HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2002-030 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-030
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-0001 WAS
PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE,
AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the comprehensive update of all elements of the Atascadero General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIR relating to the General Plan Update and responding
to the concerns raised during the review period and at the public hearings, have been
prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State Guidelines, and the City's rules and procedures for the
implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Atascadero Planning
Commission on June 18, 2002, to consider the Draft and Final EIR at which all interested
persons were given the opportunity to be heard and has recommended certification of the
Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Atascadero City Council on
June 25, 2002, to consider the Draft and Final EIR at which all interested persons were given
the opportunity to be heard and has recommended certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Draft and Final EIR for the General Plan Update;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the Atascadero City
Council as follows:
1. The Atascadero City Council finds that certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the General Plan Update, which is incorporated herein by this
reference, has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines, and the City's rules and procedures.
City of Ataseadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 2
2. The Atascadero City Council hereby further finds and certifies that the information
contained in the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the City Council.
3. The Atascadero City Council finds that certification of the Final EIR reflects their
independent judgement and analyses.
4. The Atascadero City Council hereby finds and determines that the implementation of
the General Plan Update may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
5. The Atascadero City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental
impacts detailed in the Final EIR:
a. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR Exhibit "A", the Findings of
Fact attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "B", the list of mitigation measures
included in the mitigation monitoring program attached as Exhibit "C" and
incorporated herein by reference, the Atascadero City Council finds and
determines that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the adverse environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR,
b. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact,
the adverse environmental effects associated with the General Plan Update are
significant effects which cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is
approved and implemented;
6. The Atascadero City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or
substantially lessened as determined through the findings set forth in Exhibit B.;
b. Based on the Final EIR and the Findings of Fact and other documents in the
record, specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other
project alternatives identified in the Final EIR;
c. Based on the Final EIR and the Findings of Fact, and other documents in the
record, the remaining unavoidable significant environmental effect of the General
Plan Update are outweighed and overridden by the benefits of the project as
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit "B", attached to
this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference, which Statement of
Overriding Considerations is hereby approved and adopted.
7. The Atascadero City Council hereby directs that a Notice of Determination with
respect to the Final EIR pertaining to the approval of the General Plan Update and all
other actions in furtherance thereof be filed.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 3
On motion by Council Member Johnson and seconded by Council Member Clay, the
foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Clay, Johnson, Scalise and Mayor Arrambide
NOES: Council Member Luna
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ADOPTED: June 25, 2002
BY•
J ichael Arrambide, Mayor
Attest:
Marcia McClure Torgerson, City C rk
Approved as to form:
W- (T ia'-4—
Roy anley, City Attbrney
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 4
Exhibit A-1: Volume I: Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#20011121027
This Exhibit is available for
review in the City Clerk's
office.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 5
Exhibit A-2: Volume II:Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#20011121027
This Exhibit is available for
review in the City Clerk's
office.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 6
Exhibit A-2: Volume 11:Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#20011121027
Complete Response to Letter 154
The comment numbering between the comment letter and the response was out of order on
letter 154. The attached letter provides the correct numbering scheme. All comments were
responded to the in original comment letter.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 7
Letter 154
Bonin o��TK
Bob Lavelle,Chair
Holly Ziegler,Secretary
5 Arlene Winn, Treasurer
Tim O'Keefe
ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER Ui3� �D Carmel Day
Joan oanCa ur
OF SAN LUIS OBISPo COUNTY �Z• D
Shannon Johnsonhnson
April 12,2002
HAN DELIVERED
City of Atascadero
c/o Crawford,Multari&Clark
641 Higuera Street,Suite 302
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Please accept the following comments of the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo
("ECOSLO")on the Draft General Plan("DGP")and the Draft Environmental Impact Report
("DEIR")for the City of Atascadero's proposed amendments to its General Plan.
ECOSLO submits these comments on behalf of its members who live in and around
Atascadero,and on its own behalf. ECOSLO is a non profit membership organization working
to protect end enhance human health and the environment through education and community
based advocacy in San Luis Obispo County.Recognizing the interdependence of humanity and
nature ECOSLO serves as a catalyst for community environmental stewardship,nurturing a
sustainable human habitat in harmony with natural systems,now and for future generations_
Requirements of CEQA
CEQA was enacted to require public agencies and decision-makers to document and
consider the environmental implications of their actions before formal decisions are made.
Public Resources Code("Pub.Res.C.")§21000,and to"[e]nsure that the long-term protection
of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions." Pub,Res.C§21001(d)
"CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible
protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory authority."14
California Code of Regulations,(hereinafter cited as"CEQA Guidelines")§I5003(f),citing
F n s of o v.Board of Supgryisors,(1972)8 Cal.3d 247, "[T]he overriding purpose
of CEQA is to ensure that agencies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the
environment give primary consideration to preventing environmental damage. CEQA is the
Legislature's declaration of policy that all necessary action be taken`to protect,rehabilitate and
enhance the environmental quality of the state. av ou P 'ns v. Mo re County Board
of SupMisors(2001)87 Cal.AppAth 99, 117, iC tm Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.v-
Regents of University of Califomia,(1988)47 Ca1.3d 373,392;and Pub.Res.C§21000
The lead agency must identify gn potentially significant impacts of the project,and must
therefore consider all the evidence in the administrative record,not just its initial study. Pub.
864 Osos Street,Suite C Tel,805/544-1777
P.O.Box1014 Fax 805/544-1871
San Luis Obispo,California 93406 printed on 100'06 Recycled Paper e-mail ecoslo@slonet.org
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 8
The lead agency must identify all potentially significant impacts of the project,and must
therefore consider all the evidence in the administrative record,not just its initial study. Pub.
Res. C. §21080(c),(d),§21082.2. CEQA Guidelines direct lead agencies to conduct an Initial
Study to"determine if the project may have a significant impact on the environment."
§15063(a). "All phases of the project planning,implementation,and operation must be
considered in the Initial Study". CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)(1). Besides the direct impacts,the
lead agency must also consider reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the
environment in the area in which significant effects would occur,directly or indirectly. Sieg
CEQA Guidelines§I5064(d)& §15360,see,also,Laurel Heig�its Improvement Assn„supra.47
Cal.Ed at 392,
An indirect impact is a physical change in the environment,not-immediately related to the
project in time or distance,but caused indirectly by the project and reasonably foreseeable.
CEQA Guidelines §15064(d)(2)& §15358(a)(2). Indirect impacts to the environment caused
by a project's economic or social effects must be analyzed if they are"indirectly caused by the
project,are reasonably foreseeable,and are potentially significant."CEQA Guidelines
§15064(d)-(e). A lead agency may not limit environmental disclosure by ignoring the
development or other activity that will ultimately result from an initial approval._Qty of Antioch
v. City Council(1986) 187 CAM 1325 (emphasis added). Preparing a proposed negative
declaration necessarily involves some degree of forecasting,and the lead agency"must use its
best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can."See,CEQA Guidelines §15144.
The guidelines specifically require that an Initial Study must consider"all phases of project
planning,implementation,and operation." CEQA Guidelines§15063(a)(1).
Where the CEQA environmental process was procedurally or substantively defective,
reviewing courts may find prejudicial abuse of discretion even if proper adherence to CEQA
mandates may not have resulted in a different outcome. Pub.Res. Code§21005(a). For
example,the Court in Citizens to Preserve Qjai v.County gf Ventura(1985) 176 Cal.App.3d
421,428 held that the certification of an EIR that had not adequately discussed the environmental
impacts of the project constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion even if strict compliance with
the mandates of CEQA would not have altered the outcome. The Court in Resource Defense
Fund v. LAFCQ(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886,897-8,went so far as to declare that failure to
comply with CEQA procedural requirements was per se prejudicial. The court in Kings Coun
Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990)221 Cal.App.3d 692 explained that an agency commits
prejudicial error if"the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision
making and informed public participation,thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR
process."Id.,at 712
CEQA's environmental review process is intended to provide the public with assurances
that"the agency has,in fact,analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its actions."
Laurel Heights Improvement Ass.v.Regents of the University of California(1988)47 Cai.3rd
376,392. The function of the environmental review,then,is not merely to result in informed
decision making on the part of the agencies,it is also to inform the public so they can respond to
Comments of ECO5LO on Ataseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 2 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 9
an action with which they disagree. Id.
The Project is Insufficiently Described-
In the seminal case of County of Invo v. City of Los Angeles(1977)71 Cal.App.3d 185,
192,the court held that the project description is the sine qua non of an informative,legally
adequate EIR. "Without an accurate description of on which to base the EIR's analysis,CEQA's
objective of furthering public disclosure and informed environmental decision-making would be
stymied." Kostka and Zischke,Practice Under CEQA,§12.14.
The EIR must describe the entire project being proposed for approval in order to ensure
that all of the project's environmental impacts are considered. City of Santee v.County of San
Diego(1989)214 CAM 1438, 1450.
Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public
decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost,
consider mitigation measures,assess the advantage of terminating the proposal ...
and weigh other alternatives in the balance.An accurate,stable and finite project
description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.
County of h o v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193
One of the main problems with the DGP is that as written,it is impossible for the reader 154-1
to decipher where a particular segment is being amended. In fact,the whole document is very
confusing to the point of being legally inadequate. A large introductory section is devoted to the
delineation of basic policies of the General Plan and the Goal LOCs. Inclusion of these segments
within the document is undoubtedly intended to create the impression that the proposed
amendments are at least influenced by these goals and policies. The DGP does not,however,
include an analytical discussion or description of how or whether the goals and policies were
carried out in the course of drafting the proposed amendments. In fact,a careful review of the
DGP reveals that despite the lip service to the goals and policies of the general plan,the proposed
amendments would frustrate,rather than foster,these objectives.
In its comments in response to the Notice of Preparation("NOP"),ECOSLO pointed out
that the NOP did not contain the actual text of the proposed changes to the General Plan.
ECOSLO urged the City to provide a description of the proposed changes and recirculate the
NOP. Not only did the City refuse to correct this problem and recirculate the NOP,the City did
not correct the problem with the DEIR. As explained above,it is impossible to know what
changes are being proposed to the existing General Plan because the text of existing General Plan
is not presented side by side with the proposed changes. ECOSLO contends that for this reason
alone the DEIR and the DGP are legally deficient.
Comments of ECOSLO on Ataseadero Proposed General Plan Amendmenft and DEIR Page 3 of 14
City of Ataseadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 10
The project description contained in the DEIR does not sufficiently describe the
components of the project. Nor can the recitation of general goals and policies serve as a 154-2
substitute for careful and detailed description of the many residential/commercial projects that
were discussed in the City Council meetings leading up to drafting of the DGP.
Comments og the Notice of Preparation of FIR
ECOSLO's comments relevant to the Notice of Preparation(NOP)are incorporated 154-3
herein by this reference. The City has not responded to these comments. To the extent that
issues and concerns raised in the comments to the NOP have not been adequately addressed in
the DEIR and DGP,these comments apply equally to the DEIR
All potentigl impacts are not analyzed
The DEIR does not describe all impacts that are likely as a result of the proposed changes 154-4
to the General Plan policies and programs. In fact,as already mentioned above,the DGP does
not contain a description of changes that are being proposed Some of the proposed changes can
result in dramatic and significant impacts on the environment. For example,the existing Land
Use,Open Space,and Conservation Element{"LOCS")contains the following description of the
City's fundamental guiding principle:
Ataseadero shall retain it overall character and rural atmosphere with the long-term
protection of the environment as a primary guiding criterion for public policy decisions.
General Plan,II-1. In contrast,the proposed LOCS proposes the following significantly
different language:
The overall guiding principle of the General Plan is to maintain the rural character and
identity of Ataseadero while assuring orderly development and infill and efficiently
providing needed goods and services to the community within the Urban Core. The
following goals,policies and programs are designed to help the community achieve this
objective.
DGP,II-13. It appears that"long-term protection of the environment"is no longer identified as
the primary guiding principle.
Likewise,the first of the basic community goals identified in the existing General Plan is
expressed as:
Protect and preserve the rural atmosphere of the community by assuring"elbow room"
for residents by means of maintenance of large lot sizes which increase in proportions to
distance beyond the urban core.
Comments of ECOSLO on Ataseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 4 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 11
General Plan II-1. The DGP,on the other hand,articulates the same goal in a small but crucially
different way:
Preserve the rural atmosphere of the community and the feeling of"elbow room"in areas
designated for lower density development by guiding new development into Urban Core
to conform to the historic Colon land use patterns of the City neighborhoods.
Policy 1.1,DGP I1-13. The iteration of this policy goal in the Draft General Plan no longer
assures"elbow room"for residents,rather,it purports to preserve the"feeling"of elbow room,
but only in areas designated for lower density development. Whether and to what extent this
change in General Plan policies and programs will result in changes to the environment is an.
issue entirely ignored by the DGP.
.Another significant omission from the DEIR is the analysis of the impact of the many 154-5
subdivision that will now be able to seek City approval without the need for General Plan
amendments. It is well known that many developers sought that the City approve General Plan
Amendments that they would need in order to proceed with their projects. The DGP and DEIR
do not discuss which of the proposed projects will benefit from the amendments contained in the
DGP. To the extent that some projects have already come before the City and are therefore
reasonably certain to occur,the DEIR must name them assess the environmental impacts that will
be caused by them. Deferring the analysis of these future projects that are already know to the
City violates CEQA's well known prohibition against piecemealing projects.
Housing Element
The single most important part of the proposed General Plan Amendments are the 154-6
proposed changes to the Housing Element. In many instances,the proposed changes to are not
adequately described and evaluated in the DEIR and the DGP itself. Not surprisingly,having
failed to evaluate the impacts,the City fails to propose adequate mitigation.
It is extremely difficult for the average reader to adequately access the impact of the
proposed amendments because the Draft General Plan does not make clear when the proposed
plan deviates from the existing plan. Thus,the document does not stand on its own,and must be
compared side by side with the existing General Plan in order to discern where a change is
proposed. Such an approach makes the task of reviewing the proposed changes needlessly
difficult,thereby frustrating CEQA's goal of protecting the public's right to take part in the
environmental review and land use decision making process. Moreover,by making the public's
task of reviewing the documents unnecessarily difficult,the City has substantially confirmed the
public's suspicion that it is not interested in promoting public participation in the process.
The DEIR claims that the proposed amendments will impact only 5%of the City of 154-7
Atascadero. Careful review of the DGP reveals,however,that some of the proposed changes
will impact the entire City.
Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 5 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 12
The Land Use,Open Space and Conservation Element("LOCS")Policy 2.2 intends to
Allow for the orderly development of neighborhoods by allowing for the
consideration of lot size reductions for lots the(sic)are significantly larger
than the surrounding neighborhoods.
Programs
1. Within the Urban Services Line allow for planned developments to
approve lot sizes below district minimums when an existing lot is
surrounded by non-conforming lots. Minimum lot sizes shall not excess
maximum General Plan densities.
DGP,p.II-23.
This proposed policy and the corresponding program will likely result in widespread
additional density throughout the Urban Reserve Line,and not just 5%of the City,as claimed by
the City. The DEIR makes no effort to calculate the total number of additional units this
proposed policy could bring to the City. Nor does the DEIR begin to access the potential
environmental impact of these additional units on traffic,sewer,water,biological resources,etc...
As such,the DEIR fails to adequately describe the potential environmental impacts of the project,
and is defective for that reason. The EIR must adequately analyze all potential impacts that will
result from allowing such lot splits through out the City,and propose adequate mitigation or
alternatives.
