
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403; however, the impacts listed above during construction
activities will remain significant and unavoidable. Due to the fact that the source of these
emissions comes from construction activities related to commonly available construction
vehicles and building treatments, the only feasible way,to reduce these emissions would be to
drastically reduce the size of the Proposed Project.
Finding: The City finds that there are no additional practical and feasible mitigation measures
that would substantially reduce the emissions identified above. Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21081(a) (3) mitigation beyond that proposed is infeasible and these impacts are
considered acceptable as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Consequently, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the
FEIR.
2.2 Air Quality Long Term Operational. Impact IV.D-3 of the Draft EIR, as revised and
corrected in the FEIR, describes the analysis of operation emissions generated by stationary
mobile sources and concludes that the Proposed Project would exceed threshold levels for CO
by 10.72 Ibs/day and for NOx by 6.82 Ibs/day during the summer. These impacts will remain
significant and unavoidable. Due to the fact that the source of these emissions comes primarily
from motor vehicles associated with the operation of the Proposed Project, the only feasible way
to reduce these emissions would be to reduce the size of the Proposed Project.
Finding: The City finds that there are no additional practical and feasible mitigation measures
that would substantially reduce the emissions identified above. Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21081(a) (3) mitigation beyond that proposed is infeasible and these impacts are
considered acceptable as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Consequently, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the
FEIR.
SECTION 3: SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO LESS -THAN -
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
41380625.1
• Cultural Resources
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Transportation/Traffic
3.1 Aesthetics. The Draft EIR, as revised and corrected by the FEIR, describes the analysis of
project impacts IV.13-2 and IV.13-3 on aesthetics and concludes that, unless mitigated, the
Proposed Project could substantially damage scenic resources due to oak tree removal and
introduce new sources of light into an area that is currently undeveloped and characterized by
little nighttime light. To avoid significant impacts related to onsite oak trees, the applicant would
be required to comply with Mitigation Measures IV.13-1 and IV.E-5. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.13-2 would ensure that the Proposed Project would regulate any possible light
pollution by conforming to City Ordinance No. 655. With implementation of these mitigation
measures, the FEIR concludes that aesthetic impacts of the Proposed Project would be less
than significant.
Finding: The City finds that through implementation of the mitigation measures described
above and outlined more thoroughly in the FEIR, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the Proposed Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect related to aesthetics.
3.2 Biological Resources. The Draft EIR, as revised and corrected by the FEIR, describes the
analysis of project impacts IV.E-1, IV.E-3, IV.E-5, IV.E-6, and IV.E-7 to biological resources, and
concludes that, unless mitigated, the Proposed Project could conflict with the provisions of the
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), have an effect on special status nesting bird
species during project construction activities, result in permanent impacts to riparian habitat,
adversely effect jurisdictional drainage features, and conflict with a local policy protecting
biological resources (Riverside County's Oak Tree Management Guidelines). To avoid
significant impacts related to habitat conservation, the applicant would be required to comply
with Mitigation Measure IV.E-2. Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.E-3 would ensure that
potential impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.E-2, IV.E-4, and IV.E-5 would ensure that impacts to
riparian habitat would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures IV.E-4 IV.E-2 would require
the project applicant to prepare a Detailed Mitigation Plan (subject to City approval), and obtain
CDFG, Corps, and RWQCB permits to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional water features. To avoid
significant impacts to oak trees, the project applicant will be required to comply with Mitigation
Measure IV.E-5 which requires protection of avoided oaks and replacement of impacted oaks,
reducing impacts to oak trees to a less than significant level. With implementation of these
mitigation measures, the FEIR concludes that impacts of the Proposed Project to biological
resources will be less than significant.
Finding: The City finds that through implementation of the mitigation measures described
above and outlined more thoroughly in the FEIR, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect related to biological resources.
3.3 Cultural Resources. The Draft EIR, as revised and corrected by the FEIR, describes the
analysis of project impacts IV.F-1 and IV.F-2 to cultural resources, and concludes that, unless
mitigated, the Proposed Project could result in damage or destruction of undiscovered
archeological resources, and destruction of unique paleontological resources or geologic
features. Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.F-1 through IV.F-6 would ensure that
41380625.1
unknown archeological resources would be properly monitored, and if found, safely extracted.
Mitigation Measure IVY-7 requires the applicant to retain a qualified paleontologist for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological
impacts. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the FEIR concludes that impacts of
the Proposed Project to cultural resources will be less than significant.
