Planning Commission
Appeal: 517 Shinohara Ln.
1 City Council
Item 7.1
September 12, 2023
2517 Shinohara Lane
Site LayoutSite Layout
Site Layout
N
Loading Docks
Project Site and Surrounding Uses
Industrial
Residential
Residential
Industrial
Project
Site
Site Architecture
6PC Hearing on June 28, 2023
• Appeal of the Planning Commission decision from
June 28, 2023.
• Planning Commission voted 4-0 to certify Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. IS21-0006 and approve
Design Review permit No. DR21-0032 to construct a
178,156 industrial building at 517 Shinohara Lane.
7Appeal
• On July 12, 2023, Golden State Environmental Justice
Alliance (Appellant) filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s June 28, 2023 decision.
• The Appellant’s
appeal is based on
assertions the
California
Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
document was
insufficient.
8Appeal Assertions
Appellant asserts five deficiencies under CEQA:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is insufficient; need Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
2. “Piecemealed”
3. Did not study Environmental Justice impacts of:
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4. Faulty workforce analysis
5. Faulty Transportation analysis
9CEQA Document
Deficiency No. 1: Assertion the City should have had an EIR prepared instead of an MND.
• Initial Study - informs lead agency what document is appropriate.
10MND vs. EIR
• The determination whether to prepare a Negative Declaration or an EIR is subject to the "fair argument" test.
(Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. U.C. Regents (1993) 47 Cal.4th 376).
• If a fair argument can be made on "substantial evidence" in the record that the project may have a significant adverse
environmental impact - then an EIR is required.
• An MND shall be prepared when changes to the project or mitigation measures reduce the significant effects to a less than significant level or avoids them altogether (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b)(1)).
11 EIR vs. MND: appellant asserts lead agency “fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.”
Lead Agency Response:
• But no additional mitigation measures are identified or suggested in any of the Appellant's materials.
Mitigation Measures
• MND identified ways to
mitigate any impacts to the
satisfaction of City Staff.
12Piecemealing
Deficiency No. 2: Appellant asserts proximity of a second project by the same development team indicates “piecemealing.”
• Piecemealing is defined in the CEQA Guidelines as:
• A Project is the “whole of an action”;
• Individual smaller projects comprise larger project; or • One project is the “necessary precedent” of the other; or • If several projects exist but are not part of a larger project, then cumulative impacts must be studied.
(CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(a) and (c) and 15165)
13Piecemealing
• Lead Agency Response:
• Project team’s other development is included in the
cumulative impacts section of the re-circulated MND.
• None of the standards for piecemealing apply to this project.
14Environmental Justice
Deficiency No 3: Appellant asserts MND does not study
Environmental Justice impacts in Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Lead Agency Response: All emissions would be under the applicable thresholds and the project qualifies for the Acorn Equity Award Level under California Emissions Estimator Model’s Health and Equity Scorecard criteria.
15Workforce Projections
Deficiency No. 4: Appellant asserts MND does not utilize proper San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) workforce growth modeling maps.
Lead Agency Response:
• Appeal wrongly asserts:
• Number of employees for Project.
• Project’s percentage of the regional workforce growth. • Utilization of improper SANDAG Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Employee Screening maps.
• MND utilizes incorrect
numbers and SANDAG maps.
16Transportation Analysis
Deficiency No. 5:
A. MND did not follow City’s Transportation Guidelines for VMT; B. Project will draw vehicles/trucks from the Los Angeles, Long Beach and Victorville Inland Port areas.
Lead Agency Response:
• MND followed City Transportation
Guidelines.
• CEQA does not require speculation on
traffic generation.
• Marketed to local San Diego businesses
and industries with workforce coming
from the Chula Vista and South Bay
region.
17CEQA Document Integrity
The MND for the Shinohara Project:
• Properly analyzed all potential impacts to the environment • Impacts are reduced to no impact or less than significant • Included appropriate analysis of cumulative impacts
• Qualifies for CalEEMod’s Acrorn Equity Award Level
• Properly utilized regional maps provided by SANDAG
• Properly analyzed projected workforce needs and transportation The MND sufficiently allows the City decision makers to intelligently consider the environmental impacts of the Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission’s decision to certify Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. IS21-0006 and approve Design
Review Permit No. DR21-0032.
18 BACKUP SLIDES
19 20Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prerequisites for an MND:
1. Making a good faith effort to determine whether there is substantial evidence that the project may result in any significant environmental effect.
2. Incorporating effective revisions or mitigation measures into the project to alleviate potential significant effects prior to circulating the CEQA Document for public review.
3. Evidence in the record to support the agency’s
determination that there will be no significant effect as a result of the project.
21Initial Study
• Initial Study (IS21-0006) was conducted.
• City found substantial evidence that impacts could result but that those impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels.
22No Impact or Less Than Significant
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture
• Air Quality
• Biology
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology
• Greenhouse Gasses
• Hazardous Materials
• Housing
• Hydrology
• Land Use
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Paleontology
• Population
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Resources
• Utilities and Service
Systems
• Wildfire
23CEQA Flowchart
24Public Review
An MND was prepared and circulated twice:
• August 22, 2022 – September 22, 2022
• MND was revised to address comments received and to
include a technical study not included in the first
circulation
• January 27, 2023 – February 27, 2023
Northward View
Southward View
Eastward View
N
Westward View
N
East Elevation
North and South Elevations
West Elevation
Elevator at Southeastern Corner
53.5 feet
Street Level
Site Level
N
A
B
C
D
F
G
Preliminary Grading Plan
Cross-sections A and B
43 feet
Shinohara Lane EntranceProposed
Building Pad
(197.5 FF)
50 feet
A
B
Proposed
Building Pad
(197.5 FF)
Cross-sections C and D
Residential
to the West
24 feet
C
D
Proposed
Building Pad
(197.5 FF)
Residential
to the West
Residential
to the North
50 feet
23.5 feet
Entrance Drive
Cross-sections F and G
F
G
Proposed
Building Pad
(197.5 FF)
Proposed
Building Pad
(197.5 FF)
N
Eastward View
Eastward View
N
Noise Study
Noise Study
Truck Routes
Health Risk Assessment Boundary