COMMUNICATIONS
IN RELATION TO THE
CITY OF ELK GROVE
MAY 24, 2023 REGULAR
MEETING
From:
To: Jason Lindgren
Subject: Powerpoint Submission for Elk Grove City Council Meeting on May 24th, 2023 Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:56:16 AM
Attachments: Elk Grove Needs a Second Shelter Vet.pptx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hello,
I would like to submit my Powerpoint presentation for the Non-Agenda Public Comment portion of tomorrow's city council meeting.
Thank you,
Katherine Mendoza
There’s a…
Mayor
City Manager
City Attorney
Chief of Police
Shelter Vet
Vice mayor
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Assistant Chief of Police
Anything can happen, why are we the only ones losing when the shelter vet is absent? What is a low cost solution to feral cat
overpopulation in Elk Grove?
A second shelter vet
What’s the
problem with
only having one
vet?
Kittens aborted during surgery of
cats not brought in before
pregnancy
Sick or injured cats not being
treated due to lack of staff
Unfixed cats are released after
being turned away
Kittens are flooding the shelters
Here are a few…
A second shelter vet could
Assist with evening or weekend care of unowned cats
Provide more spay and neuter of the thousands of
animals that enter the shelter unaltered!
And much more!
No Animal Control after
shelter hours
No vet services after
shelter hours
Kittel Contract
LED light up sunglasses ($2,963.13)
Council holiday cards ($585.24)
Youtube TV subscriptions ($195)
Finance Team Meeting at Mimi’s Cafe ($355.58)
Cafe Elk Grove ($645.42)
Cookies for staff survey ($912.00)
DC Trip Flight ($24,755.54)
Video Game Truck Rental ($900.00)
DJ for Party on the Palms ($2,550.00)
Police K-9 Food ($771.60) - what about community cats?
Storytime Candy Canes ($110.72)
Round Lip Balm ($308.17)
Cafe Elk Grove - Mexican Fiesta ($1,805.14)
THIS IS ONLY A FRACTION
“There’s no money for a second shelter vet”
Total Amount for
Items Listed:
$36, 857.54
There IS City funding available.
There IS also State funding available.
City sponsored spay and neuter vouchers for Elk Grove
residents?
Apply for state grant funding for spay and neuter?
Kim would have done it, but she didn’t have the tax
information.
Questions for you all..
Who should I direct calls for help from the public to? City of Elk Grove Animal Services does not assist with trapping.
Which days are you available for trapping?
Anyone available for 12am check in?
Anyone available for bottle feeding every two hours?
Anyone available to hold onto a feral cat post surgery for 24 hours? Anyone available to feed feral cats every evening?
I do this all regularly.
From:
To: Jason Lindgren
Cc: Rod Brewer
Subject: Project PLNG 22-040 10150 Pleasant Grove Elementary School Road , tree removal permit #3905 & #3903 & natural barrier lots&school
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 12:34:36 PM
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Good Day City Council,
Please see my below concerns regarding project PLNG 22-040.
Topics :
1. Two mature
Oak trees in danger , removal permits #3905 & 3903 :
Please follow the Elk Grove Tree Preservation & Protection
policy.
Please protect these
trees.
Oak tree on PGE Road- removal of this
mature oak tree to make way for a gate and road is
the opposite of Protecting & preserving trees.
Oak tree #2 -This tree is in ultimate danger as the planned road placement will injure the tree.
The cutting of roots, moving of soil will hurt the tree base, drip line , roots and root ball.
Please find alternative route for the road to preserve and protect this tree.
2. Add a Natural Barrier between the PG Elementary school &
each lot bordering the
school.
Thank you for your time .
Best regards,
Katie Earl
From:
To: EG City Clerk
Subject: Pleasant Grove Estates-Comment for City Council Meeting 5/24/2024 Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 2:05:26 PM
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Honorable City Council Members,
As a resident on Pleasant Grove School Road, I am requesting that the developer of Pleasant Grove Estates reconfigure the mapping and entrance so that all oak trees remain, but specifically tree numbers 3905 and 3903.
While we understand that more trees will be planted
as part of the development, nothing can replace the beauty of native trees.
There is no reason
why the entrance cannot be reconfigured to save the trees and help preserve what we can of the
natural aesthetics of the rural area (in general, this entire project will significantly impact aesthetics for rural
residents).