The goals of the proposed changes to Jhe General Plan are unclear
"A project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed project. The
statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project,and it should be
clearly written to guide the selection of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR." Kostka and
Zischke,Practice Under CEQA, §12.23b.(Page 485),citing CEQA Guidelines§I5124(b).
The DGP identifies the twin goals of meeting state mandated affordable housing 154-8
requirements and the creation of neighborhood serving commercial nodes as the primary goals of
the project. See,DEIR,at 31. The DEIR also states that certain"goals"are included in the DGP.
Id.The DEIR does not describe whether achieving these goals is part of the objectives of the
DGP. Nor does the DEIR or the DGP discuss whether these goals are the same or different than
the goals and policies of the existing General Plan.
While the DEIR and the DGP have not identified additional density and population as a
goal of the project,the DGP certainly will result in additional population and density. If
achieving additional density and population is not a goal of the proposed project,then it is
unclear why changes to the land use designations which will result in additional population and
density are being proposed. On the other hand,if additional density and population are intended
by the proposed plan,these should be clearly articulated.
Comments of ECOSLO on Atasendero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 6 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 13
Some of the proposed amendments conflict with goals and policies of thegeneral plan
154-9
The drafters of the DGP have insisted that the central goals and policies of the GP have
survived the process. Yet,many of the proposed plans and policies are in conflict with these
goals and policies. ECOSLO's comments on the NOP contains a discussion of some of these
conflicts which are specifically incorporated herein by this reference. These comments are
included with the DEIR as an attachment.
Conversion of Guest Hou e
One of the central goals of the DGP is to restrict intensive development in the center of 154-9(a)
the City,with the density increasing in proportion to their distance from the City center. The
proposed across the board policy of permitting rentable guesthouse would result in intensification
of development in areas both near and far from City center,in contravention of Goal I of the
DGP. (DEIR p.31)
Increased Density in outlying areas
The DGP will permit intensified residential development both in the North and South end
of the City. See,Figure 2,Preferred Alternative. As stated immediately above,DGP's Goal I is 154-9(b)
to provide for increasing density away from City center. By allowing smaller lot sizes in the
outlying areas,the DGP will undermine this goal.
Maintainin ag_ strong and distinctive Downtown
The DGP cites as one of its objectives the creation of two commercial nodes in the north 154-9(c)
and south end of the City. DEIR,at 31. The DEIR and DGP also site a vital downtown to be a
"keystone"feature of the existing General Plan,which should not be altered. See,Goal 4
(Provide for a strong and distinctive downtown")DEIR p.31. The creation of two commercial
nodes at some distance from downtown could potentially impact could conflict with the goal of
promoting downtown as a vibrant commercial center by taking business away from down town.
Yet the DEIR completely fails to consider this potentially significant impact and conflict between
these two policies.
kAgintaining orderly development of the City
Land Use Goal 1 is to maintain orderly development of residential lots by ensuring that lot sizes 154-9(d)
increase in proportion to the distance from City Center. DFG Policy 10.1,bullet 2,contains the
following goal"Maintain flexible zoning standards that provide for a range of housing densities
in various zones." This policy would undermine the orderly development of residential units by
suggesting that the City will have the flexibility to provide for a range of housing densities. This
Policy would encourage the public to pressure the City to grant variances and amendments that
will result in disorderly development of housing throughout the City. This Policy should be
Comments of ECOSLO on Ateseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 7 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 14
stricken.
Circulation Element
In general,it should be noted that the proposed mitigation measures for the Circulation 154-10
Element are stated in terms so vague terms that do not create any actual commitment on the part
of the City to undertake any actual mitigation measures. Nor does the proposed Circulation
Element contain actual or discernable criteria to measure the success or failure of the proposed
policies and goals of the General Plan. Thus,for example,there are no concrete dates set for an
update to the Capital Improvement Plan(DEIR p.71). It is unclear how and when the program of
"enhancing vehicular,bicycle,pedestrian access and travel within the Downtown'would be
achieved.(DEIR p.71,Policy 1.1,Program 1.2). Nor is it clear how an adequate supply of off
street parking can be achieved in the Downtown(as suggested by Policy 1.5).
ECOSLO urges the City not to lower any Levels of Service to"D"unless the level service 154-11
for public transportation and pedestrians is maintained at"C"or better and there is a clear
commitment by the City to aggressively pursue alternative means of transportation. The City
should consider the City of San Luis Obispo's Circulation Element as a model for this purpose.
San Luis Obispo has set concrete goals for reducing traffic,enhancing public transportation and
pedestrian,and has included objective criteria to measure its progress towards achieving its
policies of reducing traffic. Atascadero should do the same.
The policy of favoring public transportation and pedestrians should be established as a
policy in the General Plan in order to guide future City developments. Some of the goals of the
DFG are not advanced by the proposals contained in the circulation element. For example,there
are no concrete provisions for creating bike paths. Moreover,there is no effort to place higher
density developments near transportation hubs.
The Level of Service(LOS)Calculations for the DGP are inadequate because they are not
based on the latest Highway Capacity Manual,which was issued in 2000. The new manual also 154-12
contains LOS levels for pedestrians and public transportation. These LOS measurements were
not calculated for the DGP.
The Traffic Study does not make clear where the Traffic Demand Management Model 154-13
was tested or calibrated. As such,it is impossible to gauge its accuracy.
Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed General Plan Amendments are not Addressed
Many of the proposed amendments to the General Plan will likely result in or facilitate
additional growth in Atascadero. The following are some examples of potential growth inducing
impacts of the proposed changes that are ignored by the DEIR.
Extension of sewer services to outlying areas will make development in the outlying areas 154-14
Comments of ECOSLO on Ataseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 8 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 15
more feasible,thereby inducing additional growth.
Reducing lot sizes in the outlying areas will make it more likely that adjacent lots,
whether in the City or the County,will also seek to split into smaller lots,thereby increasing the
development potential in these areas. The well-known domino effect on the adjacent properties,
especially on the east side of the City has the potential for inducing tremendous growth.
Conversion of Guesthouses
At the 7/24101 City Council meeting,Community Development Director Warren Frace 154-15
stated that currently,a substantial number of guest houses in Atascadero are illegally rented. He
stated that the City cannot,and has not,been able to enforce those provisions of the General Plan
which make the renting of guest houses illegal. Mr. Frace further stated his belief that the City
should"acknowledge"that guest houses are being rented,and try to regulate them,in part in
order to be credited with additional housing units through the Housing Element. In a subsequent
meeting,it was made clear that the only difference between a rentable second unit and a
guesthouse is a stove,second units have them,and guest houses don't. Minutes of Atascadero
General Plan Meeting,9/17/2001. At a 9/28/2001 Council Meeting,it was made clear that
decision not to prosecute illegal guest house conversions was a policy decision on the part of City
staff.
As a partial response to this problem,the City has proposed adopting Policy 8.2,Program
3:"amend the zoning ordinance to conditionally allow guest houses in the SFR-Y land use
designation." Likewise,Policy 3.1,Program 3 calls for a plan to"adopt an ordinance that would
conditionally allow second units within the SFR-Y land use designation." DEIR V-27.
Given the City's historical failure to enforce the regulations prohibiting second unit
rentals,the proposal to begin allowing second units in parts of the City would logically result in
future conversion of guest houses to rentable second units in other parts of the City. Once some
second unit rentals are sanctioned by the City,even if in the guise of an experiment,the City will
be under intense pressure to legalize all second units. Whether through wholesale future
amendments or case by case variances,the move to legally sanction some second units would
undoubtedly result in many more such conversions. The additional legally rentable second units
would in turn result in population growth and the concomitant environmental impacts. Thus,the
General Plan amendment to"conditionally"allow rentable guest houses is likely to have serious
growth inducing impacts,which were ignored by the DEIR.
Additional im eoa is of permitting rentable Guesthouses
Although the DEIR(eg at p.46)and the DGP both admit that soil in most areas in the
City is unsuitable for septic systems and note a relatively high rate of septic failures of septic
systems,these documents are silent on the impact of the additional residential density in areas
Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 9 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 16
without sewer service. The high rate of failure would result in water quality impairments,which
may render portions of groundwater reserves unsuitable as a source of drinking water. On the
other hand,the high rate of septic system failures may result in the costly decision to extend
sewer services outside the urban reserve line. The extension of the sewer service outside of the
Urban Reserve Line would be in conflict with the GP's policy of limiting Utilities and Services
to the areas within the City. Any extension of sewer services would be extremely costly. Finally,
extending sewer service to the outlying areas would also result in the sewer treatment facility
reaching maximum capacity at a faster rate than anticipated in the DEIR,which could result in
costly expansion of the existing facility. Thus,at a minimum,rentable guesthouses should not be
allowed in areas outside the Urban Reserve Line with high risk of septic system failure.
Likewise,the additional impacts on the water supplies,biological resources,and traffic
from the additional population growth due at least in part on guest houses is not addressed in the
DEIR.
Impacts on Overcrowded Schools are not mitigated
154-16
The DEIR acknowledges that many schools in the City are already over crowded. The
DEIR admits that the only funds available for funding additional schools would come from new
developments. The DEIR contains no mitigation measures to reduce the impact on the already
overcrowded public schools. The DEIR cites school mitigation fees as a potential source of
revenue for funding new schools,and states that the City would work with the School District to
find location for new schools. There is no discussion,however,of whether the funding from
schools mitigation fees would be sufficient to mitigate the impact on schools. Nor is there any
discussion of what percentage of the new commercial or residential developments would be
required to pay school mitigation fees.
The proposed project's impacts on schools,therefore,remains inadequately understood
and mitigated.
The PGP w'll res in Reduc ' n of Recreational facili ' 154-17
The DGP will result in a reduction of the total number of acres devoted to recreation and
public facilities. DEIR,p.30. Because the DGP will also result in a significant increase in total
population over the existing General Plan,the total amount of recreational acreage per resident
will also decline,possibly significantly. The DEIR fails to consider this impact. This reduction
of total park acreage per resident also seems to be in conflict with Goal 11 of the DGP to
"Provide an adequate supply of City park facilities to all Atascadero residents."DEIR p.31.
Comments of ECOSLO on Ataseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 10 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 17
Imuacts on Biological Resources
Sensitive an tial Status Species.
CEQA Guidelines sec. 15126,requires that an EIR must identify and provide adequate
information on the significant,and reasonably foreseeable effects of all phases of a proposed
project.It is anticipated in the DEIR that if the proposed General Plan alternative is enacted,
development allowed under the plan may affect sensitive species(DEIR,p 57).While the DEIR
attempts to provides direction for the protection of sensitive and special status species,the 154-18
collaborative support necessary to conduct research,planning,and habitat management efforts
leading to long-term conservation and protection of species is improperly deferred to future
anticipated projects.
Detailed inventories which include vegetative,herpetological,icthiological,
ornithological,and mammalian surveys,including small mammals,fish,bats and insects should
be conducted.Future inventories will. Because the land surrounding Atascadero is under
development pressures,it is vital to obtain accurate data on the existing species. This will
facilitate the ultimate goal of this project and ensure a higher potential for the continued survival
of sensitive species.
RiparianWetland and other Sensitive Communities:
Approximately 91%of California's presettlement wetland habitat has been destroyed as a
result of past development projects(Cylinder,et al. 1995, Wetlands Regulation).In addition
riparian habitats support plants and animals that are not common elsewhere.Riparian and
wetland areas can help maintain water quality by reducing pollution,siltation,and erosion.These
areas are often sought out for recreation and are generally considered amenities valued by
communities and private landowners.Past studies suggest that property values may rise between
5-11%or more due to proximity to open space and water,improved water quality provided by
wetlands,and the aesthetic value of wetlands(Kirshner and Moore 1988,Li and Brown 1980,
Dornbusch and Barrager 1973).
The DEIR anticipates increases in development encroachment in riparian and wetland
areas under the proposed General Plan.These impacts are identified as significant but mitigatable 154-19
(DEIR,p 58).However,in reality,there is no mitigation for direct removal of riparian vegetation
or wetland areas.Development and other uses within riparian zones decreases stream shading,
increases sedimentation and temperature,reduces filtration of pollutants,cause bank erosion,and
reduces the amount of nutrients for downstream areas.
The DEIR recommends conditions of approval for development proposed within 100 feet
of a riparian or wetland area(DEIR p 61).While the mitigation proposed in the DEIR may be
sufficient for seasonal drainages,larger creeks and tributaries to the Salinas River should be
protected by setbacks of at least 50 feet beyond the dripline of any riparian vegetation,or 100 feet
Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page l l of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 18
from the stream bank,whichever is greater.
Mieration and hLovernent Corridors: 154-20
The DEIR has identified reasonably foreseeable harm likely to occur from disruption of
well established wildlife movement corridors(DEIR p 58). Corridors are recognized in the
scientific literature as critical in providing movement between areas essential to the survival of
individuals and species.The physical disruption of wildlife corridors caused by the removal of
vegetation and/or introduction of less than mature plants or non-native species could possibly
mean significant corridors could be lost as suitable habitat for many of the local or migratory
species.Further study to illuminate species composition,routes used or techniques to avoid
disrupting this essential habitat element should be concluded prior to certification of the DEIR
Alterngtives
CEQA contains a substantive mandate that public agencies refrain from approving
projects with significant environmental effects if there are"feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures"that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish
and Game Commission(1997) 16 Ca1.4th 105, 134;Public Resources Code§§21002,21081.
Public Resources Code§21100 requires public agencies to consider alternatives to the proposed
project in the EIR.
An EIR must"[d]escribe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,or to the
location of the project,which would feasiblely attain most of the basic objectives of the project
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA Guidelines§ 15126.6(a). The discussion must
"focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant effects of the project,even if these alternatives would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives,or would be more costly." CEQA Guidelines§
15126.6(b).
[The EIR]must contain sufficient detail to help ensure the integrity of the process of
decision making by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept
under the rug. It must reflect the analytic route the agency traveled from evidence to
action. An EIR which does not produce adequate information regarding alternatives
cannot achieve the dual purpose served by the EIR,which is to enable the reviewing
agency to make an informed decision and to make the decisionmaker's reasoning
accessible to the public,thereby protecting informed self-government.
Ki n s Co=Fam Bureau v City of Hanfor (1990)221 Cal.App.3d 692,733 (internal
citations omitted). A legally adequate EIR"must produce information sufficient to permit a
reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." San Bernardino
Yallev Audi on Society v CoMM of San BgrnaEdino(1984) 155 Ca1.App.3d 738,750-751.
Comments of ECOSLO on Ataseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DErR Page 12 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 19
CEQA does not dictate that the lead agency must choose a particular alternative,but if
alternatives are rejected as infeasible,the EIR must provide a reasoned explanation for their
rejection. Marin Mun. W=Dist.Y. KQ Land Cigifornia CoKV (1991)235 Cal.App.3d 1652 [1
Cal.Rptr.2d 767]("If the agency finds certain alternatives to be infeasible,its analysis must
explain in meaningful detail the reasons and facts supporting that conclusion."). The DEIR fails 154-21
to adequately propose and discuss alternatives to the proposed DGP.
