(portions of page under construction - water pollution risks will be discussed here)
Excess stormwater and flooding risks
The environmental study (IS-MND) does not resolve the project's likely problem of flooding. It does not reveal where all the new stormwater runoff will be collected after the project's 2.7 acre site is nearly entirely covered with asphalt paving and buildings. Now most of the stormwater sinks into the ground. An 18-inch diameter culvert also handles some current runoff. But the IS-MND admits the culvert is undersized to accommodate all the additional stormwater runoff. The public should be informed in the IS-MND if either the 18" culvert needs to be enlarged or if more open retention basins are needed in place of some of the warehouse buildings. The public must be alerted to the possibility that the project's stormwater discharges may pollute the headwaters at the City Park nearby.
The City has hidden a Drainage Study prepared for this project from readily-accessible public review. Other studies supporting the IS-MND are available online as part of the IS-MND's Appendices. But not the Drainage Study. It is as if the city does not want the public to easily review that Study. And the Drainage Study does not answer the most important question: will this project's excessive runoff during major storms cause flooding onsite or along North Mt. Shasta Boulevard or Ski Village Drive or pollute the quality of the headwaters at the City Park?
The city instead is allowing the developer to later, once the public review period ends, submit another study to evaluate if the drainage culvert needs to be enlarged or if the "on-site drainage system must be redesigned to provide for retention of all stormwater from the 100-year design storm without connecting to the 18-inch culvert." That of course violates CEQA because it prevents the public from independently reviewing the project applicant's assumptions, calculations and conclusions.
That mitigation is clearly inconsistent with a 1988 court decision in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino and H. Bud Miller. Bud Miller, also a developer, used to live and work here in the Mt. Shasta community. In that case, one of his projects located elsewhere was challenged in court for not revealing before a MND was approved how his project's runoff water would be handled. That agency allowed him to later submit a future study but the court ruled that deferred analysis and mitigation was unlawful where it stated:
"The requirement that the applicant adopt mitigation measures recommended in a future study is in direct conflict with the guidelines implementing CEQA. California Administrative Code, title 14, section 15070, subdivision (b)(1) provides that if an applicant proposes measures that will mitigate environmental effects, the project plans must be revised to incorporate these mitigation measures "before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review...." (Emphasis added.) Here, the use permit contemplates that project plans may be revised to incorporate needed mitigation measures after the final adoption of the negative declaration. This procedure, we repeat, is contrary to law."
The Court also stated:
"By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process."
"By merely requiring administrative approval of the hydrological studies, the use permit provides no similar guarantee of an adequate inquiry into environmental effects. An EIR or negative declaration, moreover, are subject to review by the public and interested agencies. ... This requirement of "public and agency review" has been called "the strongest assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." .... The final EIR must respond with specificity to the "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process." ... If any substantial changes are proposed in a project after review of a draft EIR, it is necessary to prepare a supplemental EIR subject to the same scrutiny. .... Here, the hydrological studies envisioned by the use permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental scrutiny."
"The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data. "
The city has not presented any reason why such analysis could not be conducted now, and why deferral of such studies until after project approval is warranted. The city has not analyzed the different mitigation alternatives that might ultimately be incorporated into the project. It is not impractical or infeasible to fully formulate the details of a mitigation measure to prevent flooding.
If the 18-inch culvert is unable to handle the volume of stormwater, the city is proposing a mitigation to allow the developer to redesign his site plan and drainage plan without any connection to that 18-inch culvert. If not connected there, then where?
How that will be done however is a mystery, and it needs to be evaluated now, not later. How will all the stormwater volume from a severe, 100-year storm be retained onsite without draining to a culvert? Or will those redirected stormwater flows be allowed to flow downward toward the headwaters of the Sacramento River and pollute Big Springs Creek across the street to the west at the City Park?
The public therefore need only demand that an EIR be prepared because the city does not have sufficient evidence yet to support the IS-MND's determination that stormwater impacts will be less than significant.
The City has hidden a Drainage Study prepared for this project from readily-accessible public review. Other studies supporting the IS-MND are available online as part of the IS-MND's Appendices. But not the Drainage Study. It is as if the city does not want the public to easily review that Study. And the Drainage Study does not answer the most important question: will this project's excessive runoff during major storms cause flooding onsite or along North Mt. Shasta Boulevard or Ski Village Drive or pollute the quality of the headwaters at the City Park?
The city instead is allowing the developer to later, once the public review period ends, submit another study to evaluate if the drainage culvert needs to be enlarged or if the "on-site drainage system must be redesigned to provide for retention of all stormwater from the 100-year design storm without connecting to the 18-inch culvert." That of course violates CEQA because it prevents the public from independently reviewing the project applicant's assumptions, calculations and conclusions.
That mitigation is clearly inconsistent with a 1988 court decision in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino and H. Bud Miller. Bud Miller, also a developer, used to live and work here in the Mt. Shasta community. In that case, one of his projects located elsewhere was challenged in court for not revealing before a MND was approved how his project's runoff water would be handled. That agency allowed him to later submit a future study but the court ruled that deferred analysis and mitigation was unlawful where it stated:
"The requirement that the applicant adopt mitigation measures recommended in a future study is in direct conflict with the guidelines implementing CEQA. California Administrative Code, title 14, section 15070, subdivision (b)(1) provides that if an applicant proposes measures that will mitigate environmental effects, the project plans must be revised to incorporate these mitigation measures "before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review...." (Emphasis added.) Here, the use permit contemplates that project plans may be revised to incorporate needed mitigation measures after the final adoption of the negative declaration. This procedure, we repeat, is contrary to law."
The Court also stated:
"By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process."
"By merely requiring administrative approval of the hydrological studies, the use permit provides no similar guarantee of an adequate inquiry into environmental effects. An EIR or negative declaration, moreover, are subject to review by the public and interested agencies. ... This requirement of "public and agency review" has been called "the strongest assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." .... The final EIR must respond with specificity to the "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process." ... If any substantial changes are proposed in a project after review of a draft EIR, it is necessary to prepare a supplemental EIR subject to the same scrutiny. .... Here, the hydrological studies envisioned by the use permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental scrutiny."
"The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data. "
The city has not presented any reason why such analysis could not be conducted now, and why deferral of such studies until after project approval is warranted. The city has not analyzed the different mitigation alternatives that might ultimately be incorporated into the project. It is not impractical or infeasible to fully formulate the details of a mitigation measure to prevent flooding.
If the 18-inch culvert is unable to handle the volume of stormwater, the city is proposing a mitigation to allow the developer to redesign his site plan and drainage plan without any connection to that 18-inch culvert. If not connected there, then where?
How that will be done however is a mystery, and it needs to be evaluated now, not later. How will all the stormwater volume from a severe, 100-year storm be retained onsite without draining to a culvert? Or will those redirected stormwater flows be allowed to flow downward toward the headwaters of the Sacramento River and pollute Big Springs Creek across the street to the west at the City Park?
The public therefore need only demand that an EIR be prepared because the city does not have sufficient evidence yet to support the IS-MND's determination that stormwater impacts will be less than significant.
The city already has a flooding problem adjacent to this site
where Ski Village Drive is sometimes flooded. (photo above)
where Ski Village Drive is sometimes flooded. (photo above)