Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda Packet 2007-07-10
City Council Tony Ferrara Ed Arnold Joe Costello Jim Guthrie Chuck Fellows Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2007 7:00 P.M. Agenda Steven Adams City Manager Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Kelly Wetmore City Clerk Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: 3. FLAG SALUTE: VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR RICHARD SCHARN RETIRED 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5.a. Honorary Proclamation -Parks and Recreation Month 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY -JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 2 COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may: • Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you. • A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. • It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda. Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council: • Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less. • Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members. • Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period June 16, 2007 through June 30, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of an Award of Contract to Souza Construction. Inc.. for Construction of the Brisco Road Rehabilitation Proiect. PW 2007-02 (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Award a contract for the construction of the Brisco Road Rehabilitation Project, PW 2007-02 to Souza Construction, Inc. in the amount of $270,878; 2) authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $27,088.00 for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project; and 3) transfer $107,966, currently allocated for the Annual Pavement Management Program. AGENDA SUMMARY -JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 3 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.a. Consideration of Resolution Certifvina a Five-Year Radar Soeed Survey and Establishment of Speed Limits on Rancho Parkway. Valley Road and North Halcyon Road (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution certifying afive-year radar speed survey establishing speed limits on Rancho Parkway, Valley Road and North Halcyon Road. 11. NEW BUSINESS: 11.a. Consideration of Confirmation of Appointment of Chief of Police (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Confirm appointment of Steven Annibali as the City's new Chief of Police. 11.b. Consideration of a Center Left Turn Lane on East Grand Avenue Between Halcyon Road and EI Camino Real (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: The Traffic Commission recommends the City Council approve Option A for the proposed striping revisions on East Grand Avenue between Halcyon Road and EI Camino Real for a center left turn lane. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. None. (HEFFERNON) Recommended Action: 1) Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to change the designation of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single- Family (SF); and 2) Adopt a Resolution approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan. AGENDA SUMMARY -JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 4 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken. a. None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. 17. ADJOURNMENT All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. .......................... This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovogrande.oro City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-soan.org. ~®~CITY OF _ -. CALIFORNIA ~J/,~r(y` 791 j y9 ~~ -• .~ ~~ 3-fonorary ProcCamation Proclaiming July as "`Parks and Recreation 9-donth" WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation profession in California "Creates Community through People, Parks and Programs"; and WHEREAS, our parks help to preserve and protect the natural and cultural resources of California; and WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation services support more productive workforces, enhance the desirability of locations for business and families, and stimulate tourism revenues to increase a total community development model; and WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation strengthens community image and sense of place, and increases