The DEIR,at p. 97,refers to Alternatives 1-3,which were called the Minimum Infill,
Mixed Use Approach,and Maximum Development Potential,respectively. The DEIR also refers
to a`Rand use diagram"as the preferred alternative. The DEIR then goes on to state that the
"community chose Alternative 1. The City,based on the community input,chose a preferred
option combining components of the existing General Plan,and Alternatives 1 and 2. This
combination is put forth as the land use scheme in the Draft Plan and this EIR." Id.
The DEIR then goes on to present a cursory description of the alternatives referred to
above. Alternative I is said to provide for"the most intense land uses,"with housing and retail
commercial development dominating the northern portion of the city. Other intense residential
development would be envisioned pursuant to this alternative. Figure 7 is said to describe this
alternative. This alternative was rejected because it did not meet"objectives regarding rural
character,compact development,preservation of elbow room,among others,and would result in
greater environmental impacts than the Draft Plan". Id. This alternative was rejected and further
considered.
The DEIR also refers to"other alternatives"such as"mixed use,minimal development,
and Eagle Ranch SOI exclusion"which were deemed not to conflict with project objectives,and
would result in fewer impacts.
As a threshold matter,the DEIR's description of the alternatives is inadequate because it
fails to provide sufficient detail to allow for"meaningful"analysis. Significantly,the DEIR is
unclear which components of Alternative 1 and 2 were selected to arrive at the preferred
alternative. While the DEIR admits that the preferred alternative is conglomeration of aspects of
both Alternative 1 and 2,the DEIR itself only compares the whole of Alternative 2 and 3 and
Exclusion of Eagle Ranch from the Sphere of Influence. Because the DGP itself consists of
elements of the different alternatives identified in the DEIR,an appropriate alternatives analysis
must compare each element within the alternatives,and not the alternatives as whole. Without
this"apple to apple and orange to orange"comparison of the components of each strategy,the
DEIR contains insufficient information about each alternative to allow the public to glean the
wisdom of the City's choice of alternatives and the rejection of the public's criticism. Kings
-
Cg=Farm Bureau v.CLty of Hanford(1990)221 Cal.App.3d 692,733(internal citations
omitted).
The analysis of the No Project Alternative is inadequate,and exposes the analytical gaps
in the City's analysis. For the most part,although somewhat obliquely,the DEIR does manage to
Comments of ECOSLO on Atascadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 13 of 14
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 20
explain that the impact from the lower population rates envisioned in the existing General Plan
will result in fewer and less severe impacts on Agriculture,Air Quality,Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources,Water,Noise,Public Services,and Recreation. In short,as the DEIR admits
at page 105,the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior.
The DEIR identifies a few instances where the DGP contains policies that would reduce
the environmental impacts that are likely caused by the existing plan. Thus,for example,the
DEIR states that existing plan would result in aesthetic impacts because it does not contain
"policies"aimed at preserving"darkness"in the community,or preservation of views,etc. Id.,
97-98. The DEIR does not explain why the existing plan could not be amended to incorporate
these policies without providing for additional density and population growth as envisioned by
the DGP.
Significantly,the DEIR does not reject the No Project Alternative(i.e.implementation of
the existing General Plan)because it fails to meet the project's objectives,or that it is infeasible.
To reiterate,the primary objectives of the DGP are to"meet state affordable housing
requirements,and to distribute commercial services in such a way that they form neighborhood-
specific commercial areas," DEIR,31. 10 additional"goals"which in their original form were
included in the existing General Plan and are not new to the DGP. The City does not claim
anywhere in the DEIR that the existing GP will fail to meet the goal of meeting state affordable
housing requirements,or redistribute commercial services. In fact,there is no analysis of why
the additional density and population that will result from implementation of the DGP are
necessary to meet the objectives of the DGP. Nor is there any explanation of the origins or the
genesis of the stated objectives of the DGP.
Conclusion
ECOSLO has demonstrated here that the Alternative discussion contained in the DEIR 154-22
fails to satisfy the minimum requirements of CEQA. The City should draft and re-circulate a
legally sufficient Alternatives analysis consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
Dated April 12,2002
n
Pam Marshal Heatherington
Executive Director,ECOSLO
Comments of ECOSLO on Ateseadero Proposed General Plan Amendments and DEIR Page 14 of 14
City of Ataseadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 21
.p
Letter 154
ECOSLO
April 12,2002
154-1 The commenter states that it is "impossible"to decipher changes from the existing
General Plan and the proposed General Plan. The commenter goes on to state that the
document(the Draft Plan) is legally inadequate because it is confusing. The
commenter further states that contrary to ECOSLO's suggestion in the NOP, the
Draft Plan did not include text outlining changes from the existing plan. Finally,the
commenter states that the DEIR and Draft Plan are legally deficient for these reasons.
Response: The drafting and organization of a general plan is guided by §65300 et seq. of the
M California Government Code. In fact, §65301(a) of the Code specifically states"the general
plan may be adopted in any format deemed appropriate or convenient by the legislative body,
including the combining of elements." The law does not require comparison of, consistency
with, or reference to,previous general plans in the drafting of a new general plan.
CEQA requires that an EIR for a general plan assess impacts based on the environment at the
time of the project proposal, not the existing general plan. Comparisons to the existing
general plans in terms of relative impact are limited to analysis of the existing general plan in
the alternatives section. CEQA requires the analysis of the "no-project" alternative, which
must discuss the existing conditions at the time of NOP preparation, as well as what could
occur in the future under existing plans and available services. The DEIR prepared for the
Draft Plan analyzed two "no project" alternatives; one which addressed the existing
condition, and one which compared the Draft Plan to the General Plan. It is important to
note that if either of the no-project alternatives is selected as the "environmentally superior
alternative,"then the EIR must identify another environmentally superior alternative.
Guidelines §15126.6(e).
154-2 The commenter contends that the project description contained in the DEIR does not
sufficiently describe the components of the project. The commenter states that a
"careful and detailed description of...residential [and] commercial projects" is
warranted.
Response: An EIR prepared for a General Plan is a programmatic document. The reader is
encouraged to refer to the Introduction of the EIR for an explanation of the requirements and
specificity of an EIR analyzing a General Plan. The project analyzed in the EIR is the broad
land use plan put forth in the Draft Plan and the policies therein. It is not feasible to define
and/or assess the impacts of specific projects in such an EIR.
154-3 The commenter states that the comments put forth by ECOSLO in response to the
NOP are incorporated by reference.
Response: Comment noted. The letter received in response to the NOP is attached and
responses to applicable comments follow. Responses are limited to those issues that pertain
to the EIR. The reader should note that the lead agency is not required to respond to
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 22
comments on the NOP. Comments specifically regarding the NOP that do not pertain to the
EIR are simply denoted, "not applicable."
154-3(a) The commenter states that the NOP failed to adequately describe the
proj ect.
Response: Not applicable.
154-3(b) The commenter states that because the text of the Draft Plan was not
available at the time of the NOP, the NOP was "patently inadequate."
Response: Not applicable.
154-3(c) The commenter sates that the NOP is legally inadequate in part due to
the lack of Draft Plan text.
Response: Not applicable.
154-3(d) The commenter states that the amendments to the General Plan are in
conflict with the existing General Plan and internally inconsistent with
guiding policies.
Response: The commenter is referred to the response to 154-1, and 154-9.
154-3(e) The commenter states that internal conflicts among policies and goals
warrant identification of potentially significant impacts in terms of land use
and planning.
Response: The General Plan Update process involved a series of neighborhood
workshops, community forums, and public meetings. The public identified a number
of issues that were important ranging from preservation of rural character and
protection of oak woodlands to the supply of affordable housing. The General Plan
has focused on identifying a balance point of focusing growth along the El Camino
Real corridor while preserving the large lot patterns found in the hills. All of the
General Plan land use changes are located along El Camino Real and Morro Road and
affect less than 5% of the land within the City. The General Plan creates a new
greenbelt policy that limits the maximum boundaries of the City to the historic E.G
Lewis Atascadero Colony boundaries.
154-3(f) The commenter states that traffic generated by the Draft Plan may
preclude expansion of existing mineral extraction operations.
Response: Comment noted.
154-3(g) The commenter states that the population increase is confusing.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 23
Response: The population buildout number of the current General Plan is 32,873 persons.
The new General Plan buildout number is 36,266 persons with net increase 3,392 persons.
The buildout number was derived based on the General Plan land use changes reflected in the
following table. The total acreage number is zero because no new area is added to the
General Plan.
Difference between
existing and proposed GP
Land Use net changes Units Population
A 0.0 ac
SE/RE (315.5) ac -123 du's -325 pp
SFR-Z 32.8 ac 32 du's 86 pp
SFR-Y 119.7 ac 260 du's 689 pp
SFR-X 65.2 ac 252 du's 669 pp
MDR 19.9 ac 102 du's 271 pp
HDR 58.0 ac 367 du's 973 pp
GC-NC (7.7) ac
GC-O 3.4 ac
GC-R 61.8 ac 189 du's 501 pp
CPK (73.2) ac
D 0.4 ac
SC (29.8) ac
GC-TC (3.7) ac
1 31.2 ac
IPK(drop) (31.2) ac
MU 66.6 ac 200 du's 530 pp
CREC 6.7 ac
REC (177.6) ac
P (104.2) ac
OS 277.4 ac
Total 0.0 ac 1,280 duIs 3,392 pp
The table includes the following unit adjustments
72 units added to SFR-X(small lot single family planned development policy)
50 units added to SFR-Y(second unit policy)
189 units added to GC (mixed use commercial policy)
154-3(h) The commenter states that the change from"units"to "bedrooms" if
confusing and questions the total population increase.
Response: The multi-family density formula will be changed to a unit based formula
rather than a bedroom based formula. This will actually improve population
projections since multi-family populations are calculated by the State on a unit basis
rather than a bedroom basis.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 24
154-3(i) The commenter states that it is not clear whether conversion of
commercial districts to mixed use are accounted for.
Response: Refer to 154-3(g)
154-3(j) The commenter states that the NOP fails to consider the population
increases of Policy Option 1, expansion of the USL.
Response: Refer to 154-3(g), regarding buildout.
154-3(k) The commenter states that the NOP fails to consider increases in
population as a result of guesthouses and second units.
Response: Guesthouses are currently allowed in all single-family residential districts
with a building permit. The guest houses are permitted to be as large as 50%the area
of the main house but may not have cooking facilities. The City Council has direct
the General Plan to prohibit guesthouses in all single-family residential districts and
allow second units (with cooking facilities) in the Single Family Residential one-acre
district(SFR-Y) only. The second units would be required to meet certain design
standards (lot size,parking, maximum size, minimal tree impacts and architectural
design) and would need to be approved by the Planning Commission through a
Conditional Use Permit process. The State of California requires cities to allow
second units in single-family districts unless the city adopts certain hardship findings.
154-3(l) The commenter states that areas converting to mixed use from
commercial should be mapped and should be included in density and
population assumptions.
Response: Refer to 154-3(g)
154-3(m) The commenter states that setback figures have not been provided.
Response: Policy 8.2 in the proposed General Plan identifies the need to "establish
and maintain" creek development standards. Commenters expressed general concern
about the apparent lack of specificity in this policy and its associated programs, and
they requested establishment of quantified setbacks in the proposed General Plan. A
number of policies and programs have been added under Goal LOC 8 to further
specify the performance standards that must be met. The reader should note that
much of this language is incorporated from the EIR, with minor clarifications and
expansions.
The following policy has been added to the General Plan to provide an interim creek
setback requirement:
8.2.2. Prior to adoption of a creek setback ordinance an
interim 20-foot creek setback shall be in effect along
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 25
Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek and all other 7.5 min
USGS quadrangle blueline creeks as follows:
a) On Atascadero Creek and Graves Creek setbacks shall be
measured from the edge of the creek reservation.
b) All other blueline creek setbacks shall be measured from
ordinary high water mark.
c) The Planning Commission may approve exceptions to the
interim creek setbacks in the form of a conditional use permit
if the finding can be made that creek or improvements will not
be negatively impacted by the exception.
154-3(n) The commenter states that needs to expand streets or intersections may
conflict with plan goals.
Response: All future street projects will be subject to CEQA review. Projects that
violate City policies are create significant impacts will have to be changed or
mitigated.
154-3(0) The commenter states that expansion of the URL will require services
that must be addressed.
Response: Impacts to services are addressed in Section V.X of the EIR.
154-3(p) The commenter states that adequate park and open space should be set
aside.
Response: The reader is referred to Section V.X, "Public Services." The amount of parks
acreage available was considered sufficient to serve the future population. Furthermore,
programs under Policy 11.1 call for the provision of additional park space beyond
accepted standards.
154-3(q) The commenter states that the baseline traffic must be studied.
Response: The traffic study in the EIR is up-to-date.
154-3(r) The commenter states that the analysis and mitigation of floodplain
impacts is insufficient.
Response: The City currently has a Flood Hazard ordinance that regulates
development in areas of high flood hazard. The ordinance requires special
engineering studies and development standards for construction within the high flood
hazard zone.
154-3(s) The commenter states that the school relocation should be addressed.
City of Ataseadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 26
Response: The relocation of the Junior High School to a site outside of the
Downtown is a long term goal of the school district that is supported by the City.
There are current plans to move the school.
154-3(t) The commenter states that the NOPs discussion of groundwater is
flawed.
Response: Updated information was incorporated into the EIR analysis.
154-3(u) The commenter states that impacts to wetlands cannot"readily" be
mitigated, and that avoidance is preferred.
Response: Refer to 154-3(m), regarding creek setbacks.
154-3(v) The commenter states that proposed housing visible from Highway
101 will require mitigation.
Response: The commenter is referred to Section V.XI, "Aesthetics," for a list of policies and
programs intended to reduce the significance of aesthetic impacts.
154-3(w) The commenter states that destruction of oaks and vegetation must be
assessed.
Response: The commenter is referred to Section V.IV, "Biological Resources" for a
discussion of impacts and mitigation.
154-3(x) The commenter states that growth-inducing impacts of second units
must be analyzed.
Response: Second units were accounted for in the buildout population.
154-3(y) The commenter states that impacts to prime or important land must be
mitigated.
Response: The commenter is referred to Section V.VI, "Agriculture" for a discussion
of impacts to prime and important farmland.
154-3(z) The commenter that the objectives identified in the NOP are flawed.
Response: The commenter is referred to the discussion of objectives in the EIR.
154-4 The commenter states that the DEIR fails to address impacts of the Draft Plan
associated with changes to existing General Plan language.
Response: The reader is referred to 154-1.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 27
154-5 The commenter states that the DEIR omits analysis of subdivisions that will now not
need amendments, including some projects about which the City is knowledgeable.
Response: Refer to the response to 154-2. When a general plan is the proposed project,the
CEQA Guidelines allow for description and analysis of a broad program, with analysis for
consistency with the General Plan and additional impacts for specific projects at a later date.
The General Plan EIR does not exempt future projects from environmental review.
154-6 The commenter states that the changes between the existing and proposed housing
elements are not described and evaluated in the DEIR and Draft Plan. The
commenter goes on to state that the document[s] do not stand on their own.
Response: The commenter is referred to the response to comment 154-1.
154-7 The commenter states that the proposed changes will affect 100%, as opposed to the
purported 5%, of the city. The commenter specifically cites Policy 2.2 and states that
the EIR does not assess the impacts of this policy.
Response: General Plan Policy 2.2.2. Allows for lots within the Urban Services Line to be
subdivided below the zoning district minimums when the lot is surrounded on all sides by
non-conforming lots. The process would require a Planned Development rezone to be
approved by the City Council and would only allow the minimum lot size to be reduced to
the next lowest single family district minimum lot size.