It is incredibly disappointing that this property was allowed to split into 2 acres parcels, rather than remaining at 5. The City keeps finding that these rezoning and property splits occurring
on Pleasant Grove School Road are not subject to CEQA.
Each action or "project"
is being looked at individually
rather than as a whole for cumulative impacts.
In the last
several years, 8 properties
on this road have subdivided, increasing
the possible number of
houses on the road to 18-20, with 2 likely being accessed from Justamere.
With the
increased
pressure on the aquifer
and traffic and impact of visual
aesthetics, one would think
CEQA should be required based on "except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site."
With the
expansion of Grantline, the mission creep of local, existing businesses, and the proposed new businesses, the rural area of Elk Grove is clearly being impacted.
The City needs to respect the rural designation of Elk Grove.
Developers and businesses have
been allowed to push through their agendas with no regard to impacts to local residents.
Whether it be noise pollution, growth, or traffic, we are just expected to accept the change even though we have paid premium prices for our homes and property taxes.
By requiring
that the entrance gates be relocated to save the trees, this would be one thing the City can do for rural residents.
Thank you,
Sheri Looper
From:
To: City Clerks; [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: Public Comment Pleasant Grove Estates
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 3:49:30 PM
Attachments: Public comment on Plasant Grove Estates.pdf Final_Regulations_Round_Two_Typo_Correciton-_2-11-2013_formatted.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Please confirm receipt and disbursal for tonight’s meeting.
Thank you
Suzanne Pecci
Suzanne Pecci
May 24, 2023
Attn. City Clerk
Public Comment for the Record and distribution to Mayor and City Council for 5-24-23 meeting.
Mayor and City Council
City of Elk Grove, CA
8401 Laguna palms Way
Elk Grove, CA 95758
To: Mayor SinghAllen, Council Members Spease, Robles, Suen and Brewer Re: Agenda item 9.2 Pleasant Grove Estates Project PLNG 22-040 For the record my name is Suzanne Pecci. I have lived in Elk Grove for over 45 years. I am a resident of the Rural Area of East Elk Grove. Residents living in the vicinity of the Project and those who feel they will be impacted in various ways by this Project have met with most, if not all of you, to discuss major concerns to include the notable lack of Public notification, outreach and engagement in the Pleasant Grove Estates Project planning and design process; While you are being requested by Staff to finalize this Project, there are unresolved public concerns about flooding and unmitigated drainage problems for neighboring parcels which will be compounded by increased development density extensive hardscape, land coverage and drainage management. There is the issue of the 2 gross acre rezoning of parcels for this Project which allows private domestic wells and onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) without evidence of CEQA.
According to the Project Map there are ‘2 gross acre parcels” as small as 1.4 acres in this Project. The question becomes how small can a “2 gross parcel “ be in order to be safely served by a well and OWTS, not have an impact the environment or threaten the health and safety of the surrounding community—can the parcel be 1.1 or 1.05 or less? It is not clear how Staff arrived at the “gross two acre zoning designation for parcels approved for wells and septic systems under the General Plan, Amendments or Community Plan or this Project without performing additional CEQA and studying the impact of smaller parcel sizes with wells/OWTS on the environment or studying the potential health and safety impact to the surrounding Community . Staff asserts that
Section 15183 applies to this Project and you are being asked to approve a resolution that no additional CEQA is required to be performed. Staff Reports and Projects Records made available to the public through a PRI do not appear to support Staff ’s position of a CEQA exemption for this Project.
The question has been raised as to whether there is adequate square footage in a 1.4 acre parcel for a well, septic system, a dwelling unit an allowed adu, accessory structures, the additional 100 square feet required for a replacement leach area, plus patios, driveways, owner amenities such as a pool, landscaping in addition to all required setbacks relative to the County’s setback requirements for wells and OWTS. There are unanswered questions about whether, and what variances will be required to build out this Project and the potential impacts such variances might have on neighboring residents.