cultural unity; and WHEREAS, Parks, and Recreation promotes health and wellness and reduces health care costs; and WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation fosters human development, helping young people develop and grow into healthy adults, and helping adults continue to live longer; and WHEREAS, hundreds of children, adults and seniors benefit from the wide range of services, facilities and programs provided by the City of Arroyo Grande Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department; - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Tony Ferrara, Mayor of the City of Arroyo Grande; on behalf of the City Council, do hereby urge all residents to enjoy and recognize the programs offered by .the City's Parks and Recreation Department, and recognize July as "Parks and Recreation Month". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 10'" day of July 2007. Paaoro OF C9 ~ INCOXVONPTE092 f ~`~ V ~S~ m Tony Ferrara, Mayor ,N~. ,o. ,,,, . - egtTFOaa~P 5.a. 8.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE: JULY 10, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period June 16 through June 30, 2007. FUNDING: There is a $2,901,328.75 fiscal impact that includes the following items: Accounts Payable Checks 131894-132090 $ 2,462,854.21 Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 438,474.54 All payments are within the existing budget. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendation; Do not approve staffs recommendation; Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Attachment 1-June 16, 2007-June 30, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register Attachment 2-June 22, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register apckHist 07/02/2007 3:08PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ATTACHMENTI Page: 1 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 131894 06/18/2007 000403 MAINTENANCE 061807 06/18/2007 20.00 20.00 131895 06/20/2007 006193 UNITED STATES TREASURY V 06/20/2007 0.00 0.00 131896 06/20/2007 006193 UNITED STATES TREASURY 052307 06/20/2007 32,634.88 32,634.88 131898 06/22/2007 000471 1 HOUR PHOTO PLUS 020207 02/02/2007 16.61 032207 03/22/2007 12.43 29.04 131899 06/22/2007 002627 STEVEN ADAMS 061507 06/15/2007 20.00 20.00 131900 06/22/2007 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC 2560 06/04/2007 735.29 2576 06/05/2007 432.65 2642 06/12/2007 399.81 1,567.75 131901 06/22/2007 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING L5245715HF 06/15/2007 11.34 11.34 131902 06/22/2007 001050 AMERICAN TEMPS INC 47396 06/11/2007 908.90 47446 06118/2007 368.16 47329 06104/2007 46.02 1,323.08 131903 06/22/2007 006196 STEVEN ANNIBALI 061907 06/21/2007 1,358.91 1,358.91 131904 06/22/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 75100034 05/18/2007 297.78 297.78 131905 06/22/2007 000886 APODACA PAVING, INC 1642 06/14/2007 3,860.00 3,860.00 131906 06/22/2007 003175 AQUA-METRIC SALES 0017259 06/01/2007 530.39 0017357 06/08/2007 300.20 830.59 131907 06/22/2007 005507 AT & T 6/7-0183 06/07/2007 193.32 6/8-9816 06/08/2007 77.46 617-3956 06/07/2007 33.13 6/7-3959 06107/2007 33.13 6/7-3953 06/07/2007 33.13 370.17 131908 06/22/2007 000065 BRENDA BARROW 061307 06/13/2007 246.61 246.61 131909 06/22/2007 006195 BENJOY NURSERY 515524 04/25/2007 78.33 78.33 131910 06/22/2007 004150 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS 061207 06/12/2007 434.46 434.46 Page:1 apCkHist Ch@Ck HiStOty LlStln9 Page: 2 07102/2007 3:08PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 131911 06/22/2007 001917 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH MAY 2007 06/21/2007 290.00 290.00 131912 06/22/2007 005726 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC 679448 05/31/2007 942.50 942.50 131913 06/2212007 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, 70145 06/18/2007 100.00 100.00 131914 06/22/2007 001577 BURDINE PRINTING (DBA) 6277 06/06/2007 1,230.81 1,230.81 131915 06/22/2007 003775 CALIFORNIA JPIA PRIM00108 05/29/2007 740,205.00 740,205.00 131916 06/22/2007 000160 CHAPARRAL 254595 06/14/2007 199.59 199.59 131917 06/22/2007 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 750170 06/07/2007 1,606.00 1,606.00 131918 06/22/2007 000178 COLD CANYON LANDFILL, 253353 05/07/2007 9.00 9.00 131919 06/22/2007 002842 COMMERCIAL 6117-70607 06/13/2007 4,250.00 