R 2330
132
IUNYIJfICN N:). 2330
A FRnIJfICN OF 'lHE CJ'lY CI:I1CIL OF 'lHE Cl'lY OF
ARKM) GWIE lBIYII<<1 'lHE JWOD GWIE P. D. OODINNO>
~ AND ~ PIAN N:). 88-212, AM) 'l>>fTATlVE
'IRICl' MI\P N:). 1642 Ql 81 JICBES (OITSB, DC).
WJEREAS, the Ci ty Cbuncil of the Ci ty of Arroyo Grande has consi dered the
Rancho Grande P.D. Ordinance Amendment and Development Plan No. 88-212, and
Tentative Tract Map No. 1642; and
NIFBEAS, this project represents only part ial implementation of that
certain Development Agreement entered into on or about NovEmber 22, 1983 and P.D.
Ordinance No. 186 C.S. adopted October 10, 1978.
1IUERPAS, the PlannIng Di rector did after evaluation of the project pursuant
to the California EnviroM1elltal Quality Act, determine that it was necessary to
prepare an addendum to the EnviroM1ental ~act Report prepared in 1977; and
W'IERBAS, the Planning Carmission of the City of Arroyo Grande did cons ider
this Ordinance Amendment, Development Plan and tentative map at a duly noticed
public hear ing held on June 6 and June 20, 1989 but failed to take any act ion on said
application due to lack of sufficient votes, and for that reason thelmtter passed
automatically to the City COuncil for consideration.
}Qt. 'I'IIFRERIm, the Ci ty Council of the Ci ty of Arroyo Grande, at a duly
noticcd public hearing, after considering the testimony, statements and evidence
offered by everyone wishing to cannant on the matter, makes the following findings;
1) The proposed Ordinance Amendment, Development Plan No. 88-212 and
tentative Tract h~p No. 1642 are not in the public interest and as
designed would be a detriment to the public health, welfare or safety;
and
2) The Envirormental Impact Report and addendum thereto is inadequate and
insufficient. These inadequacies include but are not I imi ted to the
following:
a. Neither the report nor the addendum adequately addres s the
cumulative impacts of the entire development, both planned and
unplanned areas;
b. Neither the original EnvirQrmental Impact Report nor the addendum
EIR adequately address biological issues including wildlife
habitat In the area;
c. Alternatives were not adequately addressed in the or iginal ElR nor
the addendum EIR.
d. The addendwn to the EIR is not adequate to address all issues which
have changed since the 1977 EIR was prepared nor is the addendum
adequate to address apparent conflicts and insufficiencies in the
197'1 EIR, therefore, a supplement to the EIR should be prepared
using recent ~ guidelines.
e. The addendumElRand the original ElR failed to adequately address
the socioeconomic impacts.
f. The addendum EIR and the original EIR failed to address water
consumption as it relates to the size and location of lots.
3. The proposed Planned Developnent Ordinance Amendment and Developnent Plan
are not consistent with Ordinance No. 186 C. S. because said docwrents
requi re all of the unplanned area des ignated for 133 un i ts to be planned at
one time.
4. The Planned Deve1 opnent Amen<knent and Developll'ent Plan may cause
substantial damage to the environment since the addendum Environmental
Impact Report does not adequately address biological and other pert inent
environmental issues.
5. The site may not be physically sui ted for the proposed developirent because
the lots and construction of hOllies will encroach into an envi rorm;ntlJlly
sens i t ive area.
------- -_._~--_...._- --"--'__"~______w
------ ---
Resolution No. 2330 133
6. The proposed subdlvisionnmy cause substantial and considerable damage to
the natural envl rorment including encroachnent Into a sensitive oak
v.l:>odland and wild 11 fe habitat area. The 1977 Envi rOlUTJental Impact Report
supports locating lots on the grassland area tominlmize destruct ion of the
oak v.l:>odland.
7. The proposed project may have a sign ICicant 1mpact on the natural drainage
causing significant Impacts to downhill properties.
8. The project may be inconsistent wi th the proposed Hous ing Element goals to
provide low-moderate income housing.
Based on the above findings, all the testbnony heard or subnUtted, and concerns
about appropriateness of the proposed design, the City COuncil of Arroyo Grande
hereby denies said applications as subnUtted.
On rrot ion by CbunciI Member Olsen, seconded byCOunci I Member Moots, and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Olsen and I'bots and Mayor Millis
N:I!S: Council Members Smith and Dougall
ABSI'Nl': None
the foregoing Resolution was approved this ~ day of July, 1989.
- k::i tZ~~
MARK M. MILLIS, ~IDR
ATrn&-l': ~ . (l.~
NAN::Y A. =I1Y CLERK
APPHOVED AS 10 R:.m!: APmovED AS 10 <XNrENr:
aJRIS aJRISTIANSEN, CI1Y MANAGER
I, NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 2330 is a true, full and
correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of said Council on the 25th day of July, 1989.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed
this 31st day of July, 1989.
~ (]. ~
CITY C~
~-_..._- --.--~----