Land Use Min Lot Size Min Lot with PD Potential Lots
SE Suburban Estates 2.5 acres 1.5 acres (6±lots)
SFR-Z Single Family 1.5 acre min 1.5 acres 1.0 acres (4±lots)
SFR-Y Single Family 1.0 acre min 1.0 acre 0.5 acre(if sewered) (7±lots)
Based on an analysis of the existing lot patterns within the USL it appears that potential 20
lots may qualify for the PD process. The majority of potential lots would not be able to meet
the requirement of being surrounded by non-conforming lots.
154-8 The commenter states that the objectives of the Draft Plan are unclear.
Response: The objectives of the proposed General Plan consist of the goals put forth in the
project description of the EIR. Objectives stated in an EIR need to attain a level of detail
commensurate with the level of detail of the project. The proposed General Plan would
provide the guiding framework for the development of the community, however, objectives
remain less than concrete. CEQA allows for this level of specificity in a programmatic EIR,
such as the EIR in question.
154-9 The commenter states that internal conflicts exist in the Draft Plan.
154-9(a) The commenter states that allowing guesthouses is inconsistent with
Draft Plan goals.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 28
Response: Refer to 154-3(k).
154-9(b) The commenter states that residential development in the north and
south is inconsistent with Goal 1.
Response: Since the founding of the Atascadero Colony by E.G. Lewis in 1913,
Atascadero has been designed with more compact development centered on
Downtown and El Camino Real (referred to as the Urban Core). Lot sizes increase in
proportion to distance from the urban core. This development pattern exists today
along El Camino Real and has been permitted by City General Plans for 20-years.
The proposed General Plan is consistent with the existing development pattern and
continues to protect the large lot development standards outside the urban core.
154-9(c) The commenter states that commercial nodes are inconsistent with
Goal 4.
Response: Each node would support different types of uses. The Downtown will
focus on civic, dining, tourist serving and entertainment uses. Outlying nodes will
provide neighborhood commercial and service uses.
154-9(d) The commenter states that Policy 10.1, bullet 2 is inconsistent with
Goal 1.
Response: Comment noted
154-10 The commenter states that in general the mitigation measures for the Circulation
Element are vague and lack measurable criteria to measure their success or failure.
Response: The proposed General Plan is a programmatic document; it provides policies and
programs intended to guide the long-range development of the City of Atascadero. The
environmental impacts of such a document are best assessed through a programmatic EIR,
which outlines general impacts and mitigation measures, in the form of policies and
programs, while incorporating guidance for future projects (Bass et al., 1999). Mitigation
may not be deferred, however, guidance may consist merely of performance standards for
future mitigation.
154-11 The commenter recommends that the City not lower levels of service standards unless
the City aggressively pursues alternative transportation. The commenter recommends
review and inclusion of policies and measures contained in the City of San Luis
Obispo Circulation Element.
Response: Comment noted.
154-12 The commenter states that LOS Calculations for the Draft Plan are inadequate
because they are based on outdated information. The commenter further states that
LOS measurements for alternative transportation were not calculated.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 29
Response: Traffic counts that are less than 3 years old are considered valid. When the
Circulation Element update started in 2000,the traffic counts were conducted. Therefore, it
is not necessary to conduct new traffic counts. LOS analysis for alternative transportation
was not calculated for the Draft General Plan.
154-13 The commenter asks where the Traffic Demand Management model was tested or
calibrated.
Response: The traffic model was calibrated to existing conditions (reference Table 7—Daily
Validation by Roadway Type).
154-14 The commenter states that the EIR ignores certain growth-inducing impacts,
including extension of sewer and reducing lot sizes.
Response: Such assumptions were built into the EIR and were analyzed as part of the
project. Sewer is proposed for extension to portions of the community with the USL; the
General Plan does not propose extension of sewer to areas outside this area, which may
facilitate growth. Reduction of lot sizes is accounted for in terms of additional population
potential. Reduction of lot sizes in itself is not growth-inducing.
154-15 The commenter states that impacts from the conversion of guesthouses are ignored by
the EIR.
Response: Refer to 154-3(k).
154-16 The commenter states that impacts to schools are not mitigated.
Response: The reader is referred to Section V.X, "Public Services." The law limits
mitigation for impacts to schools to the levying of specific developer's fees. To further
address this issue, the Draft Plan contains a number of policies under Goal LOC 15,
including Policy 15.9, which aim for the provision of adequate school facilities. Decisions
and planning for the provision of schools ultimately rest with the school district.
154-17 The commenter states that the Draft Plan will result in reduction of recreational
facilities and that the EIR fails to address the impact.
Response: The reader is referred to Section V.X, "Public Services." The EIR analyzed the
proposed recreational acreage against the proposed buildout and national standards and
concluded that a sufficient amount of park space would be available.
154-18 The commenter states that implementation of the EIR would have impacts to sensitive
species, and that the EIR improperly defers "collaborative support" and inventories to
future projects.
Response: The proposed General Plan is a programmatic document; it provides policies and
programs intended to guide the long-range development of the City of Atascadero. The
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 30
environmental impacts of such a document are best assessed through a programmatic EIR,
which outlines general impacts and mitigation measures, in the form of policies and
programs, while incorporating guidance for future projects (Bass et al., 1999). Mitigation
may not be deferred, however, guidance may consist merely of performance standards for
future mitigation.
154-19 The commenter states that impacts to riparian and wetland areas are not mitigable,
and suggests additional mitigation.
Response: Policy 8.2 in the proposed General Plan identifies the need to "establish and
maintain"creek development standards. Commenters expressed general concern about the
apparent lack of specificity in this policy and its associated programs, and they requested
establishment of quantified setbacks in the proposed General Plan. A number of policies and
programs have been added under Goal LOC 8 to further specify the performance standards
that must be met. The reader should note that much of this language is incorporated from the
EIR, with minor clarifications and expansions.
The following policy has been added to the General Plan to provide an interim creek setback
requirement:
8.2.2. Prior to adoption of a creek setback ordinance an interim 20-foot
creek setback shall be in effect along Atascadero Creek, Graves
Creek and all other 7.5 min USGS quadrangle blueline creeks as
follows:
a) On Atascadero Creek and Graves Creek setbacks shall be
measured from the edge of the creek reservation.
b) All other blueline creek setbacks shall be measured from
ordinary high water mark.
c) The Planning Commission may approve exceptions to the
interim creek setbacks in the form of a conditional use permit
if the finding can be made that creek or improvements will not
be negatively impacted by the exception.
154-20 The commenter states that further study regarding wildlife corridors should be
concluded prior to certification of the DEIR.
Response: The proposed General Plan is a programmatic document; it provides policies and
programs intended to guide the long-range development of the City of Atascadero. The
environmental impacts of such a document are best assessed through a programmatic EIR,
which outlines general impacts and mitigation measures, in the form of policies and
programs, while incorporating guidance for future projects (Bass et al., 1999). Mitigation
may not be deferred, however, guidance may consist merely of performance standards for
future mitigation.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 31
154-21 The commenter states that the EIR's description of alternatives is inadequate because
it fails to provide sufficient detail. The commenter goes on to state that the EIR fails
to describe which components of 1 and 2 were selected to arrive at the preferred
alternative. The commenter further states that the No Project Alternative analysis is
inadequate.
Response: A number of commenters have been unsatisfied with the alternatives selected, and
have provided suggestions for additional alternatives.
CEQA requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed plan.
CEQA does not require analysis of every conceivable alternative to a project in an EIR.
Rather, the range of alternatives selected is guided by the following criteria:
• The alternative meets some or all of the project objectives
• The alternative appears feasible
• The alternative avoids or substantially lessens significant impacts of the proposed project.
Sufficient information must be provided about each alternative to allow for "meaningful
analysis," however, the level of detail may be less than the proposed project [Guidelines
§I5126.6(d)].
The General Plan update process included analysis of four alternatives over the past year.
The plan options included the Minimum Infill (Alternative 1), Mixed Use Approach
(Alternative 2), the Maximum Development Potential (Alternative 3), and the land use
diagram identified in the Draft Plan (preferred alternative). The city has therefore devised a
number of alternatives as a result of a long-term study and planning effort. The alternatives
previously described were considered feasible, logical, and meeting different objectives.
154-22 The commenter states that the EIR should be recirculated.
Response: A number of comments received during the public review process resulted in
minor changes to the policies and programs contained in the Draft Plan, as well as the land
use diagram. New information was also incorporated into the EIR during this period. None
of the above changes meet the thresholds for recirculation, including substantial changes in
the underlying project, substantial new impacts, or substantial changes in the significance of
an impact. The initial 45-day review period is considered adequate.
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 32
Exhibit B: Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
City of Atascadero
Resolution No.2002-030
Page 33
Exhibit Q Mitigation Monitoring Program
Exhibit B: Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations
City of Atascadero
General Plan 2025
Volume III: Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mitigation Measures Monitoring and Reporting Plan
SCH No. 2001121027
June 11,2002
Prepared by:
Crawford
Multari &
Clark
ASSOCIATES
City of Atascadero General Plan 2025
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mitigation Measures Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093
Of the State CEQA Guidelines and
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse Number 2001121027
Project Files May Be Reviewed at:
City of Atascadero
Community Development Department
6500 Palma Avenue
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations Regarding Significant Environmental Effects of
The City of Atascadero General Plan 2025
Section 1: Statutory Requirements for Findings
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21081) and the CEQA
Guidelines(California Code of Regulations,Title 14, §15091)require that:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which
identified one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one
or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
The findings required shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record."
For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the lead agency is
required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the
project outweigh the significant effects on the environment(Public Resources Code Section 21081(b)).
Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines, the Final EIR for the Atascadero General
Plan identified environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. The
Final EIR identified certain potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the project, which are
listed below. The Final EIR also identified mitigation measures, which will reduce or eliminate many of
these potentially significant effects. The determination whether or not to incorporate such mitigation
measures and the rationale for such determination are set forth below. In making these findings, all of the
rationale and data contained in the Final EIR have not been repeated. The Final EIR and other source
documents referenced therein are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full in this document.
Except to the extent they conflict with the findings and determinations set forth in this document, the
analysis and conclusions of the Final EIR, including the responses to comments and any supplemental
responses provided by City staff and consultants in connection with the adoption of the Atascadero
General Plan,are hereby adopted as findings by the Lead Agency.
The City of Atascadero finds that impacts remaining significant after the application of mitigation are
considered acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other benefits and considerations
identified herein. The City also finds that the proposed General Plan is the favored alternative, and that
the other alternatives either do not meet the objectives of the project, do not result in reduced levels of
impact,or would limit the obtainment of the overriding benefits and considerations identified below.
2
Section 2: Significant Effects that cannot be mitigated to a Less than Significant Level
The FEIR identified the following significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant
level even with incorporation into the Atascadero General Plan of all feasible mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR:
2.1 Hydrology and Water Quality
2.1.1 Groundwater Supply
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Demand for water generated under the proposed General Plan buildout
may exceed available supply.
Mitigation Measures:
Compliance with SB 221. All applicable development projects under the General Plan shall comply
with the recent legislation governing water supplies and development approval. Any subdivision
proposing 400 or more units shall be subject to the provisions of this legislation.
Refer also to mitigation for water quality in Section 3.
Findings: Due to uncertainties regarding the safe yield of the City's groundwater supplies, significant
impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant
and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section.
Facts in Support of Findings: Although the result of the Draft Final Paso Robles Groundwater Study is a
more defined perennial yield for the basin,sources of error remain in both the areas of supply and demand
such that determination of adequate supply is not feasible. The proposed General Plan contains a number
of policies and programs designed to support ongoing water conservation and provision of adequate
services prior to development;however,impacts are considered significant.
In truth, growth in the Atascadero Sub-basin area and the larger Paso Robles Formation will continue
irrespective of the adoption of the proposed General Plan. Water supply concerns, as mentioned above,
are a regional issue, and do not ally with jurisdictional boundaries. The adoption of certain policies and
programs contained in the proposed General Plan would constitute a positive approach towards a regional
solution.
Policy 10.2: Support ongoing water conservation efforts.
Program:
• Coordinate water conservation programs with AMWC as required by State Water Efficiency
Regulations.
• Consider expansion of reclaimed water use.
• Encourage the incorporation of water conservation measures in new development.
Policy 15.3: Ensure that adequate service capacity and facilities exist prior to approving new
development.
Programs:
• Coordinate with the Atascadero Municipal Water Company to provide for adequate facilities and
water supplies.
• Require all new projects and new development requiring domestic water to be served by the
Atascadero Municipal Water Company unless a waiver is granted by the Planning Commission
through a Conditional Use Permit.
3
2.1.2 Compliance with SB610 (Section 21151.9 PRC]
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in demand
that outstrips the water supply; this impact is in conflict with the applicable plans and programs for
projects such as this,specifically SB 610.
Mitigation Measures: Incorporate the recommendations of the Urban Water Management Plan and amend
the General Plan as necessary.
Findings: Because supply and projected demand in the basin remains unclear, impacts are considered
significant in terms of compliance with this recent legislation.
Facts in Support of Findings: As discussed in the EIR, the Atascadero Mutual Water Company is in the
process of preparing the required Urban Water Management Plan. Completion of this document hinged
on completion of the Paso Robles Formation Study and the proposed General Plan update. It was
important to have both a picture of the underlying water supply and the projected demand. The
Atascadero Mutual Water Company prepared an assessment of the impact of the proposed General Plan
on water supplies as required under CEQA. Supplies appeared sufficient based on existing information.
Moreover, policies identified under 2.1.1, above, aim for the provision of an adequate water supply, and
conservation of existing supplies. However, since some question remains as to whether demand will
ultimately exceed supply,impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
2.1.3 Cumulative Impacts-Water Supply
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Continued development of Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), rural
portions of the County,and development of Eagle Ranch would adversely impact water supplies.
Mitigation Measures:No additional.
Findings: Due to uncertainties regarding the safe yield of the City's groundwater supplies, significant
impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant
and unavoidable and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section.
Facts in Support of Findings: The City does not regulate development outside its jurisdiction; therefore,
mitigation of such impacts is not feasible. Refer to 2.1.1,above, for other facts in support of findings.
2.2 Biological Resources
2.2.1 Cumulative Impacts-Biological Resources
Potentially Significant Effects: Development of Eagle Ranch will disrupt habitat, movement corridors,
and may directly impact sensitive plant and animal species. The proposed General Plan includes a policy
recommending preparation of a Specific Plan for any proposed project on the property. A Specific Plan
for the property would be subject to separate environmental review. Impacts are considered potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measures:No additional measures. Refer to above sections for mitigation.
Findings The lead agency finds that while adopting the above feasible mitigation measures, the potential
impacts of the project associated with cumulative impacts on biological resources remain significant. The
lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and
are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section.
Facts in Support of Findings: As mentioned above, the proposed General Plan recommends preparation
of a Specific Plan for any project proposed at Eagle Ranch. The proposed General Plan goes on to further
4
recommend that the project not go forward unless the property is annexed. Annexation of the property
would bring it under the purview of the City, and analysis for consistency with the proposed General Plan
would be required. The project would be required to implement all pertinent measures to reduce impacts
to biological resources.