In my opinion, there are questions surrounding the amended General Plan, Community Plan, Zoning code, as well as Project documents referencing the “required 2 acre minimum parcel size”. Although difficult to read, the Tentative Map for this Project references the 2 acre minimum parcel size in the map legend which in my opinion creates an inconsistency between the tentative and final maps which must be resolved according to provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. When questioned about the many inconsistencies in the zoning designation in various documents related to the planning and design of the Project—- Staff ’s response was to pass it off as being typing errors— mistakes—typos.
Staff has characterized this Project as an Infill Project eligible for Streamlining. It is my opinion this Project does not satisfy Government Code Section 21094.5 and therefore is not eligible for streamlining pursuant to CEQA 15183.3. Section Streamlining Review (c) which I have quoted in part is directly from the Final Regulations and I have attached the complete Final Regulation for your more thorough review . “Streamlined Review . CEQA does not apply to the effects of an eligible infill project under two circumstances. First, if an effect was addressed as a significant effect in a prior EIR for a planning level decision, then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be analyzed again for an individual infill project even when that effect was not reduced to a less than significant level in the prior EIR. Second, an effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in a prior EIR or is more significant than previously analyzed, if the lead agency makes a finding that uniformly applicable development policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county , apply to the infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect. Depending on the effects addressed in the prior EIR and the availability of uniformly applicable development policies or standards that apply to the eligible infill project, streamlining under this section will range from a complete Pg 3
exemption to an obligation to prepare a narrowed, project-specific environmental document. A prior EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later infill projects if it deals with the effects of infill development as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of such development, the effects of many infill projects could be found to have been addressed in the prior EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.
(d) Procedure. Following preliminary review of an infill project pursuant to Section 15060, the lead agency must examine an eligible infill project in light of the prior EIR to determine whether the infill project will cause any effects that require additional review under CEQA. Determinations pursuant to this section are questions of fact to be resolved by the lead agency . Such determinations must be supported with enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. (See Section 15384.)(1) Evaluation of the lnfill Project. A lead agency should prepare a written checklist or similar device to document the infill project's eligibility for streamlining and to assist in making the determinations required by this section. The sample written checklist provided in Appendix N may be used for this purpose. A written checklist prepared pursuant to this section should do all of the following:
(A) Document whether the infill project satisfies the applicable performance standards in Appendix M.
(B) Explain whether the effects of the infill project were analyzed in a prior EIR. The written checklist should cite the specific portions of the prior EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the infill project's significant effects. The written checklist should also indicate whether the infill project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the prior EIR.
(C) Explain whether the infill project will cause new specific effects. For the purposes of this section, a new specific effect is an effect that was not addressed in the prior EIR and that is specific to the infill project or the infill project site. A new specific effect may result if, for example, the prior EIR stated that sufficient site-specific information was not available to analyze the significance of that effect. Substantial changes in circumstances following certification of a prior EIR may also result in a new specific effect. (D) Explain whether substantial new information shows that the adverse environmental effects of the infill project are more significant than Pg 4
described in the prior EIR. For the purpose of this section, "more significant" means an effect will be substantially more severe than described in the prior EIR. More significant effects include those that result from changes in circumstances or changes in the development assumptions underlying the prior EIR's analysis. An effect is also more significant if substantial new information shows that: (1) mitigation measures that were previously rejected as infeasible are in fact feasible, ably different than those previously analyzed could substantially reduce a significant effect described in the prior EIR, but such measures are not included in the project; or (3) an applicable mitigation measure was adopted in connection with a planning level decision, but the lead agency determines that it is not feasible for the infill project to implement that measure. (E) If the infill project will cause new specific effects or more significant effects, the written checklist should indicate whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards will substantially mitigate those effects.
For the purpose of this section, "substantially mitigate" means that the policy or standard will substantially lessen the effect, but not necessarily below the level of significance. The written checklist should specifically identify the uniformly applicable development policy or standard and explain how it will substantially mitigate the effects of the infill project. The explanation in the written checklist may be used to support the finding required in subdivision (d)(2)(D) below”.et seq.
In my opinion, Staff has not provided required documentation to support this Project as being an Infill Project eligible for streamlining and exempt under CEQA. It is not clear when required by law that relevant documentation was submitted by Staff to the appropriate State regulatory agencies for review and approval—HCD and OPR.
I request you deny Staff ’s request and vote tonight to further delay the approval of the final Map for this Project, that additional CEQA be required and Staff be required to reformulate it’s public engagement plan and conduct additional public outreach and engagement and work with the community to resolve the issues surrounding the Project.
