Loading...
R 2466 l:. RESOLurlON NO. 2466 \ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL Ol~ THE CITV OF ARROYO CRANDE CER1UYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REI'ORT I'REPARED FOR THE "ItANCHO GRANDE" I'ROJECf APPLlCA1'ONS AND ADOJPnNG FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVEIUUDlNG CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE 1'0 SUCH APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has received "Project Applications" Crom OTfSB, Inc. relative to the Rancho Grande development for the following: 1. General Development Plan for the "unplanned areas" of the Rancho Grande Planned Development, 2. Specific Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 1834, 3. Spedfic Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 1994, 4. Specific Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 1997. WHEREAS, a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") was prepared for Ihe Project Applications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the Stale CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA (collectively "CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Final EIR, has considered it in its deliberations on the Project Applications, and has recommended that this City Council cerlify the Final EIR as adequate; and WHEREAS, this Council finds that the Final EIR meets the requirements of State and tocal environmental laws, adequately addresses the potentially slgnifleant environmental impacts resulting from the Project Applications, recommends suitable avoidance and mitigation measure.~ for said impact'!, and provides a rea.'IOnable range oC alternalives to the development proposals contained in the Project Applications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, California hereby certified and determines as follows: " Certification of Final EIR. This Council hereby certifies the Final BlR as 1. set forth in Section I of Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. AdQption of CEOA Findinp. This Council hereby makes those flDdings set forth in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. On motion by Smith , seconded by Dougall and by the Collowing roll cull vote, to wit: AVES: Council Members Smith, Dougall, Moots and Mayor Millis NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Olsen The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 30thday of April, 1991. ~::ku~ ATrEST: ~a. Q,.I~~ Nancy A. Da City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: --- -_._~_.- ---_.. ATTACHMENT A CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE RANCHO GRANDE PROJECT AND FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THAT PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRO_Dl'~'AL QUALITY ACT I. INTRODUCTION A. Overview. ,- 1. These findings are made by this City Council ("Council") of the City of Arroyo Grande ("City"), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the "CEQA Guidelines," and the City regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). These findings include this Council's certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR" or "EIR") prepared for the below-described portion of the Rancho Grande development project ("Project," which is comprised of the below-described "Project Applications"), and its findings and determinations relating to the impacts, mitigation and avoidance measures, alternatives, benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Project Applications. The Project Applications are comprised of the fOllowing: (i) Planned Development (PD) Rezone and General Development Plan for all "Unplanned Areas"; (ii) Specific Development Plan No. 90-0l and Vesting Tentative Tract No. l834 (proposal to subdivide two parcels into 220 residential lots ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to 57,200 square feet (101 Acres); (iii) Specific Development Plan No. 90-03 and vesting Tentative Tract No. 1994 (proposal to subdivide one parcel into 75 residential lots, ranging in size from ll,l50 square feet to 92,380 square feet (82 acres); and (iv) Specific Development Plan No. 90-04 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 1997 (proposal to subdivide one parcel into 56 residential lots ranging in size from 12,322 square feet to 33,790 square feet (4l acres). 2. The Final EIR is comprised of the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR, the Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR circulated for pUblic review and comment, and the additional studies conducted during the public review process which provided technical data that clarified, amplified or made insignificant modifications to some of the information already in the Draft EIR (the "Studies"), the written and oral pUblic comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR and Studies, a list of the persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR and Studies, and the responses of the City (through its consultant) to the significant environmental points raised in that public review and consultation process. 3. The Final EIRis a "Project EIR" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 1516l and is intended to serve as the environmental documentation for the Project, which as stated above is comprised of the Project Applications. The Project does not include existing Tract l132, Tract 1998 (the 40-unit "Cluster Area" guaranteed by the 1983 Development Agreement 1 discussed below) or the approximately 45 acres of "Commercial Area". However, although the Project is only comprised of the Project Applications, the Draft and Final EIR also include a complete analysis of the cumulative environmental impacts of the entire Rancho Grande development, including existing Tract l132, and the probable build out of the Commercial Area and the Cluster Area. Likewise, the avoidance and mitigation measures established by and through these findings, although only applicable to the Project Applications, will in practice provide mitigation for those other portions of the Rancho Grande development. The Final EIR is also intended to serve as the environmental documentation for all subsequent City and other public agency actions, approvals, permits or other entitlements ~ granted or issued in connection with the planning, approval, construction, operation and maintenance of the development contemplated by the Project Applications. . The City will consider, through separate applications, any proposals for development of the Commercial Area, the Cluster Area and lots 10 and 11 of Parcel Map 77-103 (the "Noyes Road Lots"). Because of issues peculiar to the Cluster Area, a site-specific EIR is being prepared for that Area. The General Development Plan for the Noyes Road Lots has been fully assessed in the Project EIR, and specific Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards regarding the potential future development of the Noyes Road Lots shall be imposed on that Plan. However, at this stage, only a General Development Plan designation will apply to those Lots: City review, consideration and action, including environmental determination, on a Specific Development Plan for the Noyes Road Lots will be required before development of those Lots can take place. No development proposal has been submitted for the Commercial Area. The Final EIR, or a portion thereof, may also serve as the environmental documentation for the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or any other federal, State or local agency actions or decisions relating to any permit, approval or other entitlement which may be issued, or other action taken, relating to the Project/Project Applications. B. certification of Final EIR. 1. This Council certifies (i) that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that the Final EIR was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by, this Council prior to taking final action on (approving) the Project Applications. 2. In so certifying, this Council recognizes that there may be minor "differences" in and among the different sources of information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the Final EIR and the ,r administrative record as a whole. Experts can disagree, and this Council must base its decisions and these findings on that substantial evidence in the record that it finds most compelling. Therefore, by these findings, this Council ratifies, clarifies, and/or makes insignificant modifications in the Final EIR as set forth in these findings, and determines that these findings (and the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and Design Standards (Exhibit C) that these findings incorporate by reference) shall control and that the Final EIR shall be deemed to be certified sUbject to the determinations reached by this Council in these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole. 2 ~. _.'--- C. The proiect Site. l. OTTSE, Inc. ("Applicant") originally owned all of the 464-acre (approximate) property commonly known as the "Rancho Grande" development. 2. The "Project Site" is approximately 264 acres of that original z 464-acre total and comprises that area encompassed by the Project Applications. By these findings and the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and Design Standards (Exhibit C), over forty percent (40\) of the 264-acre Project Site will be retained as open space/wildlife habitat, not counting the buffers and set-backs which will complement those open space/habitat uses. This open space/wildlife habitat area ,- includes both buildable and nonbuildable areas. 3. The Project Site consists of rolling grasslands, interspersed with oak savannah and oak woodlands, and ranges in elevation from approximately 90 feet to approximately 470 feet. Over 11,000 oak trees will be protected, most in large, contiguous forests. Overall, approximately 100 trees, less than 1\, will likely be lost due to the Project and these will be replaced at a ratio of three-to-one (not counting street trees). 