2.3 Circulation
2.3.1 Projected Traffic Levels-Roadways and Interchanges
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Impacts associated with roadway and interchange operations are
considered significant,due to projected deficient levels of service.
Mitigation Measures:No additional.
Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts to roadway and interchange operations remain.
The lead agency has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable
and are outweighed by the factors discussed in this section.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies intended to
reduce traffic and gain consistency with regional traffic planning:
Policy 1.1: Plan, fund and implement circulation improvements necessary to comply with adopted
City safety and level of service standards and the General Plan Circulation Diagram.
Policy 1.2: Provide regional facilities to minimize through-traffic intrusion on local streets and to
avoid barriers to local traffic.
Policy 1.3: Maintain LOS C or better as the standard at all intersections and on all arterial and
collector roads. Upon City Council approval, accept LOS D where residences are not
directly impacted and improvements to meet the City's standard would be prohibitively
costly or disruptive.
Policy 3.1: Promote alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel,particularly for commute trips.
Policy 3.2: Encourage expansion of public transit as needed to meet the changing needs of the area
for local and regional access, including fixed route and demand response where
appropriate.
Policy 3.3: Comply with the Transportation Demand Management program requirements of the San
Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan to reduce peak period trip generation.
In addition to policies and programs, the Circulation Element contains a number of roadway capital
improvements that aim to improve roadway operations. Although the proposed General Plan contains the
recommendations of the traffic engineers and numerous policies designed to achieve traffic
improvements, it is unclear, considering the scale and funding required, whether such improvements are
feasible.
Furthermore, the State has placed limits on the fees the City can collect from developers to fund such
improvements. Finally, as growth in the region occurs, it is likely that operations on regional traffic
routes, such as Highway 101 and 41 will worsen. Growth and resulting traffic at the regional level is
administered by other agencies,namely Caltrans. The proposed General Plan contains policies to comply
with regional planning documents, such as those put forth by Caltrans. Overall, the updated General Plan
results in positive movement towards regional solutions.
5
2.4 Air Quality
2.4.1 Short-Term(Construction-related)Impacts
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: The implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in
construction related air quality impacts that may exceed air quality standards in the short term.
Mitigation Measures:
Construction - The City shall incorporate APCD recommendations for all construction in the City.
Measures include the use of catalyzed particulate filters for both off-and on-road vehicles.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been, or can be incorporated into the project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City
of Atascadero General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project
have been included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these
significant residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Findings:Construction generally consists of site preparation, grading and excavation.
Construction-related emissions include particulates generated by soil disturbance, and combustion
emissions from the operation of large earth-moving vehicles during grading and excavating operations.
The rate of particulate generation depends on the type of soil, the moisture content, wind speed, activity
level and silt content. Particulate generation typically occurs at a rate of about 0.6 tons per acre per
quarter year of construction activity. Construction activities can exceed PM10 standards on a short-term
basis. Therefore, construction activities can hinder progress toward the attainment of the state 24-hour
PM10 standard. In addition, airborne dust can pose substantial nuisance to neighboring properties.
Emissions associated with construction equipment and vehicles would be short-term and consist of
fugitive dust and exhaust emissions.
Combustion emissions generated by construction would degrade local air quality and contribute to
exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide (NOD 1-hour state air quality standard. The nature and extent of
such impacts cannot be determined at the General Plan level,but it is likely that some projects undertaken
during General Plan implementation will exceed standards. Because the nature and extent of future
construction cannot be determined at this stage, the significance of this impact cannot be determined;
therefore,it is considered Class I, significant and unavoidable.
2.4.2 Long-Term(Operational)Impacts
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: The implementation of the Proposed General Plan would result in
development that would create additional traffic throughout the City. Resulting vehicular emissions may
have significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures:None.
Findings: The lead agency ,finds that significant impacts to air quality remain. The lead agency has
determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed
by the factors discussed in this section.
Facts in Support of Findings: San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for 03 and PM10; a
condition that far predates this plan. Any future growth would exacerbate existing, deficient air quality.
The proposed General Plan aims to lessen impacts resulting from growth while supporting regional
efforts to improve air quality. The proposed General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce
vehicle traffic, which may result in fewer vehicle emissions. The inclusion of these programs in the
6
Proposed General Plan largely addresses air quality concerns. However, impacts are not reduced to a less
than significant level.
Goal CIR 3: Provide and promote alternative modes of travel to reduce traffic congestion and improve
air quality by providing viable transit alternatives.
Policy 3.1: Promote alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel,particularly for commute trips.
Programs:
1. Seek funding for programs that promote transit,ridesharing,bicycling and walking.
2. Support efforts to improve shuttle service to downtown and major shopping and employment centers.
Policy 3.2: Encourage expansion of public transit as needed to meet the changing needs of the area
for local and regional access, including fixed route and demand response where
appropriate.
Programs:
3. Work with Central Coast Area Transit and SLORTA to encourage use of local and regional public
transit.
4. Provide fixed routed transit with bus shelters along El Camino Real.
5. Encourage the use and expansion of Park&Ride facilities.
Policy 3.3: Comply with the Transportation Demand Management programrequirements of the San
Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan to reduce peak period trip generation.
Program:
6. Support programs to encourage employers to promote transit use, such as flexible work
schedules.
2.4.3 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Development in the region, including development in rural areas,
construction and occupation of Eagle Ranch, and, to a lesser extent, planned expansions at ASH, will
increase emissions associated with both construction and vehicle traffic. Impacts are considdred
significant and unavoidable(Class I).
Mitigation Measures:No additional
Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts to air quality remain. The lead agency has
determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are outweighed
by the factors discussed in this section.
Facts in Support of Findings:Refer to 2.4.2 above.
2.5 Noise
2.5.1 Long-Term Noise
7
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Traffic-related noise may significantly impacts existing and future
noise-sensitive uses along certain roadways.
Mitigation Measures:No additional
Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts associated with noise remain. The lead agency
has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are
outweighed by the factors discussed in this section.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies and programs
aimed at the reduction of vehicle trips, which may reduce impacts associated with noise proximate to
major roadways. These policies include the following:
Transportation Noise Sources:
Policy 2. New development of noise-sensitive land uses shall not be permitted in areas exposed to
existing or projected future levels of noise from transportation noise sources which
exceed 60 dBn or CNEL(70 Ldn/CNEL for playgrounds and neighborhood parks)unless
the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in outdoor
activity areas and interior spaces to or below the levels specified for the given land use.
Policy 3. Noise created by new transportation noise sources,including roadway improvement
projects, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the levels specified in[the Noise Element]
within the outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing noise sensitive land uses.
Implementation of policies in the General Plan will be effective in reducing impacts associated with noise
impacts to proposed development, near roadways and the railroad. Impacts are therefore less than
significant for new development. However,it is not clear whether mitigation will be as effective for
existing noise-sensitive uses located along roadways that are predicted to experience significant increases
in traffic volume. Although impacts to such uses are specifically addressed in the Noise Element
implementation measures, impacts are considered significant.
A number of implementation measures (and/or programs) accompany these policies in the proposed
Noise Element. Policies and programs contained in the proposed General Plan will constitute a positive
effort towards minimizing noise exposure. Further noise analysis, in compliance with stated standards,
will take place at the project-specific level.
Traffic volumes along major roadways will increase under the proposed General Plan, generating noise
that may exceed standards in the Noise Element. Although implementation of policies will reduce the
impacts to adjoining properties,noise may still exceed,these standards.
2.5.2 Cumulative Impacts Noise
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: When growth in the community is considered along with continued
growth in rural areas,impacts are considered significant and unavoidable in terms of traffic-related noise.
Mitigation Measures:No additional.
Findings: The lead agency finds that significant impacts associated with noise remain. The lead agency
has determined that impacts associated with the project are significant and unavoidable and are
outweighed by the factors discussed in this section.
Facts in Support of Findings: Refer to 2.5.1 above. In addition, the proposed General Plan contains the
following policy specific to cumulative impacts.
8
Existing and Cumulative Noise Impacts:
Policy 6. The City shall consider implementing mitigation measures where existing noise levels
produce significant noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses or where new development
may result in cumulative increases of noise upon noise-sensitive land uses.
2.6 Public Services
2.6.1 Police Services
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Increased population under the proposed General Plan of 9,855 persons
would increase the demand for police protection services.
Mitigation Measures:
Fiscal Analysis - The City shall prepare a citywide fiscal analysis outlining funding required to support
staffing for police and fire throughout buildout of the Draft Plan. The analysis will identify methods to
fund staffing, milestones for new hires based on projected growth, and specific policies for
implementation of funding methods.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero
General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been
included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant
residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project
Facts in Support of Findings; The City currently receives developer's fees for public services; however,
use of these fees is limited by law to capital improvements. Such fees cannot be used for hiring new
personnel. Impacts associated with police under the proposed General Plan are due wholly to staff
shortages, which cannot be mitigated through existing fee structures. Funding of new staff must be
obtained through one of two means: (1) reallocation of existing General Fund revenues or (2) increased
taxes. Development under the proposed General Plan will increase the tax base for the City, and may
generate enough revenue to fund new personnel. Mitigation proposed above may result in funds
becoming available. The success of such mitigation is not readily foreseeable and therefore the
assumption is made that the impacts will remain significant. The proposed General Plan contains the
following policies, among others,intended to address public service issues:
Goal LOC 15. Provide adequate public services and for high-quality,orderly and sensible growth.
Policy 15.1: Growth should be directed to areas where services can be provided in a cost-effective
manner.
Policy 15.2: Maintain an updated Capital Improvements Program(CIP)that forecasts needs at least
five years into the future and conforms to General Plan policies and programs.
Policy 15.3: Ensure that adequate service capacity and facilities exist prior to approving new
development.
Policy 15.4: Extend services only when the City has funding for additional improvements identified in
the CIP.
Policy 15.6: Ensure that new development pays the cost of providing and/or installing all capital
facilities needed to support it,including the infrastructure necessary to attract high-tech
9
and professional support businesses.
2.6.2 Fire Protection
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Increased population and structure development under the Proposed
General Plan would increase demand for fire protection services.
Mitigation Measures: See 2.6.1,above.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero
General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been
included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant
residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project
Facts in Support of Findings: Refer to 2.6.1,above.
2.6.3 Cumulative-Police
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Development at Eagle Ranch, if carried out pursuant to the
recommendations of the Draft Plan,may require City police service. Service to this area and its residents,
because of its rural nature, may have a significant impact on the ability of police to serve the project and
the City.
Security at ASH is handled internally; however, as the facility expands, there will be continuing risk of
escapes that require City police response. Current response plans will continue to be utilized in such an
emergency.
Mitigation Measures: See for 2.6.1,above.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero
General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been
included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant
residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Findings:Refer to 2.6.1,above.
2.6.4 Cumulative-Fire
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: Continued development in the region will impact the ability to provide
fire service.
Mitigation Measures: See for 2.6.2,above.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects as identified in the 2002 Final EIR for the City of Atascadero
General Plan update. All feasible mitigation measures that can be applied to the project have been
included. Residual significant impacts remain. The lead agency has determined that these significant
residual impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Findings:Refer to 2.6.2.
10
Section 3: Effects determined to be mitigated to less than Significant Levels
The EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the implementation of the
Atascadero General Plan. However, the Lead Agency finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the
record, adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth
below will reduce these potential significant effects to less than significant levels.
3.1 Geology
3.1.1 Cumulative Impacts-Eagle Ranch
Potentially Significant Effects: Continued development in rural portions of the County and at Eagle
Ranch will place additional structures at risk from geologic and seismic hazards.
Mitigation Measures: Amend the Proposed General Plan to include the following policy:
• Prior to development, the Geologically Sensitive Combining Designation shown in the Salinas River
Area Plan shall be further studied for its application to the Eagle Ranch property.
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with cumulative geologic impacts at Eagle Ranch to a less-
than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes
have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts
identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: Conditioning approval of Eagle Ranch development on its honoring and/or
mitigating for the GSA will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.2.1 Water Quality
Potentially Significant Effects: The implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in the
construction of additional development that may impact water quality through temporary construction-
related runoff, long-term runoff associated with increases in impermeable surfaces, and runoff from
specific sources containing pollutants.
Mitigation Measures:
Implement Best Management Practices for Water Quality Improvement. Condition project approval
to include Best Management Practices in construction and operation. Options include,but are not limited
to:
• Regular inspection,maintenance and clean out of stormwater retention or detention structures
• Regular inspection,maintenance and clean out of oil and water separators
• Regular inspection maintenance and clean out of sediment traps.
• Promotion of self-directed removal of on-site trash,dead vegetation and leaf litter.
• Promotion of use of biodegradable herbicides and pesticides and encouragement of the use of
biologically-sensitive landscape management
• Conduction of regularly scheduled creek clean-ups
• Conduction of regular maintenance of City fleets
• Provision of worker education programs
11
Create guidelines for City facilities and discretionary projects to improve the quality of runoff
water. Considerations may include:
• Install and maintain appropriately sized stormwater retention or detention structures
• Install and maintain oil and water separators
• Install and maintain appropriately sized sediment traps
• Install and maintain drought tolerant landscaping
• Install and maintain landscaping which does not require excessive application of fertilizers and
pesticides
• Do not permit use of sprinkler and spray systems in areas less than eight feet wide(City facilities)
• Encourage the use of drip systems
• Encourage the use of more permeable paving materials (not feasible for applications where fueling
and vehicle maintenance take place.
Ensure Consistency with Applicable Drainage-Related Plans. All new development in or near
existing drainage systems and associated tributaries shall be assessed for consistency with applicable
existing drainage, grading, erosion control, and water quality-related policies, standards, and programs
including but not limited to the following:
• Water Quality Control Plan—Central Coast Basin including Best Management Practices(BMPs)
• San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update(1998)
• Paso Robles Formation Study(in progress).
• Future recovery plans for the Salinas River and Atascadero Creek.
• Urban Water Management Plan(in progress).
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with water quality to a less-than-significant level.
Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated
into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: Along with policies added to the proposed General Plan resulting from
consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the implementation of the above is
considered sufficient to address water quality concerns at a programmatic level. Further environmental
review for specific projects will address site-specific water quality issues.
3.2.2 Drainage and Flooding
Potentially Significant Effects: The implementation of the Proposed General Plan will result in the
construction of additional structures in known flood plains in the planning area,namely areas adjacent to
Atascadero Creek and the Salinas River. Development of structures in this area will alter drainage in'the
area, result in runoff that would likely result in the need for additional stormwater conveyance systems,
and place structures in 100-year flood-hazard areas. Location of structures in the 100-year flood hazard
zone increases risk of loss,injury or death in the event of a major flood.
Mitigation Measures:
Ensure Consistency with Applicable Drainage-Related Plans. All new development in or near
existing drainage systems and associated tributaries shall be assessed for consistency with applicable
existing drainage, grading, erosion control, and water quality-related policies, standards, and programs
including but not limited to the following:
• Water Quality Control Plan—Central Coast Basin including Best Management Practices(BMPs)
• San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update(1998)
• Paso Robles Formation Study(in progress).
12
• Future recovery plans for the Salinas River and Atascadero Creek.
• Urban Water Management Plan(in progress).
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with drainage and flooding to a less-than-significant level.
Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated
into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies that support
improvement of stormwater facilities,and flood protections. These policies include the following:
Policy 6.1, Program 5. Public and private development in close proximity scenic and sensitive lands,
including creek reservations,wooded areas, flood plains,prominent view sheds and historic sites shall be
design to minimize impacts.