Thank you,
Suzanne Pecci
CLEAN COPY OF FINALLY ADOPTED REGULATION
State CEQA Guideline Section 15183.3. Streamlining for lnfill Projects
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to streamline the environmental review process for eligible infill projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies.
(b) Eligibility. To be eligible for the streamlining procedures prescribed in this section, an infill project must:
(1) Be located in an urban area on a site that either has been previously developed or that adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at least seventy-five percent of the site's perimeter. For the purpose of this subdivision "adjoin" means the infill project is immediately adjacent to qualified urban uses, or is only separated from such uses by an improved public right-of-way;
(2) Satisfy the performance standards provided in Appendix M; and
(3) Be consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, except as provided in subdivisions (b)(3)(A) or (b)(3)(B) below.
(A) Only where an infill project is proposed within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization for which a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy will be, but is not yet, in effect, a residential infill project must have a density of at least 20 units per acre, and a retail or commercial infill project must have a floor area ratio of at least 0.75.
(B) Where an infill project is proposed outside of the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization, the infill project must meet the definition of a small walkable community project in subdivision (f)(5), below.
(c) Streamlined Review. CEQA does not apply to the effects of an eligible infill project under two circumstances. First, if an effect was addressed as a significant effect in a prior EIR for a planning level decision, then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be analyzed again for an individual infill project even when that effect was not reduced to a less than significant level in the prior EIR. Second, an effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in a prior EIR or is more significant than previously analyzed, if the lead agency makes a finding that uniformly applicable development policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county, apply to the infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect. Depending on the effects addressed in the prior EIR and the availability of uniformly applicable development policies or standards that apply to the eligible infill project, streamlining under this section will range from a complete exemption to an obligation to prepare a narrowed, project-specific environmental document. A prior EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later infill projects if it deals with the effects of infill development as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of such development, the effects of many infill projects could be found to have been addressed in the prior EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.
(d) Procedure. Following preliminary review of an infill project pursuant to Section 15060, the lead agency must examine an eligible infill project in light of the prior EIR to determine whether
the infill project will cause any effects that require additional review under CEQA.
Determinations pursuant to this section are questions of fact to be resolved by the lead agency.
Such determinations must be supported with enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. (See Section 15384.)(1) Evaluation of the lnfill Project. A lead agency should prepare a written checklist or similar device to document the infill project's eligibility for streamlining and to assist in making the determinations required by this section. The sample written checklist provided in Appendix N may be used for this purpose. A written checklist prepared pursuant to this section should do all of the following:
(A) Document whether the infill project satisfies the applicable performance standards in Appendix M.
(B) Explain whether the effects of the infill project were analyzed in a prior EIR. The written checklist should cite the specific portions of the prior EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the infill project's significant effects. The written checklist should also indicate whether the infill project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the prior EIR.
(C) Explain whether the infill project will cause new specific effects. For the purposes of this section, a new specific effect is an effect that was not addressed in the prior EIR and that is specific to the infill project or the infill project site. A new specific effect may result if, for example, the prior EIR stated that sufficient site-specific information was not available to analyze the significance of that effect. Substantial changes in circumstances following certification of a prior EIR may also result in a new specific effect.
(D) Explain whether substantial new information shows that the adverse environmental effects of the infill project are more significant than described in the prior EIR. For the purpose of this section, "more significant" means an effect will be substantially more severe than described in the prior EIR. More significant effects include those that result from changes in circumstances or changes in the development assumptions underlying the prior EIR's analysis. An effect is also more significant if substantial new information shows that: (1) mitigation measures that were previously rejected as infeasible are in fact feasible, and such measures are not included in the project; (2) feasible mitigation measures considerably different than those previously analyzed could substantially reduce a significant effect described in the prior EIR, but such measures are not included in the project; or (3) an applicable mitigation measure was adopted in connection with a planning level decision, but the lead agency determines that it is not feasible for the infill project to implement that measure.