4. Although the Project Site is presently undeveloped, it is largely surrounded by urban development. It is adjacent to residential development to the east, along Rancho Parkway, and to the west of proposed Tract 1997, in the area served by Equestrian Way. In addition, there is residential development directly northeast of the Project Site, and to the southwest along James Way, east of Oak Park Boulevard. Commercial development exists south of the Project Site along the Highway 101 frontage road and to the southwest along Oak Park Boulevard. The Project Site is located directly North of U.S. Highway 101 and east of Oak Park Boulevard. Access to the Project Site is provided by Rancho Parkway and James Way. D. Procedural Historv. l. In 1978, Applicant sought and the City approved Ordinance No. 186 C.S., which zoned the entire 464-acre property from Agricultural District (A), to Planned Development (PD). Ordinance No. 186 C.S. included a conceptual master plan for the following: (i) Three "planned areas" that designate a local street system and a specific lot layout for 354 residential units (Tracts 1132 and l834), as well as approximately 45 acres of commercial area; (ii) One "cluster area" that designates a local street system and 40 single-family units without a ~ specific lot layout (Tract 1998); and (iii) Three "unplanned areas" that do not designate either a local street system or a specific lot layout, but which do require the placement of l33 lots within the three unplanned areas (Tracts 1994, 1997 and lots lO and 11 of Parcel Map 77-103 (the Noyes Road Lots)). 2. On or about November 30, 1983, the City approved a "Development Agreement" by and between the City and the Applicant for the entire Rancho Grande development. The Development Agreement incorporates Ordinance No. 186 C.S. and the original subdivision maps relating the Rancho Grande development, determines the specific street and lot layout (configuration) for Tract 1834, and guarantees approval of 527 3 ----'--' single-family residential units for the Rancho Grande development. Also in 1983, the City approved Subdivision Tract l132, consisting of 134 residential units, leaving 393 residential units to be approved under the Development Agreement. (Tract 1132 is largely built out tOday.) The Project Applications encompass 353 residential units; the 2 Noyes Road Lots (lots 10 and II of Parcel Map 77-l03) are included in that 353 unit total, are already in existence, and, as explained above, will not be developed until a Specific Development Plan is submitted for City review, consideration and action. Tract 1998 (the 40-unit Cluster Area) will undergo separate review through a separate EIR, and encompasses the remainder of the residential units guaranteed by the Development Agreement. The Commercial Area is not being proposed for development at this time. ~ 3. In 1988, Applicant applied to the City for approval of Subdivision Tract l642, which proposed 83 residential units in an area now comprising current Tract 1994 of the Project Applications. City denied Tract 1642, stating that it wanted a new EIR prepared to consider the bulk of the remaining residential development left under the Development Agreement in order to environmentally review and plan such development at one time. The Project Applications and the Draft and Final EIR are products of that City determination. 4. In 1990, Applicant applied to the City for approval of the Project Applications. 5. Pursuant to CEQA, the City retained the consulting firm of Denise Duffy & Associates to prepare a Draft and Final EIR to evaluate the potential effects of the project, including the Project Approvals. The City held a "scoping" hearing on August 22, 1990, at which it secured pUblic input regarding the scope and breadth of the Draft EIR prior to its preparation. 6. The Draft EIR was completed in January 1991. The City filed a "Notice of Completion" regarding the Draft EIR with the State, and published the Draft EIR for pUblic review and comment. The public review period for the Draft EIR began January 9, 1991 and was closed February 25, 1991, for a total of 45 calendar days. During that period, approximately 28 written comments regarding the Draft EIR and the Studies were received from state and local agencies, organizations, area residents and the Applicant. Also made available to the public were the above-described Studies prepared by Project consultants and interested persons regarding certain aspects of the Project Applications. After the close of that period, a letter was received from the State Department of Fish and Game ("DFG"). Although that letter was not a comment within the official public review period requiring a corresponding response, all of the points raised by DFG have been addressed and resolved by the City in the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), the Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B) and the Design Standards (Exhibit C). 7. The City's Planning Commission held public hearings to consider the Draft (and later Final) EIR, the Project and the Project Applications on January 29, 1991, March 5, 1991, March 18, 1991, March 27, 1991, and April 2, 1991. In addition, the Planning Commission and the City Council met for a field trip and hearing at the Project Site on February 7, 1991. 8. In March 1991, the Final EIR was prepared, which summarizes, considers, and responds to each of the written and oral comments to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR also contains a list of changes to be made to the Draft EIR, and a revised "Summary of Environmental Impacts." 4 ------.. 9. On April 2, 1991, after a properly noticed public hearing at which it received staff, public and Applicant testimony and documentation, the City Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council: (i) certification of the Final EIR; and (2) approval of the Project Applications. 10. On April 9, 1991, this Council held a properly noticed pUblic hearing, at which it received staff, public and Applicant testimony and documentation relating to the Final EIR and Project Applications. That hearing was continued to April 23, 1991, at which time further testimony and documentation were received by this Council. On April 23, 1991, after the close of that public hearing, this Council introduced Ordinance No. __ C.S., relating to the General Development Plan for the Unplanned Areas. On April 30, 1991, prior to taking final action on the Project Applications, this Council certified the Final EIR as adequate and complete (above), and adopted these findings relative to its intended approval and adoption of the Project Applications, and the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B) and Design Standards (Exhibit C) attached thereto. E. Description Of The Record. The record before this Council relating to this action includes, without limitation, the following: 1. All studies, letters and other submittals relating to the Project and Project Applications; 2. All staff reports, resolutions, Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Recommended Design Manual Standards ("Design Standards") relating to the Project and Project Applications; 3. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed by City staff, the City Planning Commission and this Council prior to, during, and subsequent to all pUblic hearings relating to the Project, and the Project Applications; 4. The Draft and Final EIR, as herein described; 5. All matters of common knowledge, the City General Plan as currently adopted and as in effect in 1983, the 1983 and current revisions of the City Zoning Code, Ordinance Nos. 186 C.S. and 302 C.S., the Development Agreement, and all other applicable City pOlicies, regulations, standards and specifications. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial evidence contained in the entire record. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by competent and substantial evidence , in the record. F. Other Controllina Determinations. 1. This Council finds and determines that the wildlife, biotic, planning and other Studies conducted contemporaneously with or after publication of the Draft EIR, but prior to the certification of the Final EIR, did not provide significant new information or require substantial changes to the Draft EIR. Instead, the Studies merely clarified, amplified or caused insignificant modifications to the information already contained in the Draft EIR. The Studies were made available to the public for review and comment, public comments were received, and were reviewed and considered by the City Planning Commission before making its 5 recommendation to this Council, and by this Council before making these findings. Based on its review of the standards set forth in Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162-l5l64, this Council finds that there is no basis in the record to support requiring the preparation of an addendum to the Final EIR, a supplemental EIR, a subsequent EIR or a recirculation of the Draft or Final EIR to address the Studies. 