SU0013380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regarding consistency with General Plan Policies (Page 4 . 2-6 of the EIR) : • They recognize that the conversion of this agricultural land to urban use would be a significant impact under CEQA, but they disagree with the EIR' s conclusion that the project would be inconsistent with the General Plan Policies because of its location on farm land. • Regarding the current land use and circulation, he did not believe that policy prohibits location of new towns on prime land. He believed the policy was consistent because it minimizes the impact on agricultural land by developing on less desirable agricultural land and by avoiding the valley floor. • Regarding the policies in the Draft 2010 General Plan, he disagreed with the DEIR' s apparent interpretation that Draft Policy 18 (b) prohibits the location of a new town on prime land. He believed the project is consistent with the intent of that policy because it directs growth away from the best agricultural lands to the edge of the valley; is cited to minimize conflicts with agricultural land; and the project' s design and mitigation measures mitigate those impacts. • He believed that the Final EIR should revise the statement of inconsistency with these policies. • The EIR fails to clearly recognize the General Plan 2010 policies that are cited, which are draft policies and may be modified and clarified prior to their final adoption by the Board of Supervisors. • If there is an inconsistency, or a clarification needed as to what the intent of the policy is and whether the project meets that, he believed the General Plan language can be modified or clarified as another way of mitigating this conflict suggested in the EIR. (He said that he will submit written comments which will suggest how that language could be modified to clarify the intent of that policy. ) • He disagreed with. the DEIR discussion that the project as proposed is inconsistent with other current and proposed General Plan Policies, such as those regarding identifiable neighborhoods, neighborhood commercial areas, maintaining distinct communities, lack of alternative sites, and growth inducement. • He said that even if the project does conflict with these policies, he did agree with the EIR's conclusions that these, and all of the other potential conflicts with policies, can be reduced to a level of insignificance by various mitigation measures. He said that in some cases he differed with the EIR in the best way to resolve those conflicts. (He referred to the testimony of Elizabeth Shreeve regarding this subject. ) Regarding proposed biological impact mitigations The DEIR recognizes that the impacts of the project on wildlife could be mitigated by reserving a portion of the project site for wildlife and by an offsite mitigation with PC MINUTES -3- JAN 16, 1992