(E) If the infill project will cause new specific effects or more significant effects, the written checklist should indicate whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards will substantially mitigate those effects. For the purpose of this section, "substantially mitigate" means that the policy or standard will substantially lessen the effect, but not necessarily below the level of significance. The written checklist should specifically identify the uniformly applicable development policy or standard and explain how it will substantially mitigate the effects of the infill project. The explanation in the written checklist may be used to support the finding required in subdivision (d)(2)(D) below.
(2) Environmental Document. After examining the effects of the infill project in light of the analysis in any prior EIR and uniformly applicable development policies or standards, the lead agency shall determine what type of environmental document shall be prepared for the infill project.
(A) No Further Review. No additional environmental review is required if the infill project would not cause any new specific effects or more significant effects, or if uniformly applicable development policies or standards would substantially mitigate such effects. Where the lead agency determines that no additional environmental review of the effects of the infill project is required, the lead agency shall file a Notice of Determination as provided in Section 15094.
Where the lead agency finds that uniformly applicable development policies substantially mitigate a significant effect of an infill project, the lead agency shall make the finding described in subdivision (d)(2)(D).
(B) Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment. If the infill project would result in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects shall be subject to CEQA. If a new specific effect is less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a negative declaration. If new specific effects or more significant effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level through project changes agreed to prior to circulation of the written checklist, the lead agency may prepare a mitigated negative declaration. In these circumstances, the lead agency shall follow the procedure set forth in Sections 15072 to 15075. Alternatively, if the infill project is a transit priority project, the lead agency may follow the procedures in Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code. In either instance, the written checklist should clearly state which effects are new or more significant, and are subject to CEQA, and which effects have been previously analyzed and are not subject to further environmental review. Where the lead agency finds that uniformly applicable development policies or standards substantially mitigate a significant effect of an infill project, the lead agency shall make the finding described in subdivision (d)(2)(D).
(C) lnfill EIR. If the infill project would result in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, the lead agency shall prepare an infill EIR if the written checklist shows that the effects of the infill project would be potentially significant. In this circumstance, the lead agency shall prepare an infill EIR as provided in subdivision (e) and, except as otherwise provided in this section, shall follow the procedures in Article 7. Where the lead agency finds that uniformly applicable development policies or standards substantially mitigate a significant effect of an infill project, the lead agency shall make the finding described in subdivision (d)(2)(D).
(D) Findings. Any findings or statement of overriding considerations required by Sections 15091 or 15093 shall be limited to those effects analyzed in an infill EIR. Findings for such effects should incorporate by reference any such findings made in connection with a planning level decision. Where uniformly applicable development policies or standards substantially mitigate the significant effects of an infill project, the lead agency shall also make a written finding, supported with substantial evidence, providing a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding.
(e) lnfill EIR Contents. An infill EIR shall analyze only those significant effects that uniformly applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, and that are either
new specific effects or are more significant than a prior EIR analyzed. All other effects of the infill project should be described in the written checklist as provided in subdivision (d)(1), and that written checklist should be circulated for public review along with the infill EIR. The written checklist should clearly set forth those effects that are new specific effects, and are subject to CEQA, and those effects which have been previously analyzed and are not subject to further environmental review. The analysis of alternatives in an infill EIR need not address alternative locations, densities, or building intensities. An infill EIR need not analyze growth inducing impacts. Except as provided in this subdivision, an infill EIR shall contain all elements described in Article 9.
(f) Terminology. The following definitions apply to this section:
(1) "lnfill project" includes the whole of an action consisting of residential, commercial, retail, transit station, school, or public office building uses, or any combination of such uses that meet the eligibility requirements set forth in subdivision (b). For retail and commercial projects, no more than one half of the project area may be used for parking. "Transit station" means a rail or light-rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub, bus transfer station, or bus stop, and includes all streetscape improvements constructed in the public right-of-way within one-quarter mile of such facility to improve multi-modal access to the facility, such as pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements and traffic-calming design changes that support pedestrian and bicycle access.
(2) "Planning level decision" means the enactment or amendment of a general plan or any general plan element, community plan, specific plan, or zoning code. (3) "Prior EIR" means the environmental impact report certified for a planning level decision, as supplemented by any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those documents.
(4) "Qualified urban use" is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21072.