Policy 8.1,Program 11. Areas subject to flooding,as identified through flood hazard overlay zoning and
flood maps, shall be protected from unsound development consistent with the City's flood hazard
ordinance requirements.
Goal SFN 2. Reduce damage to structures and danger to life caused by flooding and dam inundation.
Policy 2A. Enforce federal regulations regarding placement of structures in floodplains,and
maintain appropriate standards for development in flood-prone and poorly drained areas
(refer to Figure 11-8).
Programs:
6. Require an engineered floodplain and hydrologic analysis to be prepared for new development
project within or directly adjacent to known 100-year flood plains.
7. Prohibit development within floodways and areas of high flood hazard potential to the extent
practicable.
8. Required the lowest finished floor of new construction in low-lying or other areas with serious
drainage or flooding potential to be contracted a minimum of 1-foot above the 100-year water
surface elevation.
9. Prohibit development that will create new upstream or downstream flooding or drainage
problems.
Policy 2B. Reduce flood damage in areas known to be prone to flooding.
Programs:
10. Augment existing GIS and other data regarding low-lying areas with information obtained during
storms.
11. Develop a prioritized list of proposed capital improvement projects for low-lying, flood-prone
areas, and seek funding for those projects.
12. Perform flood-related preventive maintenance and repair,and ensure that all flood-related work
in riparian areas minimizes impacts to biological resources.
Policy 2C. Prepare the City to respond to flood emergencies.
Program:
13. Train City personnel to a level appropriate to their positions and responsibilities to respond to
flood emergencies.
13
14. Require new subdivisions to construct a system of all weather emergency access connections
consistent with the City's Emergency Evacuation Plan.
15. Identify and map appropriate evacuation routes for neighborhoods along the Salinas River.
Policy 2D. Minimize the risk of dam failure.
Programs:
16. Work with State and Federal agencies to assist with inspection and maintenance of the Salinas
and Atascadero Lake Dams.
17. Maintain a dam failure evacuation plan to guide public officials that includes use of the
emergency alert system to notify the public.
Inclusion of the above policies and programs, and mitigation measures specified above, reduces impacts
to a less than significant level.
3.2.3 Stormwater Conveyance
Potentially Significant Effects: Continued development under the Proposed General Plan would require
the construction of additional stormwater conveyance facilities, and expansion and/or repair of existing
facilities. Construction of such facilities may have a significant impact on the environment.
Mitigation Measures:
Stormwater Infrastructure. Prior to approval of stormwater infrastructure improvements, ensure that
adequate environmental review.has been completed.
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with stormwater conveyance to a less-than-significant level.
Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated
into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: The General Plan includes a number of policies and programs which
support the provision of adequate services and infrastructure prior to development of a project, and which
provide for funding of such improvements by the developer. Along with mitigation calling for adequate
environmental review, inclusion of such policies and programs adequately addresses impacts associated
with provision of infrastructure.
3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts-Water Quality
Potentially Sign f cant Effects: Continued development of Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), rural
portions of the County, and 'development of Eagle Ranch would impact water supplies and runoff
volumes and quality. Specific environmental review for projects in these areas would assess and lessen
impacts associated with runoff and water quality.
Mitigation Measures: See 3.2.1 above.
Findings:The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with cumulative impacts to water quality associated with
Eagle Ranch to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA
guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which
mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. The lead agency finds that development at Atascadero State
Hospital is outside the jurisdiction of the City and that mitigation is not adopted for projects at this site.
14
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies and programs
designed to address water quality. Refer to 3.2.1.
3.3 Biological Resources
3.3.1 Sensitive and/or Special Status Species
Potentially Significant Effects:
Short-term impacts. Construction associated with development under the proposed General Plan has the
most direct impact on plants, animals, and their habitat. The significance of impacts depends on site-
specific characteristics and the characteristics of surrounding areas.
Long-term impacts. Increased human activity in sensitive areas associated with development under the
plan may result in direct disturbance of sensitive plants and animals. Continued human activity may also
have indirect impacts on theses species, including, but not limited to, noise, increased light and
degradation of water quality.
Mitigation Measures:
Impacts to Sensitive Species. The City shall condition project approval, where it has jurisdiction, and
recommend conditioning of project approval, in areas outside its jurisdiction, with the following
measures:
• Implement sediment reduction measures. Implement drainage measures recommended in Section
V.III to reduce downstream impacts of sediment.
• Plant/Animal Survey procedures. Until such time that a city ordinance is adopted, surveys for
endangered and sensitive plant and animal species shall be conducted during proper seasons and in
accordance with standard methodologies. Surveys will be prepared on sites with established
vegetation, relatively undisturbed character and/or proximity to known occurrences of sensitive
species. Appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with California Department of Fish and
Game guidelines shall be developed where necessary to reduce impacts to sensitive species to a level
of insignificance.
• Construction Activity Timing. Where sensitive species are known to occur within a proposed
project area, construction activities shall occur outside of species breeding and/or migration seasons
in order to minimize impacts. These limitations are often included as provisions within associated
permits. For example, construction occurring in or directly adjacent to a perennial stream may be
limited to the summer months in,order to minimize disturbance of steelhead spawning activities as
part of a Section 1601 or 1603 DFG streambed alteration agreement.
• Prepare and Submit a Revegetation Plan. For all development expected to result in removat or
significant disturbance of native vegetation, the applicant shall contact the City to determine their
responsibilities in terms of revegetation and restoration. The plans shall be prepared by a qualified
botanist,restoration specialist, or other qualified firm. The plan shall address all natural communities
impacted by all phases of the proposed project including chaparral, annual grassland, and oak
woodland. The plan shall provide detailed specifications for replacement and restoration of all
affected natural communities, including appropriate replacement ratios for disturbed native plants,
and shall specify the duration and frequency of monitoring associated with restoration/revegetation
efforts.
• Implement the Pre-approved Revegetation Plan. Upon completion of construction for all new
development, the applicant shall implement the pre-approved Revegetation and restoration plan
described above. Following completion of construction, immediately revegetate all areas previously
containing natural vegetation and disturbed because of project implementation. Revegetate only with
appropriate native and indigenous vegetation. At a minimum, the structure and composition of
habitats restored shall reflect pre-project site conditions or better. The health and maintenance of all
15
replacement vegetation shall be monitored and/or otherwise supported for a sufficient duration and
frequency to ensure successful establishment of the vegetation.
• Control Further Introduction of Invasive Exotic Plants at New Development Sites. During and
upon completion of construction, the proponent shall be required to control further introduction of
invasive exotic plants. The project proponent shall implement the following measures:
o Use only clean fill material within all construction zones.
o Prohibit planting or seeding of disturbed portions of natural communities with non-native plant
species.
• Avoid Disturbance of Special-status Plants at New Development Sites. During construction
associated with all new development, avoid or minimize disturbance of special-status plants.
Implement the measures identified below to avoid or minimize unnecessary disturbance of special-
status plants either known of having potential to occur in the project area.
o Retain a qualified biologist and/or botanist to conduct focused surveys for special-status plant
species during the appropriate flowering periods for various species having potential to occur in
the project area.
o Clearly map and identify each individual or group of special-status plants observed during the
surveys with highly visible flagging,and then completely avoid during construction
o In the event rare plants cannot be avoided during construction, applicable resource agencies
should be contacted to determine appropriate avoidance measures before construction. Various
measures may include relocation and transplanting of individual plants, and/or stockpiling of
existing soils to retain the seedbank.
• Invasive Exotics. The City shall develop and revise current landscaping plan guidelines to include
prohibition of the planting of invasive exotics designated by CLAPS.
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with sensitive and/or special status species to a less-than-
significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have
been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts
identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: The mitigation measures above provide a framework against which future
projects may be reviewed for impacts and mitigation requirements. The mitigation addresses wildlife and
plants, and provides for ongoing monitoring to ensure success. The proposed General Plan contains a
number of policies and programs in addition to the mitigation outlined above, which addresses resource
protection at a more programmatic level. The implementation of the proposed General Plan will
constitute a positive step towards resource protection.
3.3.2 Riparian,Wetland and other Sensitive Communities
Potentially Significant Effects: Projects that impact plants and animals may also impact sensitive
vegetative communities, such as wetlands, riparian areas, and oak woodlands. The Proposed General
Plan would allow increases in development along Atascadero Creek, for example, which may adversely
affect the creek. On the other hand, the Proposed General Plan includes specific programs aimed at the
restoration of Atascadero Creek, which may offset the negative effects of proposed development in the
area. Here again,'site-specific conditions will largely dictate the severity of impact.
Mitigation Measures:
Riparian/wetland habitat avoidance. Until such a time as a creek setback and mitigation program is
adopted by the City condition approval of development proposed to be located within 100 feet of a
riparian or wetland area,and implement the following:
• Adjacent riparian or wetland resources shall be evaluated by a qualified biologist
• Development shall be sited at an adequate distance from riparian or wetland areas as determined
necessary by a qualified biologist.
16
• Setbacks for non-significant riparian or wetland areas shall be determined based on recommendations
of the qualified biologist.
Construction and development activities shall employ measures designed to reduce impacts to riparian
areas,in addition to respecting specified setbacks. Measures include,but are not limited to:
• Clearly delineate construction areas through physical and/or visual barriers.
• Do not allow location of fueling or staging areas proximate to waterways when feasible. When no
other options exist, protect waterways by berming or otherwise creating barriers to soil and fuel
movement.
• Do not allow washwater from construction to enter waterways.
The City shall develop a preferred set of Best Management Practices to be implemented by developers.
Implement Erosion and Spill Control Measures during Construction. To reduce the potential for
inadvertent release of sediment or fuel from construction areas to adjacent drainage and wetland areas,the
following measures shall be implemented as part of all development projects.
• During construction, avoid all cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles near existing
drainages and associated seasonal wetland habitat.
• Following completion of construction-related activities,revegetate all disturbed and barren areas with
appropriate native vegetation to reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation in adjacent drainage
areas.
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with riparian,wetland and other sensitive communities to a
less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines,
changes have been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the
impacts identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:The above mitigation measures,along with policies and programs identified
in the EIR,address water quality from a programmatic and project-specific level.
3.3.3 Movement and Migration Corridors
Potentially Significant Effects: Continued development under the proposed General Plan will not likely
have a significant effect on the Pacific Flyway; area waterways will not be substantially affected(in terms
of area and available water) by the Draft Plan. Development under the Proposed General Plan could
result in further obstruction of movement corridors in rural areas as parcels are developed. Movement
corridors in creeks may be improved through programs in the Proposed General Plan calling Tor
improvement of habitat and water quality. These improvements may alleviate some of the impacts of
increased development along Atascadero and Graves Creek.
Mitigation Measures: Condition project approval in rural areas based on an assessment of the project's
impacts on migration and movement corridors, including but not limited to, waterways, intact woodland
areas, and fringe areas that abut intact habitat. The City should identify important corridor areas and aim
for their preservation through conservation easements,where feasible,and through site design.
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with movement and migration corridors to a less-than-
significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have
been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts
identified in the EIR.
17
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan is the first plan in Atascadero to address
wildlife corridors. The General Plan contains the following program designed to address this issue:
7.1.2 Maintain a current Geographic Information System(GIS)based inventory map of all native
woodlands,plant communities,sensitive habitats,connective habitat and wildlife corridors. Require lot
line adjustments, subdivision maps,and development permits to minimize impacts on mapped resources
that are identified as sensitive,and provide mitigation as requirement by the Native Tree Ordinance.
Responsibility: Community Development Department/Environmental Consultant
Timeframe: 2003-04.
Inclusion of such a program is a positive step towards addressing this issue; when combined with
mitigation measures outlined above, and policies which address open space, riparian areas (the major
corridors in the city) and other existing resources, impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Moreover,the proposed General Plan does not change densities or land use patterns in rural areas.
3.3.4. Consistency with Applicable Plans
Potentially Significant Effects: The planning area is not identified in recovery plans for any of the above-
named species; however, indirect impacts to the Salinas River and steelhead trout populations may occur
from increased runoff under the Draft Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
Consistency with Regional, Species Specific Recovery Plans and Other Habitat Conservation
Efforts-Project approval shall be conditioned on consideration of consistency with regional conservation
plans,including critical habitat designations and recovery plans,where applicable.
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project in terms of consistency with planning documents to a less-than-
significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have
been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts
identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:Requiring analysis of consistency with applicable resource protection plans
will effectively mitigate potential impacts associated with consistency.
3.3 Agriculture
3.3.1, Other Farmland
Unavoidable Significant Impacts: The implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in the
conversion of farmland of local potential.
Mitigation Measures:
Evaluation and Mitigation. Prior to approval of development on parcels listed with potential for
supporting farmland of local potential,evaluate the following criteria:
• Do the on-site soils exhibit the necessary characteristics for farmland of local potential?
• Is the parcel large enough to support agriculture(refer to the County minimums)?
If the parcel meets all of the above criteria, condition development approval with offsets of at least 1:1
offsite.
18
Findings:The lead agency finds that significant impacts to important agricultural land can be mitigated to
less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines,
changes have been incorporated into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the
impacts identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: Identification and mitigation of conversion of important farmland
effectively mitigates potential impacts.
3.4 Circulation
3.5.1 Projected Traffic Levels-Intersections
Potentially Significant Effects: Projected traffic will exacerbate existing deficient levels of service at area
intersections.
Mitigation Measures:
Implement Recommended Intersection Mitigation-The following policy will be included in the Draft
Plan: Incorporate the recommendations of the traffic engineers to remedy existing intersection
deficiencies.
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with projected traffic levels at intersections to a less-than-
significant level. Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have
been incorporated into the project, in the form of mitigation listed above, which mitigate the impacts
identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings:Requiring suggested intersection improvements will address deficiencies.
3.5 Noise
3.6.1 Groundborne Vibration
Potentially Significant Effects: The implementation of the proposed General Plan will involve siting
noise-sensitive uses proximate to the railroad tracks. Sensitive land uses located in this area may
experience periodic vibration.
Mitigation Measures:
Vibration -When reviewing project-specific applications for vibration-sensitive construction within 100
feet of the centerline of the railroad tracks, project approval will be conditioned pending results of
vibration studies. Mitigation such as setback or vibration reduction treatments shall be included in the
project design and specifications
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and:reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with groundborne vibration to a less-than-significant level.
Accordingly, the lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines;changes have been incorporated
into the project,in the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the;EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: Conditioning development based on vibration studies will mitigate impacts
associated with vibration.
3.6 Aesthetics
3.7.1 Light and Glare
19
Potentially Significant Effects: Development of the land uses proposed in the Proposed General Plan will
result in additional sources of light and glare, which may adversely impact the rural character of the City
as well as neighboring properties.
Mitigation Measures:The City shall assess the potential glare impacts of a proposed project and apply the
following:
• Do not allow large expanses of reflective glass or reflective metal roofing in locations visible to
residents and/or traffic.
The City shall consider establishing minimum and maximum light levels for each of the proposed land
uses.
Findings: The lead agency finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and reduce
the potential impacts of the project associated with glare to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly,the
lead agency finds that, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, changes have been incorporated into the project, in
the form of mitigation listed above,which mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed General Plan contains a number of policies and programs
which address lighting and other aesthetic issues. Reduction of light and glare will be achieved by these
means.