2. Specific "Conditions of Approval" containing avoidance and mitigation measures, specific Recommended Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program ("Mitigation Measures") containing additional avoidance and mitigation measures, and specific Recommended Design Manual Standards ("Design Standards") also containing avoidance and mitigation measures have been drafted for each of the different Project ~ Applications (e.g., Tract 1834 has "Tract l834 Conditions of Approval as well as particular Mitigation MeasUres and Design Standards). Any differences between the Conditions, Measures and Standards from Project Application to Project Application reflect measures and resolutions unique to the physical property comprising the particular Project Application. These differences generally fall into the areas of open space, building/structure setbacks, height limitations and other particular biotic (plant and animal resource) protection measures. Each Project Application has its own Conditions of Approval. All of the different Project Application Conditions of Approval are collected together and contained in Exhibit A, all of the Mitigation Measures are contained in Exhibit B, and all of the Design Standards are contained in Exhibit C. All of the avoidance and mitigation measures that make up these Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards (all of which are adopted in these findings) are designed to be: (i) incorporated as pOlicies within the Project and the Project Applications; (ii) made a condition to, and incorporated in, the Project Application approvals; and (iii) effected through specific (delineated) implementing programs and plans (e.g., Master Trail Plan), which programs and plans are described in and mandated by the Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards. The City shall monitor the implementation of the Mitigation Measures established in the Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards, and in these findings (Section VII). The Developer shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. 3. In considering and adopting alternatives and avoidance and mitigation measures for the Project Approvals, or subsequent development approvals, this Council is subject to Public Resources Code section 21004 and the Development Agreement. As stated above, on November 30, 1983, the City and OTTSE entered into a Development Agreement relating to the Rancho Grande Project. The Development Agreement vested in (- OTTSE the right to develop 527 units in Rancho Grande to completion, subject only to City Ordinance No. 186 C.S. (the project's Planned Development zoning), the original subdivision i maps granted thereunder, and those laws in effect on , November 30, 1983. Substantial public benefits in excess of the burdens created by the Rancho Grande development were conferred by OTTSE in the form of infrastructure (streets, water, drainage) improvements as consideration for the vested rights to develop OTTSE secured through the Development Agreement. But for the Development Agreement, OTTSE would not have provided those improvements. A portion of that Rancho Grande development (Tract ll32) has now been built and the infrastructure improvements have been constructed; the remainder (excluding 6 ------. the 40-unit Cluster Area and the Commercial Area) is the subject of the Final EIR. As the administrative record reveals, and as these findings reflect, there may be additional permits necessary from other agencies (e.g., Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers) to develop portions of the Project Site. Because of the Development Agreement, this Council must approve development on the Project Site. However, this Council cannot mandate the Section 404 permit and other decisions of other agencies. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(2), this Council hereby finds that such other permits/actions/changes are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency and not the City, and that such permits/actions/changes can and will be adopted by such other agencies. -, Likewise, through the Development Agreement and the Project Applications as modified by the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), the Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), the Design Standards (Exhibit C), and these findings, the City has secured substantial social, economic and other benefits (described in detail in Section VI of these findings) which allow the City to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which Statement deems infeasible certain mitigation measures and alternatives and which determines acceptable any remaining environmental impacts. Notwithstanding its vested rights, the Applicant has consented to be bound (for itself and its successors in interest) by the mitigation measures and alternatives set forth in these findings and the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B) and Design Standards (Exhibit C) which sometimes conflict with the Development Agreement). By these findings, this Council has attempted to avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance all Project impacts, and to otherwise consider, address and resolve all of the environmental concerns raised during the pUblic p'rocess. These Council efforts, however, have had to be conducted within the constraints of the Development Agreement, and the Applicant's willingness to waive or forgo certain of its vested rights guaranteed by the Development Agreement. That waiver of vested rights, if not given by Applicant, would have made "infeasible" (1) many of the avoidance and mitigation measures that shall be imposed on the Project Applications, and (2) the Alternative Development Plan Alternative, which, by these findings, will modify the Tract 1834 Project Application by replacing the Tract l834 layout as originally approved by the Development Agreement with the layout required by the Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards. To the extent that a significant impact remains unavoided or not mitigated to a less-than-significant level, it is determined by this Council to be infeasible of such avoidance or mitigation because of the Development Agreement and because of the specific social, economic and other reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained herein (Section VI). : 4. The discussions which follow under the captions "Facts" for each category recite some of the background information relating to the Project. The discussions under the captions "Findings" contain findings made by this Council, based on the entire record before this Council, including without limitation the information which is recited in the discussion of "Facts." References to specific portions of the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), the Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B) and the Design Standards (Exhibit C) is provided to indicate where the particular avoidance or mitigation measures being imposed can be located. Such references are not intended as a limited adoption of said Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards which are, instead, adopted in full. 7 5. This Council intends that these findings and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any subdivision of these findings and determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these findings and determinations, that any finding or determination required or permitted to be made by this Council shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of this document. All of the text included in this document constitutes findings and determinations by this Council, whether or not any particular caption, sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. 6. Although the discussions under the captions "Facts" below may primarily or entirely be based on the Final EIR, this Council intends that each finding herein is based on the entire record, including written and oral testimony to the - City Planning Commission and this Council. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by this Council that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact. This Council's findings as set forth herein are based on all of the facts in the record before this Council. 7. Any erroneous reference to or omission of a reference to a specific Condition of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measure (Exhibit B), or Design Standard (Exhibit C) shall in no way affect the validity of the measures imposed to reduce significant Project impacts to a less-than-significant level; to this end, all such Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards are adopted, whether or not each is specifically referenced in these findings. This Council recognizes that many of the Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards imposed or adopted by this Council to mitigate the environmental impacts identified in the administrative record may have the effect of mitigating multiple impacts (e.g., conditions imposed prima~ily to mitigate drainage impacts may also secondarily mitigate soils impacts; conditions imposed primarily to mitigate traffic impacts may also secondarily mitigate air quality impacts, etc.) This Council has not attempted to exhaustively cross-reference all potential impacts mitigated by the imposition of a particular Condition of Approval, Mitigation Measure or Design Standard; however, such failure to cross-reference shall not be construed as a limitation on the potential scope or effect of any such Condition, Mitigation Measure or Design Standard imposed or adopted. 8. Any modification of mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR is based on this Council's determination that the implementation of the mitigation measure as originally proposed is undesirable, impractical or otherwise infeasible. To the extent practical, the reasons for each such particular determination have been explained in these findings, and the record as a whole. ,- 9. Unless otherwise indicated in the text of the EIR or these findings, all recommended avoidance and mitigation measures are determined to avoid or substantially reduce any significant adverse environmental impact of the Project to a level of insignificance; further, all mitigation measures, themselves, are determined not to result in any potentially significant adverse impacts. Those avoidance and mitigation measures requiring the preparation of a plan or program were sometimes in reaction to impacts which were assumed to be present and significant in order to fashion suitable measures. For example, the presence of the Pismo Clarkia was assumed (even though not conclusively shown to be present) in order to fashion an avoidance and mitigation program (including relocation) should the Pismo Clarkia later be discovered. These plans and programs are established to ensure adequate avoidance and mitigation measure implementation and monitoring after Project Application approval. 