(5) "Small walkable community project" means a project that is all of the following:
(A) In an incorporated city that is not within the boundary of metropolitan planning organization;
(B) Within an area of approximately one-quarter mile diameter of contiguous land that includes a residential area adjacent to a retail downtown area and that is designated by the city for infill development consisting of residential and commercial uses. A city may designate such an area within its general plan, zoning code, or by any legislative act creating such a designation, and may make such designation concurrently with project approval; and
(C) Either a residential project that has a density of at least eight units to the acre or a commercial project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.5, or both.
(6) The terms "sustainable communities strategy" and "alternative planning strategy" refer to a strategy for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization's determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
(7) "Uniformly applicable development policies or standards" are policies or standards adopted or enacted by a city or county, or by a lead agency, that reduce one or more adverse environmental effects. Examples of uniformly applicable development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(A) Regulations governing construction activities, including noise regulations, dust control, provisions for discovery of archeological and paleontological resources, stormwater runoff treatment and containment, protection against the release of hazardous materials, recycling of construction and demolition waste, temporary street closure and traffic rerouting, and similar regulations.
(B) Requirements in locally adopted building, grading and stormwater codes.
(C) Design guidelines.
(D) Requirements for protecting residents from sources of air pollution including high volume roadways and stationary sources.
(E) Impact fee programs to provide public improvements, police, fire, parks and other open space, libraries and other public services and infrastructure, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and traffic calming devices.
(F) Traffic impact fees.
(G) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.
(H) Ordinances addressing protection of urban trees and historic resources.
(8) "Urban area" is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21094.5(e)(5).
Authority: Public Resources Code 21083, 21094.5.5
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21094.5 and 21094.5.5
Appendix M: Performance Standards for lnfill Projects Eligible for Streamlined Review
I. Introduction
Section 15183.3 provides a streamlined review process for infill projects that satisfy specified performance standards. This appendix contains those performance standards. The lead agency's determination that the project satisfies the performance standards shall be supported with substantial evidence, which should be documented on the lnfill Checklist in Appendix N. Section II defines terms used in this Appendix. Performance standards that apply to all project types are set forth in Section Ill. Section IV contains performance standards that apply to particular project types (i.e., residential, commercial/retail, office building, transit stations, and schools).
II. Definitions
The following definitions apply to the terms used in this Appendix.
"High-quality transit corridor" means an existing corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. For the purposes of this Appendix, an "existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor" may include a planned and funded stop that is included in an adopted regional transportation improvement program.
Unless more specifically defined by an air district, city or county, "high-volume roadway" means freeways, highways, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.
"Low vehicle travel area" means a traffic analysis zone that exhibits a below average existing level of travel as determined using a regional travel demand model. For residential projects, travel refers to either home-based or household vehicle miles traveled per capita. For commercial and retail projects, travel refers to non-work attraction trip length; however, where such data are not available, commercial projects reference either home-based or household vehicle miles traveled per capita. For office projects, travel refers to commute attraction vehicle miles traveled per employee; however, where such data are not available, office projects reference either home-based or household vehicle miles traveled per capita.
"Major Transit Stop" means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with frequencies of service intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. For the purposes of this Appendix, an "existing major transit stop" may include a planned and funded stop that is included in an adopted regional transportation improvement program.
"Office building" generally refers to centers for governmental or professional services; however, the lead agency shall have discretion in determining whether a project is "commercial" or "office building" for the purposes of this Appendix based on local zoning codes.
"Significant sources of air pollution" include airports, marine ports, rail yards and dist ibution centers that receive more than 100 heavy-duty truck visits per day, as well as stationary sources that are designated major by the Clean Air Act.
A "Traffic Analysis Zone" is an analytical unit used by a travel demand model to estimate vehicle travel within a region.
Ill. Performance Standards Related to Project Design
To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a project must implement all of the following:
Renewable Energy. All non-residential projects shall include on-site renewable power generation, such as solar photovoltaic, solar thermal and wind power generation, or clean back- up power supplies, where feasible. Residential projects are also encouraged to include such on-site renewable power generation.
Soil and Water Remediation. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, the project shall document how it has remediated the site, if remediation is completed. Alternatively, the project shall implement the recommendations provided in a preliminary endangerment assessment or comparable document that identifies remediation appropriate for the site.