4,250.00 131920 06/22/2007 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 10523 05123/2007 410.96 410.96 131921 06/22/2007 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL 03065 06/12/2007 25.00 25.00 131922 06/22/2007 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 5/31-048517 04/30/2007 69.00 5/31-014273 06/18/2007 44.50 6/5-70931 06/18/2007 34.50 6/5-63949 06/18/2007 11.50 159.50 131923 06/22/2007 001726 CSFA 062007 06/20/2007 500.00 500.00 131924 06/22/2007 000577 LEONARD B DE LOS SANTOS 061407 06/14/2007 172.20 172.20 131925 06/22/2007 005593 DTSC 062007 06/21/2007 200.00 200.00 131926 06/22/2007 000225 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 224681 05/29/2007 2,921.00 224695 05/29/2007 417.50 3,338.50 131927 06/22/2007 004164 FEDEX 2-059-13797 05/25/2007 37.40 37.40 131928 06/22/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1315756 06105/2007 862.00 1317923 06/07/2007 673.64 1319311 06/11/2007 214.15 1316974 06/06/2007 99.74 1,849.53 Page: 2 apCkHist 07/02/2007 3:08PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 3 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 131929 06/22/2007 000751 FIRE ENGINEERING 061907 06121/2007 29.95 29.95 131930 06/22/2007 000250 FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE 062107 06/21/2007 30.00 30.00 131931 0612212007 005990 FIRMA CONSULTANTS INC 2669 06/11!2007 360.00 360.00 131932 06/2212007 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 061907 06/21/2007 24.00 24.00 131933 06/22/2007 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 061907 06/19/2007 48.00 48.00 131934 06/22/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 061907 06/19/2007 24.00 24.00 131935 0612212007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 25444 06/11/2007 64.65 64.65 131936 06/2212007 004372 GARING TAYLOR & 1045 01/31/2007 6,713.75 1150 02/28/2007 2,929.46 7756 05/31/2007 1,287.50 7755 05/31/2007 1,240.00 7647 04/30/2007 845.00 13,015.71 131937 06/22/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 6/8-200 N 06/08/2007 164.10 6/11-350 S 06/11/2007 100.66 6/11-1375 06/11/2007 99.42 6/7-910 06/07/2007 32.41 6/7-1500 06/07/2007 11.11 407.70 131938 06/22/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS .061807 06/18/2007 100.00 100.00 131939 06/22/2007 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS i£ 24621 06/08/2007 73.27 73.27 131940 06122/2007 002820 INDOFF, INC 989630 06/12/2007 214.15 214.15 131941 06/22/2007 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 157987 06104/2007 89.80 157986 0610412007 5.69 95.49 131942 0612212007 001695 VINCE JOHNSON 061307 06/2112007 370.00 370.00 131943 06/2212007 003949 KERN'S PAPER 21229 05/2912007 990.06 21181 05/2512007 604.48 21171 05/25/2007 359.89 1,954.43 131944 06/22/2007 004845 JOHN CARSON 061807 06/21/2007 100.00 100.00 Page: 3 apCkHist 0710212007 3:OSPM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 4 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 131945 06/22/2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 061807 06/18/2007 128.00 128 .00 131946 06/2212007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 061807 06/21/2007 120.00 120 .00 131947 06/2212007 005965 LOMBARDS AUTOSOUNDS A14386 05/02/2007 168.27 168 .27 131948 06/22/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070802 05/01/2007 1,528.43 070676 03/22/2007 427.55 070818 05/01/2007 301.35 2,257 .33 131949 06/22/2007 000402 MAIL BOXES ETC 09018151 06/06/2007 27.87 27 .87 131950 06/22/2007 002179 MICHL GAUGE SALES & 37065 06/13/2007 85.00 85 .00 131951 06/22/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 209956 0611712007 97.37 210217 06/19/2007 86.87 909986 06/15/2007 80.79 209623 06/14/2007 58.12 910247 06/18/2007 34.85 908826 06/07/2007 25.95 208821 06/08/2007 20.82 909859 06/14/2007 20.54 209152 06/11/2007 16.15 208330 06/05/2007 16.14 208699 06/07/2007 15.07 209364 06/12/2007 11.95 208112 06/04/2007 6.47 208370 06/05/2007 4.82 209998 06/17/2007 4.01 903963 05/03/2007 3.06 210092 06/18/2007 2.62 209625 06/14/2007 2.46 210053 06/18/2007 1.49 209718 06/15/2007 0.65 208849 06/08/2007 -11.82 498. 38 131952 06/22/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS178703 06/12/2007 69.55 69. 