Loading...
R 3710 RESOLUTION NO. 3710 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKING FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01.001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 01.002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER PROJECT) WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for Conditional Use Permit 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-002 (CUP 01-001 and VTTM 01-002, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), was prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (the "Consultant") for the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter the" CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse and to those public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and the comments of such persons and agencies were sought; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested and to incorporate comments received and the City's response to said comments, and as. so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande for review and consideration; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2003 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, whereby and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 10, 2003 and September 23, 2003 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, whereby and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented, incorporating all comments received and the response of the City as of the date hereof, and including the attached Exhibit "A" that revises Alternative 2 of the "Project Alternatives" section. RESOLUTION NO. 3710 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the. City of Arroyo Grande as follows: Section 1. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution. Section 2. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Planning Commission further finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CECA Guidelines. On motion by Council Member Costello, seconded by Council Member Lubin, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Costello, Lubin, Runels, Dickens and Mayor Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 23rd day of September 2003. n"__'__'_'~_ - -., ---~-_.- RESOLUTION NO. 3710 PAGE 3 TONY M. FER . ATTEST: ~fUl---' ORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK . APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~1f'~TYMANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: EL, CITY ATTORNEY \ -"-'----- ..------- _.._---------- .' ~"-'~''''''--''"''-- EXHIBIT A . . 6.0 Project Alternatives Ability to Meet Project Objectiv~s" While the No Project Alternative is environmentally ,superior to the proposed project, it does not meet any of the objectives of the project. The blighted condition of the property would stay the same, and the existing non-confor~ing uses would not be removed. With this alternative, Tally Ho Creek would not undergo restoration, and there would be no addition of pedestrian and visitor-serving uses. ~ Alternative 2: Loomis Residence Retained In Existina Location . Description This alternative retains the potentially significant main Loomis residence and the magnolia tree in their precise existing locations. The house and tree would also maintain their current rela"tionship to the origin:]1 1910 existinQ grain warehouse building envelope' and to East Branch I Street. This alternative also proposes a different arrangement of new buildings in order to provide adequate parking and still meet the project objectives for the addition of. needed commercial and office uses. The proposed site plan for Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 6-1. Environmental Impacts This alternative allows for the retention of the potential historic resource on the site (and in its present location), thus eliminating the significant unavoidable impacts. As stated in Table 6-1. impacts to cultural resources would be less-than-siQnificant with implementation of. mitigation measures 4.4-A-aA4.L 4.4-B2, and the followino additional mitioation measure for desion review: the imp3cts to cultur:11 resources would bo loss th3n .signitic3nt. . 4.4- The Communit Develo men! Director shall ensure the rain warehouse is reviewed ~ throuQh desiQn development and construction documents phases for conformance with i:l the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines. . . As part of their established responsibilities, the Architectural Advisory Committee shall conduct their own, parallel review for consistency with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines. Alternatively, if the City did not have these desiQn review mechanisms in place. in coni unction with Qualified Architectural Advisory Committee members to review the proiect. or if the Community Development. Director requires additiori-al professional review , the City shall enQaQe an outside preservation architect meetinQ the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in historic architecture to review the rehabilitation of the Qrain warehouse for consistency with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines. No buildinQ permit for the alternative shall be issued until the final desiQn for the Qrain warehouse has been reviewed and found to be consistent with Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines in accordance with the process described above. All other identified significant impacts for the proposed project would remain with implementation of this alternative; however, the project density would be slightly reduced, therefore, impacts would be incrementally reduced. It is anticipated that all mitigation measures required for the proposed project would also be necessary for this project to reduce environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. Denise Duffy & Associates 6-7 Creekside Center Project Draft EIR -'~...__._.._- .---.---- ~ '~-""'~'._-'~"--- 6.0 Project Alternatives . . /-, Ability to Meet Project Object.i~es i." \ Alternative 2 involves the reconfiguration of the proposed new buildings compared to the proposed project. This adjustment would cause the reduction of available parking spaces "from109 (proposed project) to 80. " The Village Core district requires one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area .of commercial or office building space. Using this calculation, Alternative 2 would' only allow a maximum of 24,000 square feet, which is:" a reduction of "- "- approximately 25% from the proposed project. According to the" City's Community Development .' Department, this differential is sufficient in magnitude to justify potential concerns of economic ..... feasibility. In addition, the parking spaces allowed by the configuration of buildings proposed in Alternative 2 would be particularly inconvenient for Buildings A and C. See letter from Rob Strong, Community Development Director, in Appendix I for more detail on this conclusion. Alternative 2 would still meet the project objectives, though possibly not to the same extent as the proposed project due to the necessary reduction in square footage of commercial and office space. Also, this reducti<?n in scale could cause the project to be economically infeasible. . . . :.. Creekside Center Project 6-8 Denise Duffy & Associates Draft EIR ---- . . RESOLUTION NO. 3710 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION . I, KELLY WETMORE, Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that Resolution No. 3710 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 23rd day of September, 2003. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 25th day of September, 2003. ET ORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK --_.~-,---- ----..~--- -----