Residential Units Near High-Volume Roadways and Stationary Sources. If a project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or other distance determined to be appropriate by the local agency or air district based on local conditions, of a high volume roadway or other significant sources of air pollution, the project shall comply with any policies and standards identified in the local general plan, specific plan, zoning code or community risk reduction plan for the protection of public health from such sources of air pollution. If the local government has not adopted such plans or policies, the project shall include measures, such as enhanced air filtration and project design, that the lead agency finds, based on substantial evidence, will promote the protection of public health from sources of air pollution. Those measure may include, among others, the recommendations of the California Air Resources Board, air districts, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.
IV. Additional Performance Standards by Project Type
In addition to the project features described above in Section Ill, specific eligibility requirements are provided below by project type.
Several of the performance standards below refer to "low vehicle travel areas". Such areas can be illustrated on maps based on data developed by the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) using its regional travel demand model.
Several of the performance standards below refer to distance to transit. Distance should be calculated so that at least 75 percent of the surface area of the project site is within the specified distance.
A. Residential
To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a project must satisfy one of the following: ·
Projects achieving below average regional per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A residential project is eligible if it is located in a "low vehicle travel area" within the region.
Projects located within % mile of an Existing Major Transit Stop or High Quality Transit Corridor. A residential project is eligible if it is located within Yz mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor.
Low-Income Housing. A residential or mixed-use project consisting of 300 or fewer residential units all of which are affordable to low income households is eligible if the developer of the development project provides sufficient legal commitments to the lead agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
B. Commercial/Retail
To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a project must satisfy one of the following:
Regional Location. A commercial project with no single-building floor-plate greater than 50,000 square feet is eligible if it locates in a "low vehicle travel area."
Proximity to Households. A project with no single-building floor-plate greater than 50,000 square feet located within one-half mile of 1800 households is eligible.
C. Office Building
To be eligible for streamlining pursuant to Section 15183.3, a project must satisfy one of the following:
Regional Location. Office buildings, both commercial and public, are eligible if they. locate in a low vehicle travel area.
Proximity to a Major Transit Stop. Office buildings, both commercial and public, within % mile of an existing major transit stop, or X mile of an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor, are eligible.
D. Transit
Transit stations, as defined in Section 15183.3(e)(1), are eligible.
E. Schools
Elementary schools within one mile of fifty percent of the projected student population are eligible.
Middle schools and high schools within two miles of fifty percent of the projected student population are eligible. Alternatively, any school within % mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor is eligible.
Additionally, in order to be eligible, all schools shall provide parking and storage for bicycles and scooters and shall comply with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the California Education Code.
F. Small Walkable Community Projects
Small walkable community projects, as defined in Section 15183.3, subdivision (e)(6), that implement the project features described in Section Ill above are eligible.
G. Mixed-Use Projects
Where a project includes some combination of residential, commercial and retail, office building, transit station, and/or schools, the performance standards in this Section that apply to the predominant use shall govern the entire project.
Authority: Public Resources Code 21083, 21094.5.5
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21094.5 and 21094.5.5
Proposed Appendix N: Infill Environmental Checklist form
NOTE: This sample form is intended to assist lead agencies in assessing infill projects according to the procedures provided in Section 21094.5 of the Public Resources Code. Lead agencies may customize this form as appropriate, provided that the content satisfies the require ments in Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1. Project title: _________________________________________________________________
2. Lead agency name and address:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Contact person and phone number: _______________________________________________
4. Project location: ______________________________________________________________
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. General plan designation: _______________________ 7. Zoning: ____________________
8. Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (including State Clearinghouse Number if assigned):_______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
9. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________
10. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off- site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings, including any prior uses of the project site, or, if vacant, describe the urban uses that exist on at least 75% of the project’s perimeter:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
SATISFACTION OF APPENDIX M PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Provide the information demonstrating that the infill project satisfies the performance standards in Appendix M below. For mixed-use projects , the predominant use will determine which performance standards apply to the entire project.