Section 4: Effects Determined Not to Be Significant
The Lead Agency finds that,based on substantial evidence in the record consisting of the analysis in the
Final EIR and Initial Study incorporated herein by reference, the Atascadero General Plan will result in
either no impact or in a less than significant impact with regard to environmental factors listed below and
no mitigation is required.
• Land Use and Planning-Population Growth
• Land Use and Planning-Consistency with applicable land use planning documents
• Land Use and Planning-Atascadero Zoning Ordinance
• Land Use and Planning-Cumulative Impacts
• Geology-Earthquakes,groundshaking and ground failure.
• Geology-Landslide and slope instability
• Geology—Erosion
• Geology-Expansive or Other Unstable Soil Conditions
• Geology-Septic Systems
• Geology-Cumulative Impacts-Rural Areas
• Biological Resources-Consistency with City Tree Ordinance
• Cultural Resources-Direct Impacts
• Cultural Resources-Indirect Impacts
• Cultural Resources Sacred Lands
• Cultural Resources-Historic Resources
• Agriculture-Prime Farmlands
• Agriculture-Grazing Land
• Agriculture-Williamson Act Conflicts
• Circulation Traffic Safety and Emergency Access
• Circulation-Parking
• Air Quality-Consistency with the CAP
• Noise-Short-Term Impacts
• Noise-Long-Term Noise(Proposed Development)
20
• Public Services-Wastewater
• Public Services-Solid Waste
• Public Services-Schools
• Public Services-Libraries
• Public Services-Parks
• Public Services-Cumulative-Solid Waste
• Public Services-Cumulative-Schools
• Public Services-Cumulative-Parks
• Aesthetics-Scenic Vistas
• Aesthetics-Trees,Riparian Areas,and other Sensitive Aesthetic Features
• Aesthetics-Light
• Aesthetics-Cumulative Impacts
Section 5: Feasibility of Project Alternatives
The FEIR Alternatives section contains an analysis of the following alternatives: (1) No Project
alternative which considers no new development; (2) No Project alternative required by CEQA which
considers continuation of the current General Plan; (3) Minimal Development, (4) Mixed Use Approach,
and(5)Exclusion of Eagle Ranch from the SOI..
The following alternatives were also considered but rejected for reasons identified and described below:
Maximum Development
This alternative would result in the most intense amount and mix of land uses. Housing and retail
commercial development would dominate the northern portions of the city,with higher density residential
uses in other areas. This alternative was rejected because it did not meet the objectives of the proposed
General Plan regarding rural character, compact development, and preservation of elbowroom, among
others. This alternative would also generally result in greater impacts than the proposed General Plan.
The following alternatives were considered in the EIR.
Alternative 2:No Project—Development Under the Existing General Plan
Description: This alternative represents the continued growth and development of the City under the
existing General Plan. Under this alternative,the buildout population of the City would be approximately
32,873 and the existing land use designations, development pattern, and associated zoning map (as
amended to date)would not change.
Environmental Effects: Implementation of this alternative would have greater impacts in the areas of
aesthetics and biological resources, fewer impacts to public services, and similar impacts in all other
areas.
Relation to the General Plan Objectives:This alternative is generally consistent with the objectives of the
proposed General Plan.
Feasibility:This alternative is not considered feasible. Under CEQA, this alternative is considered the no
project alternative. CEQA does not allow for determination of the no project alternative as the
environmentally superior alternative.
Alternative 3:Minimal Development
Description: This alternative calls for clustered development and is intended to reduce reliance on the
automobile. By providing services near residences, vehicular trips are short in nature. Land uses for
21
Alternative 1 provide for a jobs-housing mix that locates housing near employment centers. This
alternative also discourages competitive specialty retail and entertainment uses that are not in the
downtown area(refer to Figure 8).
Environmental Effects: This alternative would result in greater impacts to traffic levels and recreational
opportunities. The alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed General Plan in all other
areas.
Relation to the General Plan Objectives: The alternative is consistent with the objectives of the proposed
General Plan.
Feasibility:This alternative is considered feasible.
Alternative 4:Mixed Use Approach
Description: This alternative focused on increasing commercial development and employment
opportunities by extending business areas on both sides of El Camino Real and allowing high-intensity
industrial development on Traffic Way near the railroad. Northern Atascadero would allow large scale
commercial uses and mixed-use developments would be encouraged. A variety of housing uses are
proposed along the State Route 41 corridor south of US 101 to San Gabriel Road. A large mixed use plan
development is proposed east of US 101 in the southern portion of the city with low-density housing
proposed on the west side of the freeway. The land use diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 9.
The total acreage under this alternative designated to each land use category is outlined in Table 20.
Table 20 also shows the difference in land use between the Proposed General Plan and the alternative.
Environmental Effects: Impacts associated with traffic and recreation are greater under this alternative,
and similar in all other categories.
Relation to the General Plan Objectives: This alternative is generally consistent with the proposed
General Plan objectives.
Feasibility:This alternative is considered feasible.
Alternative S:Exclusion of Eagle Ranch from the Sphere of Influence(SOI)
Description: This alternative analyzes the environmental consequences of excluding Eagle Ranch from
the City's SOI.
Environmental Effects: Impacts associated with this alternative would generally be similar to the proposed
General Plan,except in the area of public services.
Relation to the General Plan Objectives:This alternative is not consistent with the proposed General Plan
objectives.
Feasibility: This alternative is not considered feasible. Development of Eagle Ranch outside of the
Sphere of Influence, and arguably outside of the City limits, would place an undue burden on the
community to support the project,without the benefit of taxes and development fees.
Section 6: Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Atascadero General Plan
The Lead Agency finds that mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the significant environmental
effects identified in the Final EIR for the proposed Atascadero General Plan. Nonetheless, certain
significant environmental effects of the project are unavoidable, even after incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. For such effects, the benefits of the project have been
22
balanced against the unavoidable environmental effects in its approval. The unavoidable impacts
associated with this project are:
• Hydrology and Water Quality—Groundwater Supply
• Hydrology and Water Quality-Compliance with SB610
• Hydrology and Water Quality—Cumulative Impacts—Water Supply
• Circulation—Projected Traffic Levels—Roadways
• Air Quality—Short-term Impacts
• Air Quality—Long-term Impacts
• Air Quality Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
• Noise—Long-term Noise
• Noise—Cumulative Impacts
• Public Services—Police Services
• Public Services—Fire Protection
• Public Services—Cumulative—Police
• Public Services—Cumulative-Fire
The Lead Agency finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR which are within
the purview of the City will be implemented with the project, and that any significant unavoidable effects
remaining are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the
public record of the considerations of this project. The following statements are based on an overarching
concept outlined in the CEQA Guidelines: that a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of
public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors and in particular the goal of
providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.
• The project will allow the City to meet its affordable housing allocation requirements as imposed
by the State of California through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
• The project will allow for an increased range of housing opportunities for all income categories
thereby promoting a socially integrated and diverse population.
• Provision of affordable housing will allow needed service and professional workers including
healthcare workers, teachers, and police officers to live and work in Atascadero and thereby
maintain adequate levels of service in many critical economic sectors.
• The project incorporates Smart Growth Principles that limit urban sprawl, encourage infill, reuse
existing utilities, allow for mixed uses and support pedestrian and bicycle transit.
• The project will allow for a modest increase in economic development that will support a higher
standard of living and increased services to the community.
• The project recognizes the inevitability of natural population growth in an area with a high
quality of life and growing economy. The project plans to accommodate a reasonable population
growth in compact nodes of high quality infill development rather than directing unplanned
growth into substandard,illegal and unsafe housing conditions.
• ; The project will meet a long standing City goal of revitalization of the greyfields of El Camino
Real corridor by allow new mixed use development that will foster reinvestment and
revitalization of an aging strip corridor.
• The project will promote the revitalization of the historic downtown core and expansion of tourist
related services and facilities.
The proposed General Plan achieves the above considerations through its policies,programs, and land
use concept. The attainment of the above considerations outweighs the significant environmental
effects put forth in the FEIR.
23
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring Program
z ;a o ti .r o
•0
N L1. O
o
A w U W a �,
...
o �
as V) H y o o Y b
rn 0 �+ ti � —
N 0 0 N i y °
O '— dj
FI cC 40 R3 'b cl c�V .N. .0
a � •3
o a ' o c o
C) IL) �. 40'
^v
U 'di
ON b b N .� �s•—�
d' oaai u � Vs
o0 oy a
u L .o ° y .n 0i p
L� o p v 0
U .14
.o r 0 0 adi a 0 3 b 3
z N ,00°" � .d
a ; CU 0 cn
a�
Oj
O' er o :° "- i oo — v C
•o .
ao
-o > o
0 °
y 3 cn
E'' a cr ° a� *- o
d C� w w w H B� S P. CIA
Ow
O yr C E O COi O eV y .L o
v' e =: A c OU
Uva w oA aoiv°a�°. M"a �-v c°� 3 .x -0
A
u � cA
OG a A A A
UU M
Ri �
�r
iG C O > O
R(7! H av" � ac� 01
O
4.
19 o O
O a 3
O
F yd w 2
�r V Ocn
w 4,
0
.7g3
ov w
cd o
a
V y o U ,g `o o b aoi, c `«
_
NO F ai
o �}y
U '� C•• (-i V1
O. A � �.� O 3 Q- > � OVi .� � •�
c o •boa� � a � � •� bb ° �, y a°i �
to 0
4C E 01 O O G 41 « t3 id C dq C H
U 0 0 :: o ,�, N E o
y y > U C C .y oi
V Y O 0 y yr
'G 'Vi .0 �^7 O lo* 01:` .0
o9,O yCd c
.� cn ,� y p ^C 'ti .j ,a? v o 60 � � ai� � 3 y
a 0 t3
g
�yyto
0 'S ° 9�+ a y ° �, ° k'yo
Cd 2i.
a oo- .Y oc CCodd w v y = c00O3 C
` o cid
CC Ay °� O ""'' C •C .Or. O
?G
L u u1 C C y O O O N O �0, w p O '5 C C C q '0
a� y ts y Ei
0. 40.
O °
o, > °° ea cp y ': «.. . o o cv cod c t cC "� o
fn v"i V� O
C7 U W fs7. W a w x 3 ti •� • • • • • • • • U U • • • • • •
yw .� 'd � � o �, °� •�i :: � woo �>�N•�V �
oa�iy otivi1- � odw- 'o � .? ca°ica
"o' .2y do.)
? Or. e E^v ,3, •C
CL C V q o..� C o bo
eg 7 3 c a� .o
a U a a� 9U a-- C c
=y �n m n > 0. v� N L d 0 O E m cn v
Uvi Ao � CO) ea :: AS . � � AvEO -So °�' � Aacaei °�' aLB8
y C
ar
O
0. 0 A A A A q
Coo' a A A A AU q
bo
U
c C o r
. ° mac � •= a
o aoi Q 3 v N o
v .? c b E
c > o ed o > o > �o
O a > a
EF o. �v a .� • a
O
ta
F 'o c
CA 0
cc
d � c00 o yco o a°i
to r: ym 'C 'O Chas O O N
CL
P; 4 d C
1 r-
OC O p O v
ca vii ami a`�'i
y ° a" > o a>i •� co
.O a .c 3 ea � 0 � G pA" 0 6> LL•� .s.. H y
Y 0 o. V "O-' v C/]. Ca F. is N o 0
O- ,
y c cob ca3 to4. c°> �
.b w o eC4' y O � C � G ti � > d a y .•r C G7 �
tn f9 p 4N N ^�
y y [q a+ .d O w O U '+ C1. v w f'V b0 y H V
i op ° r- .101,
x+.14 w d cj
a+ 0 O V
,c o .r •� t A
c o > oydam 2 � d � °
o,
�. o 8 c o
• • A W v b .o • • • • • � c� U � o U ca p:1 in -.
0
Y '0
u y cn u
p
u
w y
ya
0
a �
oG a
c
Q O
O
60 o0 � $ oo o cao30 4.Z CC cn 6) .fl y on 0. c O b En O O c O C "� — �" '> >'.y r.
o C >
..O+
°Ooq oc 0
CL
uH O O p v70 >+ pt OO ion 4 ❑ vp� b^ «GS
b?O-v cn C Q .=° c) ua - )ytia
0. 0. 0.
0
Co 3. 0 > E) �
> .--,
O
OF on v 'C cd
O ° ° on .3 23 '� U -S '° o °� b o 4. .o a� ° " `' ori C u
cui �° .o 'e ao oma . abo2a � r- ', boya
u. 0 4�.�. i
V3 13
R t
E .
•'yC7 Eu � ° ya �
.a 9p -5 � vE Nq
W. U = = yO on -- oZ000V_
o� Di
° cd (u .Q2 , oE � oE6
' u .0 o•o aO o ' A
u A. a� ,O 4, cn. t: N aA O s p
O a� '260 en� � c> y 0.4. O C r., O W 0 0 Sj O � �
o as y O :+ v d o w w .�, n•'G . ,�. .2 — .2
V -0 0 C•'d ,� p, u cU '� 0 r�oj •fin cOi.
O E O0. 0
'b .,0, 'in�j a) "V �,,,.,_„ --•
o v
yOb ° " Eb -0 b.0
o, . ob o o.� :~ �° > u00.• � o _ a°oo0. P � s; o �,
0. y a, a0. - Y esoboo � > o $ � E ^do (b V 'r `o, c
.`° .� �+ o ° c� d ° o •- � `� ti . a°i `o.J. °' y 00.
yO Qc°Ci dy _0 y�" bqOp '+tiC�„ '`y� _ "❑U `OcCi c� �rO AO� � y •yaiooo �>v' Cio•iyw Cd >o",
0. cy oa ° o a°n $° � Z
CO 4°Or00a o..
O b " ° Donp
Oa") W rd ti c:8o
U ' G n p 0. ay�
+y' y C
�n �o0.
0 a' � a>i o a� �po >°e
•. > 4a� ` > � C7oU won 0. 'H2 ..° 3gon � b "00oen � F � V ° o 0
0
� bo
o u C .
C
h
O N f.)
N
d
C
y E H
r: ` pA a §
ea $, � �
o r, 4 o u o d
Urn O 'va� os
a
= a
asU
0
y 4" N
cb
O
ca. Y � a 70 $ `o 1=4
c
z ° c c o w
� c 0 cbq boy �s 0.
TA U
cn iy � N p .b d �+• y •r O O
O Caa �' v ,". o0 7 co4.
aio
Q Y'� , ° �" �oorOv645 .Ov
°
CN
ao ya ° w 'Ao = ° �ca^ a ancv
«oO4.