8 -_._._~_. .--------.-.....-----....- .., ..-.---.--......--.----.-. .---------...- II. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS BEING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT, ALTHOUGH RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES WILL REDUCE SUCH IMPACTS TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL A. Generallv. (a) Facts and Findinas. (1) The fOllowing facts and findings do not repeat the full discussions of impacts and mitigation measures contained in the documents making up the administrative record. Instead, the facts and findings specifically reference particular documents containing such information (e.g., the Draft EIR, Final EIR, Condition of I Approval, etc.), which documents are either attached hereto or readily available to the public for review. (2) Each of the Project Applications (Tracts 1994, 1997 and 1834, and the General Development Plan for the Nunplanned areasN (NGeneral Development PlanN)) will have specific Conditions of Approval (all of which are contained in Exhibit A). As stated in Section I of these findings, these separate Conditions of Approval are predominantly repetitive of each other (from Application to Application), with the only variations reflecting building height, setback, and open space issues, which are particular to each portion of the Project Site encompassed by the particular Project Application. The NFindingsN portion of the impacts discussions below reference the Conditions of Approval for each Tract. Except for the discussion under land use impacts (applicable to Lots 10 and 11 of Parcel Map 77-103) the impact discussions do not reference the General Development Plan Conditions of Approval because, such Conditions simply incorporate by reference the Tract 1994 and 1997 Conditions of Approval. Likewise, except as applicable to said Lots 10 and 11, the Design Standards referenced apply equally to all of the project Applications. The Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B) are compiled on a master list derived from the individual lists of Mitigation Measures for each of the Project Applications. Therefore, the findings below references each Project Application's Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), as well as the master list of Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B) and the Design Standards (Exhibit C). (3) Much discussion and consideration was given to the presence of Torrey Pines in and around the Noyes Road Lots. Given the fact that the Pines are not indigenous to the area and based on the facts in the record that the Pines can encroach into and crowd out the oaks and other natural vegetation, this Council has not provided the same heightened protection measures given the oaks. (4) The Project Applications must be r consistent with, and an implementation of, the applicable General Plan's goals, pOlicies and objectives. The General ! Plan goals, pOlicies and objectives must themselves be i harmonized with each other. For example, the General Plans , Housing and Land Use Elements specifically contemplate the residential development proposed in the Project Applications, while the General Plan's Conservation and Open Space Element generally speaks to the need for measures preserving and protecting natural vegetation and habitat within the City, to the extent feasible. These many goals, pOlicies and objective can and must be harmonized. Obviously, any form of development will reduce vegetation and habitat to some extent. Alternatively, absolute preservation of all natural resources would likely preclude any development. The General Plan's goals, pOlicies and objectives recognize this situation and call for a harmonizing of these many goals, policies and 9 objectives in order to secure development which is planned in a manner that will balance the development needs of the City with its natural resource protection/preservation needs. The Project Applications, as modified by these findings, will reflect such a harmonious balancing of General Plan goals, pOlicies and objectives. The Applicant has consented to waive certain of its vested rights through its consent to these findings (and the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), the Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and the Design Standards (Exhibit C) that they incorporate) in order to address the City's and public's concerns regarding the environmental effects (e.g., biotic effects) of the Project. For example, more than 40\ of the Project Site will remain in open space/wildlife habitat use; the Applicant has consented to a modification of the lot layout of Tract l834 (guaranteed by I the Development Agreement) that will reduce tree loss from over 600 trees to less than lOO trees; wildlife corridors between the different Tracts (1834, 1994, 1997) comprising the Project Applications will also be established and preserved; a fund for the acquisition of off-site lands to be made a permanent refuge for common animals (e.g., badger, deer, etc.) will be established with an initial $25,000 donation from tpe Applicant and will be supplemented by a $lOO-per-house fee collected at the building permit stage through the buildout of the development; the core oak woodlands and riparian areas of the Project Site will also be preserved and enhanced; Design Standards to ensure that the development is constructed and maintained in an environmentally sensitive manner will also be imposed; and other similar measures will be employed. This Council, recognizing its obligations and limitations under the applicable General Plan and Development Agreement, must allow residential development of the Project Site. However, its imposition of a wide variety of Conditions, Mitigations, and Design Standards will ensure that the Project is consistent with the many goals, policies and objectives of the applicable General Plan, and that the development that will be allowed is done in an environmentally sensitive manner. B. Geoloav. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on geology are discussed at pages 9-20 in the Draft EIR, at pages 19-20 of the Final EIR, in pUblic comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the Project's ~ geological impacts will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) condition 22 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 20-22 of " the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 20-22 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and (ii) paragraphs 1-7 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). C. Soils. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on soils are discussed at pages 21-26 in the Draft EIR, at pages 20-21 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments 10 --.--.-,-"- --~,--,- - (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the impacts of the Project on soils will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 2l, 37, 39, and 41-43, of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 20-22, 36-38 and 40-42 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 20-22, 36-38 and 40-42 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); (ii) paragraphs 6-7 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and (iii) paragraphs 2, ll-l6 of the ~- Design Standards (Exhibit C). D. Drainaae. (a) Facts. The EIR discusses the Project's impact on drainage and flood hazards on pages 27-32 of the Draft EIR, at pages 21-22 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. This information was further clarified by a presentation by Mr. James Garing, of Garing Taylor Associates, to the Planning Commission, which presentation underscored the fact that the Project mitigation measures will improve, not worsen, the existing drainage situation. (b) Findinas. Based on the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the Project's impacts on drainage and flood hazards will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 37, 39, 41-43 and 47-53 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 21, 22, 36-38, 40-42 and 46-52 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 21, 22, 36-38, 40-42, 46-52 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); paragraphs 8-10 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and (iii) paragraphs 11-16 of the attached Design Standards (Exhibit C), to the applicable Project Applications. E. Biotic Resources. (a) Facts. (1) The Project's impacts on biotic resources are discussed at pages 33-44 of the Draft EIR, at r pages 2l-22 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (2) Public concern over the Project's impacts on the biotic resources of the Project Site was apparent throughout the process. Despite the Development Agreement, the City and Applicant strived to find workable solutions to those concerns. In order to mitigate the Project's impacts to biotic resources to the greatest extent feasible, the City has imposed conditions of approval and mitigation measures, which include but may not be limited to the following: II (i) The establishment of a fund. by means of a one-time $25.000 donation by the Applicant and a $100 per-lot fee (to supplement the fund as lots are developed). for the development of a program by the Nature Conservancy or similar entity that will acquire off-site open space and habitat areas to mitigate the loss of common animal habitat (e.g., badger, deer, and so forth); (ii) The establishment of a protection plan for the Pismo Clarkia, if present; (iii) The preparation by a qualified botanist or licensed arborist of a tree removal and protection plan, with the imposition of penalties for the unauthorized removal or destruction of oak trees. Development. grading and filling will, whenever possible, remain outside the drip lines of existing trees; (iv) The replacement of lost oak trees with seedlings. The Applicant will contract with a qualified nursery or arborist, for a period of five years, to germinate and grow oak seedlings to replace any trees lost during development at a ratio of 3:l. The replacement trees will be inspected annually to monitor their health; (v) The preservation of over forty percent (40%) of the Project Site as open space for the preservation and enhancement of wildlife and riparian habitat, not counting buffer and set back areas which will compliment such uses; (vi) The avoidance of development of wetlands and other sensitive lands on the Project Site. (b) Findinas. Based on the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record. this Council finds that the impact of the Project upon biotic resources shall be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 84. 