1. Does the non-residential infill project include a renewable energy feature? If so, describe below. If not, explain below why it is not feasible to do so. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
2. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, either provide documentation of remediation or describe the recommendations provided in a preliminary enda ngerment assessment or comparable document that will be implemented as part of the project.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3. If the infill project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or such distance that the local agency or local air district has determined is appropriate based on local conditions, a high volume roadway or other significant source of air pollution, as defined in Appendix M, describe the measures that the project will implement to protect public health. Such measures may include policies and standards identified in the local general plan, specific plans, zoning code or community risk reduction plan, or measures recommended in a health risk assessment, to promote the protection of public health. Identify the policies or standards, or refer to the site specific analysis, below. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
4. For residential projects, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.)
Consists of 300 or fewer units that are each affordable to low income households. (Attach evidence of legal commitment to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.)
5. For commercial projects with a single building floor-plate below 50,000 square feet, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) The project is within one-half mile of 1800 dwelling units. (Attach map illustrating proximity to households.)
6. For office building projects, the project satisfies which of the following? Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or within ¼ of a stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit.)
7. For school projects, the project does all of the following:
The project complies with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the California Education Code.
The project is an elementary school and is within one mile of 50% of the student population, or is a middle school or high school and is within two miles of 50% of the student population. Alternatively, the school is within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map and methodology.)
The project provides parking and storage for bicycles and scooters.
8. For small walkable community projects, the project must be a residential project that has a density of at least eight units to the acre or a commercial project with a floor area ratio of at least 0.5, or both.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The infill project could potentially result in one or more of the following environmental effects.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed infill project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that either have not alread y been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development poli cies would not substantially mitigate.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed.
I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more sign ificant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION , or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared.
I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more sign ificant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared.
I find that the proposed infill project would have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substan tially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects WOULD be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA.
Signature Date
EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INFILL PROJECTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) For the purposes of this checklist, “prior EIR” means the environmental impact report certified for a planning level decision, as supplemented by any subsequent or supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those documents. “Planning level decision” means the enactment or amendment of a general plan, community plan, specific plan, or zoning code. (Section 15183.3(e).) 4) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur as a result of an infill project, then the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact has already been analyzed in a prior EIR. If the effect of the infill project is not more significant than what has already been analyzed, that effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA. The brief explanation accompanying this determination should include page and section references to the portions of the prior EIR containing the analysis of that effect. The brief explanation shall also indicate whether the prior EIR included any mitigation measures to substantially lessen that effect and whether those measures have been incorporated into the infill project.
5) If the infill project would cause a significant adverse effect that either is specific to the project or project site and was not analyzed in a prior EIR, or is more significant than what was analyzed in a prior EIR, the lead agency must determine whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards that have been adopted by the lead agency, or city or county, would substantially mitigate that effect. If so, the checklist shall explain how the infill project’s implementation of the uniformly applicable development policies will substantially mitigate that effect. That effect of the infill project is not subject to CEQA if the lead agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that effect.
6) If all effects of an infill project were either analyzed in a prior EIR or are substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies or standards, CEQA does not apply to the project, and the lead agency shall file a Notice of Determination. 7) Effects of an infill project that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or that uniformly applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, are subject to CEQA. With respect to those effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA, the checklist shall indicate whether those effects are significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. If there are one or more " Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an infill EIR is required. The infill EIR should be limited to analysis of those effects determined to be significant. (Sections 15128, 15183.3(d).)
8) "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures will reduce an effect of an infill project that is subject to CEQA from " Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how those measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. If the effects of an infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the lead agency may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If all of the effects of the infill project that are subject to CEQA are less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a Negative Declaration. 9) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to an infill project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 10) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Issues:
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) 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 Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) 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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would
the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) 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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) 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, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Authority: Public Resources Code 21083, 21094.5.5
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21094.5 and 21094.5.5
From:
To: Jason Lindgren
Subject: Re: PLNG 22-040
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 4:37:36 PM
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Jason, can this be read before any vote tonight?
I am here to request the council continues review of this subdivision om Pleasant Grove Road. As you are aware there has been grammar school there for decades. There are several irregularities in the design the Council may not be aware of:
Removing of Heritage oaks, Miscalculating affects of Storm water run-off adjacent and downstream of site, sqweezing lot size to bare minimum in order to capitalize on its profit potential.
Over 50 neighbors have voiced objection on its density.
To mitigate everyone’s concern we are requesting that a minimum of 5 acres be left as a park or as an undisturbed block of land. Hire an independent consultant to review Storm water run off
Concerned Neighborhood Group