Finding: The City finds that through implementation of the mitigation measures described
above and outlined more thoroughly in the FEIR, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect related to cultural resources.
3.4 Hydrology and Water Quality. The Draft EIR, as revised and corrected by the FEIR,
describes the analysis of project impacts IV.G-2 and IV.G-3 related to hydrology and water
quality, and concludes that, unless mitigated, the Proposed Project could alter the drainage
pattern of on -site water features (ephemeral dry wash) that could result in substantial erosion or
siltation and could create or contribute runoff water in excess of the existing capacity.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1 through IV.G-20 identify means by which the
Proposed Project can reduce potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. In order to
reduce runoff, as outlined in Mitigation Measures IV.G-1 through IV.G-7, the project applicant
will be required to comply with storm drain sizing requirements, incorporate means to minimize
urban runoff and the impervious footprint, conserve natural areas, minimize directly connected
impervious areas, and incorporate BMP's during construction. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures IV.G-8 through IV.G-20 would ensure that impacts to the ephemeral dry wash would
not result in substantial erosion or siltation.
Finding: The City finds that through implementation of the mitigation measures described
above and outlined more thoroughly in the FEIR, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect related to hydrology and water quality.
3.5 Noise. The Draft EIR, as revised and corrected by the FEIR, describes the analysis of
project impacts IV.I-1 and IV.I-3 of the Draft EIR related to noise, and concludes that, unless
mitigated, the Proposed Project could result in construction -related noise impacts to sensitive
receptors and a permanent increase in ambient noise levels caused by operational activities.
The project applicant would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures IV.I-1 through IV. 1-3
during construction of the proposed project to reduce construction -related noise and
groundborne vibration impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure IV.I-1 restricts
the hours of construction activities that would result in high noise levels. To further reduce
construction -related noise impacts, Mitigation Measure IV.I-2 requires all construction vehicles
and equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. To reduce
vibration impacts, Mitigation Measure IV.I-3 requires that best efforts be made to locate
construction staging areas and operation of earthmoving equipment as far from vibration
sensitive uses as possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.I-4 through IV.I-7 would
reduce operational noise impacts. Mitigation Measure IV.I-4 provides daytime and nighttime
standards which shall not be exceeded for facility -related noise. Mitigation Measures IV.I-5 and
IV.I-6 require that the applicant select HVAC units with the lowest sound power level and the
units be installed as far as possible from the surrounding residential uses. Mitigation Measure
IV.I-7 will ensure that delivery truck noise is reduced by minimizing engine idling time during
deliveries.
41380625.1 7
Finding: The City finds that through implementation of the mitigation measures described
above and outlined more thoroughly in the FEIR, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect related to noise.
3.6. Transportation/Traffic. The Draft EIR, as revised and corrected by the FEIR, describes
the analysis of project impacts IV.K-1 and IV.K-2 related to transportation and traffic, and
concludes that, unless mitigated, the Proposed Project could result in a substantial increase in
traffic causing seven nearby intersections to operate an at unacceptable level of service.
Cumulative traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project could cause twelve nearby
intersections to operate at unacceptable level of service during peak hours, unless mitigated. To
avoid significant impacts associated with project -related and cumulative traffic the project
applicant would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures IV.K-1 through IV.K-10.
Mitigation Measures IV.K-1 through IV.K-10 require the applicant to install traffic signals and/or
additional lanes at affected intersections and roadways. To further mitigate the project's
contribution to cumulative impacts Mitigation Measure IV.K-7 requires the project applicant to
pay fees in accordance with the applicable fee programs.
Finding: The City finds that through implementation of the mitigation measures described
above and outlined more thoroughly in the FEIR, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect related to transportation and traffic.
SECTION 4: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Project Objectives
The objectives of the project are as follows:
• To provide a high -quality and well -planned industrial park to serve the City of Menifee.
• To maximize the development of the property as an industrial park for lease or sale in
response to the market -indicated high demand and under -served supply for this product
within the region.
• To provide employment opportunities for the growing number of local residents.
• To contribute to an increased quality of life for local residents, benefited from working in
proximity to the home.
• To develop a high -quality and aesthetically attractive development on underutilized land,
consistent with the City's General Plan and the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan.
• To accommodate the RCIP goals to create jobs, encourage economic development and
build supporting infrastructure while maintaining biological and ecological diversity through
Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) compliance.