55 131953 06122/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS 8 ELECTRIC 6/12-620838 06/12/2007 245.66 Page: 4 apckHist 07/02/2007 3:08PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE page: 5 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 6112-781296 06/12/2007 15.86 261.52 131954 06/22/2007 006194 PIERCE MANUFACTURING M026442 05/31/2007 198,395.79 198,395.79 131955 06/22/2007 005284 R & B MOBILE EQUIPMENT & 0670 02/28/2007 149.15 0719 03/15/2007 91.94 241.09 131956 06/22/2007 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 9267 06/20/2007 13.20 13.20 131957 06/22/2007 002670 RICOH LEASING 07063466838 06/18/2007 163.04 163.04 131958 06/22/2007 003363 NINA RIPPY 061407 06/14/2007 31.50 31.50 131959 06/22/2007 004833 STEVE ROMO 061907 06/19/2007 120.00 120.00 131960 06/22/2007 000810 RRM DESIGN GROUP 04071307502 04/30/2007 3,052.92 3,052.92 131961 06/22/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 061807 06/18/2007 80.00 80.00 131962 06/22/2007 000578 ANGELITA ANN SARMIENTO 061807 06/18/2007 64.00 64.00 131963 06/22/2007 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 061807 06/18/2007 40.00 40.00 131964 06/22/2007 003024 MARK SCRAPPER 061807 06/18/2007 120.00 120.00 131965 06I22I2007 002624 SERVICEMASTER CBM 200150 06/19/2007 1,739.11 1,739.11 131966 06/22/2007 003838 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC 219860 06/13/2007 3,864.60 3,864.60 131967 06/22/2007 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK- 061807 06/18/2007 25.00 25.00 131968 06/22/2007 004860 TAMMY SMITH 061807 06/18/2007 56.00 56.00 131969 06/22/2007 000609 BQB SPEAR 061807 06/18/2007 120.00 120.00 131970 06/22/2007 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 55139 06/12/2007 1,354.03 55140 06/12/2007 48.26 1,402.29 131971 06/22/2007 000616 STERLING 22919 06/08/2007 53.34 53.34 131972 06/22/2007 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH 1146 05/31/2007 293.81 293.81 131973 06/22/2007 002377 TURF STAR, INC 6520218-00 06/11/2007 38.16 38.16 131974 06/22/2007 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 278278 06/08/2007 918.07 918.07 Page: 5 i apCkHist ~ 0710212007 3:08PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 6 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 131975 06/22/2007 003090 V & M UPHOLSTERY 6464 02/01/2007 44.54 44.54 131976 06/22/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 560171762 06/19/2007 45.61 0560008147 06119/2007 37.56 0560390847 06/20/2007 32.57 115.74 131977 06/22/2007 000696 STEVE WHITNEY 061307 06/13/2007 50.00 50.00 131978 06/22/2007 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC 0713 06/1212007 4,770.00 0725 04/12/2007 2,580.00 0724 06/1212007 2,580.00 9,930.00 131979 06/25/2007 D06083 ARROYO GRANDE IN BLOOM 1001 05/0912007 180.00 180.00 131980 06/27/2007 000553 SLO COUNTY CLERK- 062707 06/27/2007 25.00 25.00 131991 06/27/2007 000555 SLO COUNTY DEPT OF 405 05/0412007 1,283,348.09 1,283,348.09 131992 06/27/2007 006203 AG SPANISH OAKS Ref000077867 06/25/2007 131.28 131.28 131993 06/27/2007 006202 TOREY BAILEY Ref000077866 06/25/2007 49.52 49.52 ' 131994 06/2712007 006201 RHEKA DENNEY Ref000077865 06/25/2007 113.46 113.46 131995 06/27/2007 006197 BILL KALENIAN Ref000077861 06/25/2007 90.30 90.30 131996 06127/2007 006200 PHILLIP PETER OLSEN Ref000077864 06/25/2007 4.00 4.00 131997 06/27/2007 006198 BEN ROTHSTEIN Ref000077862 06/25/2007 45.19 45.19 131998 06/27/2007 006199 LYNETTE STONEHOUSE Ref000077863 06/25/2007 119.98 119.98 131999 06/29/2007 000007 ACCURATE FLO & MOTION 35929 06/27/2007 243.44 243.44 132000 06/29/2007 006204 MARIA ALCANTAR 062207 06/22/2007 100.00 100.00 132001 06/29/2007 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC 2655 06/13/2007 735.29 735.29 132002 06/29/2007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS V 06/29/2007 0.00 0.00 132003 06/29/2007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS F175565 05108/2007 34.90 F187039 05122/2007 34.90 F187038 05/22/2007 2895 Page: 6 apCkFlist Check History Listing Page: 7 07102/2007 3:08PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid F192791 05/2912007 23.80 F169848 05/01/2007 22.95 F181341 05/15/2007 2240 Ft69866 05/01/2007 20.15 F 17 5581 05/08/2007 19.60 F181360 05/15/2007 19.60 F187054 05/2212007 19.60 F192808 05/29/2007 19.60 F175564 05/08/2007 19.30 F169847 05/01/2007 1875 F181340 05/15/2007 18.20 F192790 05/29/2007 18.20 F169858 05/01/2007 17.25 F181352 05/15/2007 17.25 F192800 05/29/2007 17.25 F187052 05/22/2007 16.50 