86 and 87 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval. conditions 82, 84 and 85 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 84. 86 and 87 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); (ii) paragraphs ll-20c of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and (iii) paragraphs 2, 17-20 of the attached Design Standards (Exhibit C), to the applicable Project Applications. F. Aesthetics. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on aesthetics, visual quality and design are discussed on pages 45-51 of the Draft EIR, at pages 32-34 of the Final EIR. in public comments and City r responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the impacts of the Project upon aesthetics, visual quality and design shall be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions l3-15 and 76-83 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 13-15 and 75-82 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 13-15 and 75-82 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); (ii) paragraphs 2l-22a of l2 --.- _... .- the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and (iii) paragraphs 2, 3-l0, 16, 2l-24 of the attached Design Standards- (Exhibi t C). G. Traffic. (a) Facts. (1) The Project's impacts upon traffic and circulation are discussed at pages 52-89 in the Draft EIR, at pages 34-38 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. ~ (2) Caltrans has made statements into the record that the approval of the Project Applications should be delayed until certain traffic improvements (Highway lOl, etc.) commenced and completed. The Development Agreement precludes such delay. Further, the buildout of the Project Application will be phased, and therefore will not reach full traffic impact until after those traffic improvements have been completed. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that: (1) The Development Agreement precludes delaying the approval of the Project Application until the traffic improvements referenced by Caltrans are completed; and (2) the impacts of the Project upon post-construction traffic shall be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 54-56, 59, 60, 75, and 87 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 53-55, 58, 59, 74 and 85 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 53-55, 58, 59, 74, and 83 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and (ii) paragraphs 23-26 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). H. Air Oualitv. (a) Facts. (1) The Project's air quality impacts are discussed at pages 90-97 in the Draft EIR, at pages 38-42 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. ,- (2) The Development Agreement guarantees the number of units being sought for approval. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that: (1) The Development Agreement guarantees the number of residential units being sought for approval. (2) The air quality impacts of the Project shall be avoided or reduced to a level insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 4 and 44 of the attached 13 Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 4 and 43 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 4 and 43 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and (ii) paragraphs 27-29 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). I. Public Services. 1. In General. The EIR states that, in general, the Project will require a variety of community services and natural resources which represent a cost to the community. The direct and indirect Project impacts and the recommended mitigation measures and findings are discussed fully below under the individual impact headings (i.e., schools, pOlice protection, etc.). 2. Water Service. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on water service are discussed at pages 98-103 in the Draft EIR, at pages 42-43 of the Final EIR, in pUblic comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the impacts of the Project upon water service shall be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 57, 61-63, and 68-70 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 56, 60-63 and 67-69 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 56, 60-63 and 67-69 of the attached Tract l834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); (ii) paragraphs 30-31 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and paragraph 20 of the attached Design Standards (Exhibit C). 3. Sewer Service. (a) Facts. The impacts of the Project on sewer service are discussed at pages 104-105 in the Draft EIR, at page 44 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that Project impacts relating to sewer service shall be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 57, 6l-63 and 70 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 56, 60-63 and 69 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 56, 60-63 and 69 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and (ii) paragraphs 32-33 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). 14 --- 4. Fire Protection. (a) Facts. The Project's impact on fire services are discussed on pages l05-107 in the Draft EIR, at pages 44-46 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final ErR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final ErR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the impacts of this Project upon fire services shall be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 6-10 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 6-10 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 6-10 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); (ii) paragraphs 34-36a of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and (iii) paragraph 14 of the attached Design Standards (Exhibit C). 5. Police Protection. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on pOlice services are discussed at pages 107-109 in the Draft ErR, at pages 46-47 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the Project's impacts upon pOlice services shall be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) condition 71 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, condition 70 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and condition 70 of the attached Tract l834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and (ii) paragraphs 37-37b of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). 6. Schools. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on schools are discussed on pages l09-112 in the Draft EIR, at pages 48 of the Final ErR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final ErR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the impacts of the Project upon schools shall be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) paragraph 38 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). 15 7. Parks and Recreation. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on parks and recreation are discussed at pages 111-116 in the Draft EIR, at pages 47-48 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) Findinas. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the impacts of ~ the Project upon parks and recreation shall be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions l3-20 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 13-19 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 13-19 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) and (ii) paragraphs 25-26 of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). J. Land Use. (a) Facts. The Project's impacts on land use are discussed at pages 118-132 in the Draft EIR, at page 48 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (b) FindinC/s. Based upon the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the impacts of the Project on land use shall be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 24 and 72-83 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 23 and 7l-81 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 23 and 7l-82 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval, and condition 7 of the attached General Development Plan Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and (ii) paragraphs 1-25 of the attached Design Standards (Exhibit C). III. OTHER FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS OF PROJECT A. SiC/nificant Unavoidable Adverse ImDacts. r l. Generallv. This Council makes the fOllowing findings regarding I those certain environmental impacts of the project and its project Applications discussed in the Final EIR which may be determined to be unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the Project. This Council finds that each significant impact not listed in the Final EIR section addressing unavoidable and irreversible impacts is determined to be capable of avoidance or mitigation to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and Design Standards (Exhibit C). 