O p co o o o
13
Q o y H �p a ° 3 0 0 °aCA
.°
ci
d O v C 2 0 ¢ °' � v� y b
'43
0 01a"i � `°' � ° opo ° o
Aha o O 5opv k � �' >,o
a o
a � ro. � y'� ca°i � a � � 2oEP
o
' ar
°
b a
Abu
y N N .O T7 O •y p .� p ca CL
t.., •Q�. cO .icFC ,.L^.••• m�" 4 �. E7 � '°5 °
'Oy ^ a 441 o,.d� TO a• y
ja
�6b,, V p N y ♦'C.. CO
N •v t>d C O O ¢• 4>"';fl � TO7 ps.. ^W
> OW
—cd 6 m
cs oo Gyo �'
o 0
3 .o w o o a"i a o
H
01
C ami On. bo 4)Ta :c o p
N U C _cl a? o v
L ^� C N w � 5-•G"i CC L1•.G+ V £' .O a -13: A
O p >y o d C
y 6Ni w d C 2 O O
� Cdo � o � o °' « " b
C ay q � 5 a°' ti " '� X03 °' � roc
o � Ear p �,
wn � > s0 -2
Qanan
O E A O O O cl 14 4) Q o
C C C C
v� O Y O � O m O
o aaUiE $ $ aUiE oaHaUiE `cd°' a `� � E
G
D �
a �
a a U U AU AU
0 0 0 0
p N C N p a� C y pEi
C
'p .0 'p O b E .!2 "C O
a > o ° > o > o ° > o
0a > a > c 0a >
V EF a �oc� w` cab � a000,10, 480
ri cooed
O
_ 30 40.
c •-
y
d aCi ta '°� b E c!2,;b y o a y c v
Co0o
aCi ,b cr3 O +' o
y U •'O U N •'p v N
O
° ,Y o o > 3 C
? ° y � 3 C wU v•in
v a
>
v t�o d ° 0c3 a)
3cb c
0 C � •_ C o
p
'0-'
a.. .0 O O �L' "a5 C
o v d v o, c c o f :a ° K w
o oo CoC � j C0
° c ° c� 3 '8 U Ea $ ovi C ° .'a
.c ti u
C y w N C v b C ,ba
C Cp C Y
Cy V -0 . . C o ''' p 0> C ° Cy, O X NO > Ol C
d
o +. o
N Q Vj Cd C 0 U 'c C> bad C3 CS ca F
W T3
s. 3 ,>, a g ., v m �s � " °
0 0 ° 0 E � � a r� .o ,c O
en 3 b y � ` rA p p C � `° rn r a
ami .s o d ?? p . 0 � E �.� � � � C R. ��, " °°' v y
c W ° " a�j ° • tt y a� � 3 ;� E p aC E mss
E o y E oo �
own E A U obi > � Q -�v w° c� '� � ° b '� y u 'd u a o • • ��? � obi E'
C7
z � w � o
0 C4
00
a ab " C' 4 `o o ''
U > w Uw Q � w ovs
>, o. Kuo tqu 'o b 3
Tj UV7 UE El
2 p N i
O U°
o '�' " y
a>o
..
z fan ° Cd
0-4
a ° � �
4) o
H -d ) o
d' Ut. :� '' i
b � waoio
yo C's .0o � � � bo
c, zz
w•. Ra � a� o >,
v ¢ o20
a "
0 — b `o' er
a QEowPI . "
Ub (u 0
a
g CIS 0
a > p ° '� 'd °
4-1 li V t7 �p o .� , t� U +-' c3 t•+ rte•. ,
o C 40
° ° � °. ° moo
W W cn w ° aq p >'40. q
V 'o 45. Cd 3 c o w
m t� �
� ,fl b
cdL9
C •� w � r.+
O
ti C vii •C O OC •0
•� G C '+r
a .d ie o p � o � a3i 'H � .3o 0
;? U y 0. >i vi y ,o Q p a� N
Uvn w oA S -°ov? C.'O =v -Gp m c°i R •c 'O
A
� v
H d G ry
0 c o °
as mQ A
U
0
aGi ti �o aGi C
> a+ > 0V
> n � a > a
H a Ov Oa I "Oo cam•
O
V > o
z v� ¢ a . 3
y.. y N
O
� r w w
ar O w . �O
.G GL... C
z COO
Q a v a
C7 ° o U • ° c D aGi > 0 `° w
.8
>+ U CO p Y O O O H
a+ > tq U
a
'C to
o
Cr G
C
u� ti o � � 9
g w E Ol o 00 a `� aGi . E
90
^E °
> O •V ° •N F.r V ° C N y VJ
C ,y .0
co
a d V 'O6,'OG .d O O v o N N ... 3
9 p C a�
9 G id v c) 3 b y `� C
b0! G >rs
a'C.. .� L COO G•.G. G 'Ui O .��'' �X U 0 G C G '� O
sem- u t3 Obi o w aGi Zw °
a 0 0 3 y
H
O Oby O -10
'2� «tid cnd .Yw m .Yay A0
o au: c4aa oUUu O
> 00 oc
ea a 5 i s ~
• 6 • • • • • • U U • • • • • •
0 as
4, 0
0 •U ''�" •cis" 0 H vi° > 0 60 w v ''�� ^° 8 o 3>,.o 0 6�•�
3 .c �u a•� 3 ;? c > 0 3 "Uy (U
_ � > cca .c .o � " � � = moo ; 0ca .� o3 E � "
a ee 2. A . ed
E � o U a.� c � � � c o 0
U � a � .. CL 0
U � ►.
y C
d
[ a
°
064 A A A A A
U
o C3a L
L
aa .. > o k' > o > a o .o 0 0
a ~ (uL o ~ o o ~ c ~ o
(� F a �a •vc� a .° .� wco'bcvvv a � � acv
O
a E ccg � o °
:n 3 v v
O w X •x y 215
a0
z c
0a �4 c � c
V y �_ b > •' CCI
b a>
to
c � mai � o
40.
_v h rX ¢ C 00O V .O O N
N
a s S 3 o a w°, o 0
C q rn iv v .. U p
y0 •
C* C ° d c
04Q4 cdm
s a- c .: o o
01 (A Cd N Q
g q ° -o G3a � c ° a0> ° y
a ° c o ° � � a U
a a `
c
bbBY .� 'c ° 040 0 „ H
4• H c o o
w
o r o
1. U
41
b y „ a.^ O ..
Al
C 00 C N �
sC C 0 0l1 c V CC4
O
ro wwccc 3v� 04w � a
• • A W b b .0 • • • • • U 4 o U iYi v� ti
O
y y 3
c
V y H
EooAa �
o � oA � v
Uv� :saU c°i E
v �
� d
.y a
a
0 0
a �
W: a
e
d o
CC a v
C7 H
O
'O V .O o •y '�, .ayi v v; y cO y•"O.• C id b
> 0 .>
a ,. ° � Yw- = ow c c o c . c0., � 0 �
CZ.p O vi O A. O cDO (u0 >
IrA. " w ° 'y a'�0,,, cd c O, O p id o O
oq H ° N O O 6yi O O ~ O O T3"' L1.. w w a•Y O, 7 o
,� v p � 0.•y p 0. t cd � � cd ti �• C
Y U y U h 04�_ YO V 0.cd O Y O C g y u, � .
N U °
'0 3 po •A 3 ab4i '� " o�i .vc "
d o E o v o l `� a>i E C
v O O vi "ra ,O
cqQ .do�0 op
O y
0. p
- =v — Ap O
E
two ° m. w � 0 °
2 CQ. v
p' i EF �to v O 's E gV N 11
p . Oto O y C
m2
0.N '1, 5 n0 �
44 .Gg vt . G . C c O�d
vCl
b � .� � O �? F, c`d ayi 7 aoi a� a>i � t" � O � y R � C o. � ° �-• " �{ •u0-" v N
O y p> O v id a v a; ~v •� c v p rep C ov w a+ •�m v° °>' tl Loi»
u cn O —Cd ccd•r. py . v p Ua
'�•.• N d 1.. v
E •aO:H. .0y o^y .0 U N McO
0 ¢ CrpC � C's G :O? O
E v piov .oY� . • � '
gib . °.0 ' 6cw '° .°= a
a
yO 6l •o C � h ��.� o '� ' ctldw0 E O
•.0.. o w¢E •At. .O •o 'Cv N b ooi dd YCv�."�G' M �v' .p�q , 'aon Co0.v'b0
qu
; L 9 O N
° vw O 0 Ci, SBF
Oc o.v ti?;R'C E bNp > O 0. .lu O C
N7 7
0p � Ei 'G O N N h1 C�Ov0.v .o2 � a o
b °° .0NvQ
y
•� V 0..b :d '°•°'b e Y N o O .a 0:"1 40„ O •°; O Cd �' ° '� aVi id y O p,
o d d C V Ct U n
m 3 aci > C 9 u C EAZ , &
CA
c Opti ay ccdc . V -onc •cto En 0 IE
_ � oCL• � � vo '. K °' d
N'8 . v A ai p :° r o cid C > w v
2 .0
9 .2
" c ° w v C • a ' d ci c v cd > Ct o ed y
161
°o 78
° on v
p d 'Uw .
C �'• C ¢, cd cd 0. ° v « �.. ... ,ed O ... 0.•�
4 > L cvd > y o U o w° 0. °_' .°o . 3 cid cw � •c b 00 cRd � ��U c°) aXi O
• 0 • • • •
VNvO7
4. •r-
o ° c
u 3 � pid
y � •r' �
y U
c.b ° d .� A • a
U � Abc.� vo
u
u y
= a
0
as p
U
0
y 0 Cy O
G O O U •U
C7 F ac�vcad
O _p�" •�y p
g>
Zug ? o
Er oo.a 1 v moo co e? o
Z °c '0 IS 0, foo v .o o
O 31 u u y•15 L o 0 0
Z y
to, o. ° ,o oo Y �, O '1 5 0o y .d0 .2
O ° a� a ca ° � o
F a c
q.Q o A yv �H ycu-i ca a�4yaiis ° fl ` -o soo a 0 ° ° 1� N
C (U
y
E v �
F1U
9 Qn � a � '� > oao aeo w
W wU O
N Lp U W 'U °�, U C U Cd y V1 'O Cd 3 y
o 0
Ol O 'p48
'a y � C U ' U V) U � '� U
a� bo a c to p
w _
5 0,
o qY . � u � oc°, � co aaifl °cu °
O U .y O y cdU N O 4) H U
g ZNN .° ca � a � .. ra Ea a� C ' a o � o,
ys G a aai ? O y endrA Ozti a 3 id cUd 'o'q
.O •o .o ar3 O O C
.
.t 0 U O Dq 104
U °bo 'R
0 bo
C tl O o °
'> U ti o c Cd
Cd cc �>'a 'd °-' ^off °v X0
►
0 0
� o�i 3 �a p u'> � o� .o id .> moi. i >�°' � � n � coo U
C O O
� a ai �a d " � .o
aw s A
cci reo V a ti ago saes �o.2 ° o. o •a
y a ' 0 cdcac c a � e .c' oa '�, o °
o o o ersE y o' o ^O a>i o
a ? a s V -00 �4" 9 ,o 0 0 '«0
� auk � � ami o `.5 aui y ani � � o � .� o °3' � u � •� � °" a «. � �
Cc,
p a, vai' H U y h aXi ❑ 3 ' " ca, ° °' o '� >' o p
oA O -4O O O 'y so i u
cc � ,o 4AoEn c2 U A o
"� • ': � � x .03 • • • U '� • •
W ON O N O N O
+.+ •y. •F,, �+ .y a. •�.•
0r •-- 00 •2� 0 _ " 04)i •�
w H a3i 03
3 u d 3 a3i
y y U H U N y d
� � .!2 .0A � � ` .2A � a ` ,OAS
as ° � A a ° ° � A 'Q ° ° � A 'a0 °
C i LL,� a� O,,vVi a� m y N E p,,vvi O
Uva ave c°i Eq •a -S u E a oy Ou a�OE a -a u
°
Ga
o =
� a A A A A
0 0 0 0
4.
d a S > c o o o > a o 0 .c
2a > a AE 0. B."
•o2> a oa > a. oo. >
(q F �v �o aBa1^c � a .1 la
O
z `3
° 0 y N d •y O w .U+
0 > o o
zp 3 a - 3 0 ::
� oo �
Z a0i U= 9 5 O R o o%i o �„ is $i o ,0
� G y o .° e
.14
0 b .a
0 10" o �
pc�, 00°
Cd 0
3 O a°i b
ds S. � a .c S V 42
a� 06
Q "io '" 4 � co r� oa o °Cq cam, c
O " l h ° L" R7 U C3.a+ .f.: O 0 V, CG2 �'
O r... C «S .� id .�.. O U •c`� OC�i 00. 6>1 p .cc "a p O
o .. y ° 0 .b co 4 0 o
° "? o `er 8 c h " i s y � o r I n " ° o
❑ O
ani U a d 2 o ° 'Ocs c o v ° * °" a>i > oVi
cwi a E o vOi Q v aXi °0 o
y ° • � v c u a � a Ca rn � '�
❑ U u °too �3
ami �° o y ti b
a00 v a y to,
eaOi x E o°a o ° "C 2: , ' i � 00
to 630
0 ' q v u
0 0 y > o a °� •o `� , � b u _� • • ° °�? obi C'
ao A U m > 3 A •v W c3 ^o 5 0 d
to O V1 O
Cd
_ Y715
bo to
d
E ` -z d
a+
0
O .O � � O •a40Ti1 � •� d d
p C1 O p
49 � � d O Q � x�0. �•O Q � y Q. � O'�
'o,.v c c '� Q •ac c � Q •� 7 � � � �
oaa2i °nuE aya� E E �0 E
U40 El absoycc) E ¢ ay
6a C
d
.Q
•G a
ay
tx a A U A A
c c ami ami
o c o c o 0
o 0
a co U ` > ..
C7 H a �v at v9. ¢a ¢ a
a
��vj..� v -. Y g a•o .Y „ O�
.0 y 'b y 'o, y G Vi N
•> O
C a 5M� b E u O y C
E c a c >
0 U N 9. p,.o N,05 b w. •,LF, O. 4r3 cu
F, � b a� •° y e y o b � ami
o oG� w o w°
o
15
OO N >
.0 E a:
C O '� iC O ••71 � Q 'V
q O
LG
w
,. a c
owI.d ` d c
a�
CL
0
Q.o0.
ec `* yx co C7 0Ca
> E
o `� ai c °I' c
api
co o
a> CL A N 0 O ►
w� �
CA w bA.s.. p •� rn ' �„ �• ci a3
0 •� w c�V � �' N Ilpr ,O y O y
boo
as h O to a O O rn
� U� a � � yr � � V'c�ct•� � � � G--a15 v
E., o w c v q on v a r. s o 'y
ct
pi
L i7 O d O :a V.O c 44-
dv�U Z � w '> a wcz Hw'' oal.a V • c
G
C ti
Ni ; oA u oA
o � A ccs
oG $ aUiai oaaVi6 fib'° Ea°go
Uva 8 Abd coy E :S7-42 So 8 E
d d
oa
00
a s AU Q A A
C*
0 0 c
0 > [0 o ff .^a 0 a
'� aaia .° � .od �
(,y F a � b � a. � •v o ¢ a ¢ a
Qj
O c 3 n E w o H c
o c � � �, a• c c �
,� ,� w
Ar 0 o� c a�
r O.-O yam" `OO 4� T 4,+ N
p C'-' •U Ra• .
O y
Qo CA 0Vic ,°, , � o c
N
O �H 'n E
4.
Cd 13
.. .+ N
o d c
ua � 0 O a O
c° x o c °'
cl Cd
EEc, y�
d � � v � .0 � .L" ^• � O N S.
cc
cd
O
i � � onca '� nc
' O cw o N °'
Za
v•. � d •� v U � b � oy@o u
E„yr •�' 'rq�•' � L. ,�,,+ O � O
Op C O •r�n i, tlO N 6� O y y
ai aLi U r Y c bcd"
0
r-
40. b '
cc
� .. 7 � � o � � '�• c N c i� •+ of A °�-' U
a i p 'o y C w H