41380625.1
• To reduce commuter traffic to other regions, such as San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles
Counties and provide for light industrial development in close proximity to established
regional transportation corridors.
To improve and help alleviate burden to the existing failing levels of service on local
roadways.
• To help realize the goals of the City's Circulation Element by improving Zeiders Road.
4.2 Alternatives to the Project
Alternative A - No Project/No Build Alternative
Section VI of the Draft EIR describes the impacts of Alternative A as compared to the Proposed
Project. Alternative A would not meet any of the project objectives for the development of an
industrial site that would provide employment opportunities for the growing number of local
residents, reduce commuter traffic to other regions, improve and alleviate burdens to the
existing failing levels of service on local roadways, and contribute to an increased quality of life
for local residents benefitted from working in proximity to the home. Moreover, additional
benefits of the Proposed Project are outlined in Section 5 of these Findings, including the
continuation of a logical development pattern for the surrounding area that is consistent with the
General Plan designation. For these reasons, the City finds that specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make Alternative A infeasible pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3).
Alternative B - Reduced Intensity
Section VI of the Draft EIR describes the impacts of Alternative B as compared to the Proposed
Project. Alternative B would not meet the project objectives to maximize the development
potential of the property and would not meet objectives related to employment generation to the
same degree as the Proposed Project due to the fact that the development would have fewer
industrial buildings and thus fewer opportunities for employment. Moreover, additional benefits
of the Proposed Project are outlined in Section 5 of these Findings, including the continuation of
a logical development pattern for the surrounding area that is consistent with the General Plan
designation. For these reasons, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make Alternative A infeasible pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3).
Alternative C — Complete Avoidance of Riparian Habitat
Section VI of the Draft EIR describes the impacts of Alternative C as compared to the Proposed
Project. Alternative C would completely avoid the riparian/riverine area within Drainage A on the
southern section of the site and would include the preservation of the stream and adjacent
areas within the boundary limits of a 100-year surface flow. Approximately 9.2 fewer acres
would be developed under Alternative C. Alternative C proposes reduction in the size of four
buildings in the southern section of the project site; therefore this alternative would not meet the
project objective of maximizing the development of the property. Due to the fact that it would
have fewer buildings, this alternative would not meet objectives relating to employment to the
same degree as the Proposed Project. In comparison to the Proposed Project, the Alternative C
would also do less to reduce commuter traffic to other regions. Moreover, additional benefits of
41380625.1 9
the Proposed Project are outlined in Section 5 of these Findings, including the continuation of a
logical development pattern for the surrounding area that is consistent with the General Plan
designation. For these reasons, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make Alternative A infeasible pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3).
SECTION 5: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when
determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological
or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those
effects may be considered acceptable (state CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). CEQA
requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project
acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons
must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record
(state CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b)). In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and
the state CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, when implemented, avoid or substantially
lessen virtually all of the significant effects identified in the FEIR. Nonetheless, certain
significant impacts of the project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures. These significant unavoidable impacts are identified and discussed in
Section 2 of these Findings.
The City further specifically finds that notwithstanding the disclosure of these significant
unavoidable impacts, there are specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and
other reasons for approving this project. Those reasons are as follows:
• The Proposed Project is a high quality land use transition from a fallow
agricultural field and other marginal commercial uses to a light industrial business
center consistent with the property's Industrial Park (IP) zoning and land use
designations.
• The Proposed Project represents the continuation of a logical development
pattern occurring, or that will occur, in the surrounding area.
• The Proposed Project provides for transportation improvements, including the
improvement of segments of Zeiders Road, Ciccotti Road, and Bailey Park Road,
which will provide a benefit to the local transportation system.
• The Proposed Project provides backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads and
utilities) to service the site that will ensure that the Project will not adversely
impact existing infrastructure.
• The site will provide a high quality industrial development that will enhance the
surrounding community and provide opportunities to meet the demands of local
and regional area businesses and the community.
• The Proposed Project will help the City create an improved balance between
41380625.1 10
employment and housing by providing job opportunities to existing residents that
currently commute outside of the local area to work.
• The Proposed Project will create positive net fiscal revenue to the City through an
increased tax base.
The foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the
Proposed Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the
Project, which cannot be mitigated. Each of the project benefits separately and individually
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the EIR and the City
therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
41380625.1 11