16 ,-_.._----- 2. Loss Of Trees. (a) Facts. (1) The Project's potential significant unavoidable impacts on trees are discussed at page 133 in the Draft EIR, page 4 in the Final EIR, in the public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. The Final EIR states that the loss of a significant number of trees (approximately 670 if Tract 1834 is approved as contemplated by the Development Agreement) would be potentially significant and unavoidable without a redesign of the Project. The Alternative Site Plan Alternative discussed in Section V of - these findings will reduce the loss of trees to less than 1% (less than l20 trees lost) for the entire Project Site. The Applicant has consented to this Alternative and it is adopted by this Council in these findings. (2) The Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and Design Standards (Exhibit C) shall likewise substantially reduce the Project's impact on oak trees by, among other things, requiring replacement of lost oaks trees at a ratio of 3 new trees to every tree lost, protection of tree dripline areas, building set backs and other protection and preservation mechanisms. (b) Findinos. Based on the Draft and Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that: (1) The Project's impacts on the loss of oak trees shall be substantially lessened by t~e imposition the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), the Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and the Design Standards (Exhibit C). (2) The impacts of this Project on the loss of trees which will remain, despite the imposition of the Conditions of Approval, the Mitigation Measures, and the Design Standard are unavoidable and are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project and Project Applications, as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, set forth in Section VI of these findings. B. Less-Than-Sianificant Unavoidable Adverse ImDacts. 1. Loss of ODen SDacelHabitat. (a) Facts. r ( 1) The Project's potential less-than-significant unavoidable adverse impacts are discussed at page 133 in the Draft EIR, page 4 in the Final EIR, in the public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. The Draft EIR states that the loss of open space land is not considered significant, but is an unavoidable (less-than-significant) adverse impact of the Project. (2) The Draft EIR states at page 138 that the Rancho Grande property is not, nor has it been, used for agricultural production. The land is of marginal productive quality for agricultural use because of its terrain and soil composition, as well as its proximity to surrounding residential uses. 17 - --- . (3) Forty-two percent (42%) of the 264-acre Project Site (approximately 112 acres) will be retained as open space/wildlife habitat. (b) Findinas. Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that: (1) The Project's impacts on the loss of open space, although potentially unavoidable, are less-than-significant. The Project's impacts on the loss of habitat are likewise less-than-significant, although preservation/protection measures such as enhancement of remaining land and replacement of land for common animals ~ (badgers, deer, etc.) will be secured pursuant to: (i) conditions 84, 86 and 87 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 82, 84 and 85 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 84, 86 and 87 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); (ii) paragraphs 11-20c of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and (iii) paragraphs 2, 17-20 of the attached Design Standards (Exhibit C), to the applicable Project Applications. (2) The impacts of this Project on the loss of open space are overridden and outweighed by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project and Project Applications, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, set forth in Section VI of these findings. C. Growth-Inducina Impacts. (a) Facts. (l) The Project's potential growth-inducing impacts are discussed at pages 133-134 of the Draft EIR, in the public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies, (2) The Project and Project Applications will require the expansion of pUblic and private services (e.g., water, sewer, police, gas, electric, etc.) to the Project Site. Availability of these services will enhance the development potential of the immediate undeveloped parcels to the north and west; other adjacent properties are already in urban uses. (3) None of the adjacent properties are under Williamson Act contract, and the Project Site and its vicinity are already proposed for development under pOlicies ,- defined in both the City of Arroyo Grande and the County of San Luis Obispo General Plans. (4) "Growth-inducing" implies that additional development would take place in areas it would not readily occur. The Project Site and its vicinity are a small island of undeveloped land surrounded by developed communities. Thus, development of this land should be considered infill of a larger, existing urban area. (5) The Project Site is subject to the provisions of the Development Agreement, which guarantees development of the Project Site. l8 (b) Findinas. Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that: (l) The Project's growth-inducing impacts will be insignificant. Development already encircles the Project Site and its vicinity properties. (2) Development of the Project Site is simply the culmination of previous planning decisions which envision and guarantee such development. D. Cumulative Imoacts. (a) Fac~R. (1) The cumulative impacts of the Project are discussed at pages l35-l4l of the Draft EIR, at pages 48-54 of the Final EIR, in the pUblic comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. These impacts are also discussed in the various particular (Project) impact categories analyzed in the EIR and addressed in Sections II and IV of these findings. (2) The EIR states that several impacts of the Project are potentially significant when considered with other approved, planned and reasonably foreseeable projects: (i) land use pOlicy, (ii) loss of open space and related losses to flora, fauna and habitat, (iii) air quality, (iv) public services, and (v) traffic. (3) The Draft and Final EIR do not separately list any mitigation measures for cumul~tive impacts; instead the Draft and Final EIR includes cumulative impact mitigation measures in the measures addressing each of the Project impacts. (4) The Final EIR does not list any cumulative impact as unavoidable except for the loss of oak trees, which is listed as "potentially significant and unavoidable without a redesign of the Project." As discussed herein, the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and Design Standards (Exhibit C), as well as the Alternative Site Plan Alternative (which have been agreed to by the Applicant) will sUbstantially reduce this impact. (b) Findinas. (l) Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the r-' Project's cumulative impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance generally and specifically by the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and Design Standards (Exhibit C) referenced in Sections II and IV of these findings. (2) To the extent that any cumulative impacts remain, despite such Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures and Design Standards, for all categories of environmental impacts as set forth above in these findings, those cumulative impacts are overridden and. outweighed by the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, set forth in Section VI of these findings. 19 E. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses Of The Environment And The Maintenance And Enhancement Of Lona-Term Uses. 1. Generallv. (a) Facts. (1) The Project's relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is discussed generally throughout the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and in pUblic comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR). (2) The Project will result in the creation of 353 homes, and the general development of Tracts 1834, 1994 and 1997, permanently removing approximately 152 acres of open space land from the City. However, the Rancho Grande property has been designated for planned development since 1978, and guaranteed development rights since 1983 by means of the Development Agreement. (b) Findinas. Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that: (1) The general impacts of the Project on the relationship between short-term and long-term uses of the environment are not significant relative to the similar impacts that any residential development project would have on short-term and long-term uses of the environment. (2) However, to the extent that such impacts are significant on a cumulative level, they will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), and Design Standards (Exhibit C), as specifically referenced under each Project impact discussed in Sections II and VI of these findings. (3) To the extent that any impact remains unavoidable, the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any such impact, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, set forth in Section VI of these findings. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AS HAVING LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICART EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, ALTHOUGH CERTAIN ACTIONS COULD FURTHER REDUCE SUCH IMPACTS A. Biotic Resources. r. (a) Facts. (1) The Project's less-than-significant effects on biotic resources are discussed at pages l4-l7 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this council relies. (b) Findinas. Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the Project's less-than-significant impacts on biotic resources shall be 20 further avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 84 and 86 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 82 and 84 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 84 and 86 of the attached Tract l834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); (ii) paragraphs 11-20c of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and (iii) paragraphs 2, 17-22 of the Design Standards (Exhibit C), to the applicable Project Applications. B. Aesthetics. (a) Facts. The Project's less-than-significant effects on aesthetics are discussed at pages 14-l7 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this council relies. (b) Findinas. Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the Project's less-than-significant impacts on aesthetics shall be further avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions l3-l5, l7, 19 and 72-84 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 13-15, 17, and 71-82 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 13-l5, 17, and 71-82 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); (ii) paragraphs 21-22a of the attached Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B); and (iii) paragraphs 2-27 of the attached Design Standards (Exhibit C). C. Air Oualitv. (a) Facts. The Project's less-than-significant effects on air quality are discussed at pages 14-17 of the Final EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR) , and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this council relies. (b) Findinas. Based on the Final EIR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the Project's less-than-significant impacts on air quality shall be further avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 4, 20 and 44 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions 4, 19 and 43 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 4, 19 and 43 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and (ii) paragraphs 24-29 of the Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). D. Public Services. (a) Facts. The Project's less-than-significant effects on public services are discussed at pages 14-l7 of the Final EIR, in pUblic comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-l39 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this council relies. 21 (b) FindinQs. Based on the Final ErR, the facts herein and the entire record, this Council finds that the Project's less-than-significant impacts on public services shall be further avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of: (i) conditions 13-20 of the attached Tract 1994 Conditions of Approval, conditions l3-l9 of the attached Tract 1997 Conditions of Approval, and conditions 13-19 of the attached Tract 1834 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and (ii) paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B). V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ~ A. Generallv. (1) The Draft and Final ErR consider several on-site alternatives to the Project Applications: (i) the "No-Project Alternative," (ii) the "Reduced Density Alternative," (Hi) the "Cluster Alternative," and (iv) the "Alternative Site Plan Alternative;" as well as whether "Alternative Sites" for the Project Applications should be considered. This Council determines that the Draft EIR presented a reasonable range of alternatives to the project Applications for City consideration. During and after the public review process, certain variations on those Alternatives (offered by the staff or the public) were reviewed to amplify, clarify or make insignificant modifications to those Alternatives. The Final EIR labeled those variations the "PD alternative," the "Noyes Road alternative," and the "Clustered Condominium alternative," although they were not and are not by these findings to be treated as full environmental alternatives nor made part of the Draft EIR for public consideration. Those variations, however, were helpful in fine tuning t~e mitigations proposed by the Draft EIR and amplifying how the Alternative Development Plan Alternative for Tract 1834 (the environmentally superior alternative) resulted in reduced biotic impacts. To the extent practical, the facts and findings listed below reference these variations where appropriate. B. The "No-Pro;ect Alternative.. (a) Facts. (1) The "No project Alternative" is discussed at pages 142-143 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 7l-l39 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (2) The No Project Alternative has the advantage of generally less impacts (e.g., traffic, noise, runoff, grading, and other environmental effects) than those resulting from the proposed Project and Project Applications, or any other alternative involving some development of the Project Site. (3) The No Project Alternative would conflict with and be contrary to the Development Agreement, which, as discussed in these findings, guarantees 527 units of residential development on the Project Site. (b) FindinQs. (1) This Council finds that for the reasons contained in these findings, the Development Agreement renders the No-Project Alternative infeasible and less desirable than the project and Project Applications. Therefore this Council rejects the No-project Alternative. 22 (2) This Council also finds that the NO-Project Alternative would preclude obtainment of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project and Project Applications, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section VI of these findings. C. The "Reduced Densitv Alternative". (a) Facts. (1) The "Reduced Density Alternative" is discussed at pages 143-144 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and City responses (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR) and in other portions of the administrative reco~d upon which this Council relies. (2) The Reduced Density Alternative reduces the total density of the Project by roughly one-third. The reduction in density would generally reduce the level of significance of the Project's impacts (e.g. , air quality, traffic, soil disturbance, etc.) . (3) The Reduced Density Alternative would conflict with and be contrary to the Development Agreement, which, as discussed in these findings, guarantees 527 units of residential development on the Project Site. (b) Findinas. (1) This Council finds that for the reasons contained in these findings, the Development Agreement renders the Reduced Density Alternative infeasible and less desirable than the Project and Project Applications, and therefore rejects the Reduced Density Alternative. (2) This Council also finds that the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project and Project Applications, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section VI of these findings. D. The "Cluster Alternative". (a) Facts. (1) The "Cluster Alternative" is discussed at pages 144-145 of the Draft EIR, in public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. (2) The Cluster Alternative generally reduces Project impacts to trees, vegetation, and sensitive areas (e.g., woodland habitat, slopes, ridgelines, drainageways, etc.) by concentrating development on less sensitive lands. Other advantages include increased open space and reduced runoff. However, traffic and air quality impacts would remain virtually the same as the Project and Project Applications. The increased density would also change the character of the Project. (3) The Cluster Alternative in relation to Tract 1834 would conflict with and be contrary to the Development Agreement. (4) The Cluster Alternative in relation to Tracts 1994 and 1997 would be in conflict with the rural character and density of existing adjacent neighborhoods, which have much larger lots. 23 -..-- ..--.- (5) The PD alternative and cluster condominium alternative discussed in the Final EIR are variations on the Cluster Alternative which were discussed to provide reflection on, and expansion and clarification of, the Cluster Alternative. The City and this Council had to judge whether the incremental increase in habitat mitigation achieved by the PD and cluster condominium variations (achieved by relocating certain lots) would result in a disproportionate worsening of impacts on neighboring residential development by blocking views, providing disharmonious density patterns and conflicting with the existing rural character of the area. Likewise, the City and this Council had to consider the development "package" that Applicant was offering (including a waiver of certain vested rights). In the balance were the benefits of additional habitat mitigation versus the potential loss of a number of other Project benefits that would end up being refused by Applicant if smaller, denser lots were mandated. (b) Findinas. (1) This Council finds that for the reasons contained in these findings, the Development Agreement renders the Cluster Alternative infeasible as to Tract 1834. (2) This Council also finds that the Cluster Alternative (and its PD and cluster condominium variations) would result in incompatible patterns of development between existing residential development and Tracts 1994 and 1997. Therefore, this Council rejects the Cluster Alternative as to Tracts 1994 and 1997. (3) This Council also finds that the PD and cluster condominium variations discussed above do not change the conclusions reached by this Council. (4) This Council also finds that the Cluster Alternative would preclude obtainment of certain environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Development Agreement and Project Applications, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section VI of these findings. E. The "Alternative Site Plan Alternative". (a) Facts. (1) The Alternative Site Plan Alternative is discussed at pages 145-148 in the Draft EIR, at pages 54-56 in the Final EIR, and in the public comments and City responses to those comments (generally set forth at pages 71-139 of the Final EIR), and in other portions of the administrative record upon which this Council relies. The Alternative Site Plan Alternative particularly addresses Tract 1834. (2) This Alternative would contain the same number of lots as the Tract 1834 Project Application, but would reconfigure the lot layout to reduce, from 670 to l28, the number of trees to be removed from Tract 1834. (3) This Alternative would also reduce a number of other Project impacts (e.g., soils, drainage, aesthetics, etc.) Impacts on air quality and public services from this Alternative would remain the same as the Tract 1834 Project Application. (4) Under the Development Agreement, the Applicant has a vested right to develop Tract 1834 as presented in the Project Applications. The Development Agreement would render the Alternative Site Plan Alternative infeasible, unless consented to by the Applicant. 24 ~_._._--. - (5) The Final EIR and the administrative record indicate the Applicant's consent to the Alternative Site Plan Alternative. (6) The Draft and Final EIR also designate the Alternative Site Plan Alternative as the "feasible preferred alternative." (b) Findinas. This Council finds, for the reasons contained in these findings, that the Alternative Site Plan Alternative is feasible and, therefore, selects the Alternative Site Plan Alternative for Tract l834. F. Alternative Sites. (a) Facts. (1) The Alternative Sites analysis is discussed at page 148 of the Draft EIR, (2) Development of alternative sites would conflict with and be contrary to the Development Agreement which, as discussed in these findings, guarantees a certain type and intensity of development on the project Site. (3) The City does not have available vacant land in an alternate location that has a residential land use designation and could physically accommodate the proposed development and open space characteristics of the Project. (4) The Applicant does not own any other sites in the City or the region. (5) Recent California Supreme Court decisions have clarified the requirements for EIRs, ruling that in some cases an EIR may be required to include an evaluation of alternative sites for the Project. This ruling has noted that this evaluation is not required in all cases, but is instead a case-by-case determination based on the facts and circumstances of each project. (b) Findinas. (1) Based upon the Final EIR, the Development Agreement, the facts herein, and the entire record, this Council finds that an analysis or adoption of alternative sites to the Project Site for the Project Applications is not desirable, feasible or required in the present case. VI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,,- A. Generallv. This Council finds and determines that to the extent that any of the above-discussed significant direct or indirect project impacts, including cumulative Project impacts, remain unavoided or mitigated to less than a level of insignificance, such impacts are acceptable in light of the social, economic, environmental and other Project benefits discussed below, and that such benefits outweigh and make "acceptable" any such environmental impacts of the project. This Council also finds and determines that those mitigation measures and alternatives which were discussed in the EIR, pUblic comments, City responses or other portions of the administrative record but which are not or will not be incorporated into the Project are "infeasible" given those Project benefits. The specific project benefits are discussed below. 25 ---- B. Specific proiect Benefits. Specifically, this Council finds that the following social, economic, environmental and other Project considerations warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding any significant impacts of the Project which are not fully avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance, or which might be reduced through the choice of one of the alternatives to the Project: 1. Environmental Benefits. The City has imposed Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards which will result in the fOllowing benefits: ,- (i) The establishment of a fund, by means of a one-time $25,000 donation by the Applicant and a $100 per-lot fee, for the development of a program by the Nature Conservancy or similar entity, which will acquire open space and habitat areas to mitigate the loss of common animal habitat (e.g., badger, deer, etc.); (ii) The establishment of a protection plan for the "Pismo Clarkia," if present; (iii) The preparation by a qualified botonist or licensed arborist of a tree removal and protection plan, with the imposition of penalties for the unauthorized removal or destruction of oak trees. Development, grading and filling will, whenever possible, remain outside the drip lines of existing trees; (iv) The replacement of lost oak trees with seedlings. The Applicant will contract with a qualified nursery or arborist, for a period of f~ve years, to germinate and grow oak seedlings to replace any trees lost during development at a ratio of 3:1. The replacement trees will be inspected annually to monitor their health; (v) The preservation and enhancement of over forty percent (40%) of the Project Site as open space and wildlife habitat; and (vi) The preservation and enhancement of the Project Site's riparian habitat. 2. Recreational Oooortunities. The Project will provide bike paths, a trail system, and open space uses to the general public and future residents of the Project. 3. provision of Housina. f. The Project will provide housing for the area and region. 4. provision of Jobs. The project will provide local and regional development-related employment opportunities (construction, landscaping, home design, interior decorating, etc.). 5. Public Revenues. The Project will substantially increase the assessed valuation of the Project Site and will beneficially impact property values in the vicinity, thereby creating additional property tax revenue for the City on a long-term basis. During 26 ---' - construction of the Project, additional public revenues will result from sales taxes on building materials, payroll taxes relating to construction employment, patronization of local businesses by construction-related employees and Project residents, etc. The Project will also contribute fees toward local and regional solutions to public services and facilities needs. 6. Public Infrastructure. The Applicant, through the Development Agreement, the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) and the Mitigation Measures (Exhibit B), has and will continue to provide public infrastructure improvements beyond that necessitated by the Project's impacts. VII. FINDINGS REGARDING MOl'II'l'ORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES Section 2l08l.6 of the California Public Resources Code requires this Council to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding mitigation measures adopted in connection with these findings. In addition to the Monitoring Programs adopted in Ordinance No. __ C.S. and the Resolutions of Approval for Tracts 1834, 1994 and 1997 (contained in Exhibit B), this Council also adopts the following program in fulfillment of this requirement: The Applicant shall file a written report with the City Planning Director approximately once every 12 months, beginning 12 months following the final approval of the Project Applications by the City Council and continuing throughout the approval process until the public , improvements required by the Conditions of Approval have been constructed. The written report shall briefly state the status in implementing each mitigation measure which is adopted as a Condition of Approval, Mitigation Measure, or which is incorporated into the project and project Applications. City staff shall review the written report and determine whether there is any unusual and substantial delay of over one year in, or obstacle to, implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation measures which requires action by City staff. If Applicant requests, the result of this review will be provided to Applicant in writing. If City staff determines that action is - - required, the staff and Applicant shall consult and, if possible, agree upon additional actions to be taken to implement the mitigation measure(s) which is subject to the delay or obstacle. If and only if the staff and Applicant are unable to agree upon the additional actions to be taken, then either staff or Applicant may bring the matter before the Planning Commission for decision whether any action should be taken and what that action should be; that decision shall be appealable to the City Council pursuant to the City's appeal procedures for zoning decisions. Staff, the Planning Commission, or the City Council shall be limited to imposing reasonable 27 actions as permitted by law which will implement the existing mitigation measures. In reviewing the timeliness of the implementation measures, staff shall consider the project timetable, subject to reasonable but unanticipated delays due to weather, economic feasibilities and the like. - - , (