F175579 05/08/8007 15.00 F 175571 05108/2007 11.80 F187045 05/22/2007 11.80 F169862 05/01/2007 10.35 F181356 05/15/2007 10.35 F192804 05/29/2007 10.35 F175578 05/08/2007 9.50 F187051 05/22/2007 9.50 f175570 05/0812007 8.80 F187044 05/22/2007 8.80 F169864 05/01/2007 8.50 F181358 05/15/2007 8.50 F192806 05/29/2007 8.50 F192807 05/2912007 6.70 F169865 05/01/2007 6.15 F169861 05/0112007 6.00 F181355 05/1512007 6.00 F192803 05/29/2007 6.00 F175580 05/08/2007 5.60 F181359 05/1512007 5.60 F187053 05/22/2007 5.60 Check Total Page: 7 apckHist Check History Listing Page: s 0710212007 3:08PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total F169863 05/01/2007 5.00 F181357 05/15/2007 5.00 F192805 05/29/2007 5.00 F169853 05101/2007 2.80 F181346 05/15/2007 2.80 F192796 05/29/2007 2.80 F169852 05/01/2007 2.80 F181345 05/15/2007 2.80 F192795 05/29/2007 2.80 F041760 05/15/2007 2.20 F041768 05/15/2007 1.65 F042026 05/22/2007 1.10 F042027 05/22/2007 0.55 F042015 05/22/2007 0.55 F041421 05/08/2007 0.55 626.95 132004 06/29/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 76000030 06/12/2007 468.30 75X00049 05/31/2007 238.98 707.28 132005 06/29/2007 001188 ARROYO GRANDE LIONS 060207 06/02/2007 1,824.00 1,824.00 132006 0612912007 000051 AVILA SIGN & DESIGN (DBA) 4107 05/20/2007 240.00 240.00 132007 06/29/2007 000065 BRENDA BARROW 062707 06/28/2007 35.00 35.00 132008 06129/2007 004345 NORMA BENNETT 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132009 06/29/2007 003453 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC 50501645 06/19/2007 1,382.23 50501650 06/19/2007 19.01 1,401.24 132010 06/29/2007 004391 CASEY PRINTING, INC 9182 05/14/2007 4,202.06 4,202.06 132011 06/29/2007 006205 ALISA CASTILLO 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132012 06/2912007 003168 CELLULAR ONE 01380 06/22/2007 156.24 156.24 132013 06/29/2007 003883 CENTRAL COAST STRIPING 5559 06/12/2007 2,150.00 2,150.00 132014 0612912007 006206 CENTRAL COAST YOUTH 042007 04/20/2007 187.00 187.00 132015 06/29/2007 000170 RICHARD CLEAVER 062607 06/26/2007 641.50 641.50 Page: 8 aPCkHist Check History Listing Page: 9 07/0212007 3:08PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor I 132016 06/29/2007 004952 COLLINGS & ASSOCIATES ' 132017 06/29/2007 006207 CYNDEE COLLINS 132018 06/29/2007 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 132019 06/29/2007 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL 132020 06/29/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 132021 06/29/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 132022 06/29/2007 002673 DOCTORS MEDPLUS 132023 06/29/2007 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 132024 06/29/2007 006208 AMANDA FLORES 132025 06/29/2007 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 132026 06/29/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 132027 06/29/2007 005607 CHRISTINE GARRISON 132028 06/29/2007 004142 STAN GAXIOLA 132029 06/29/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 132030 06/29/2007 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 132031 06/29/2007 004947 JEANNIE HARDESTY 132032 06/29/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 132033 06/29/2007 006209 MARY ANN HJALMARSON 132034 06/29/2007 000348 J W ENTERPRISES Page: 9 Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice 12364 062207 20111 20113 03158 12071307 12046619 12122665 12122666 12059275 934886 0137678 386463 062207 062507 062507 062307 062507 70681 070500013101 070500713101 062207 062507 062207 201355 Inv. Date 06/25/2007 06/22/2007 06/14/2007 0 6/1 512 0 0 7 06/19/2007 05116/2007 0 511 4/2 0 0 7 05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/15/2007 06/18/2007 05/21/2007 06/21/2007 06/22/2007 06/25/2007 06125/2007 06/23/2007 06/25/2007 05/21 /2007 06/01 /2007 06/01/2007 06/22/2007 06/25/2007 06/22/2007 06/21/2007 Amount Paid Check Total 120.00 120.00 30.00 30.00 177.25 39.87 70.00 770.70 664.93 479.89 55.56 12.04 240.39 75.00 8.75 30.00 48.00 48.00 zs.oo 60.00 414.79 28.00 25.00 30.00 100.00 30.00 85.00 217.12 70.00 1,983.12 240.39 75.00 8.75 30.00 48.00 48.00 28.00 60.00 414.79 53.00 30.00 100.00 30.00 85.00 apCkHist 07/02/2007 3:08PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 10 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice fnv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 132035 06/29/2007 006210 DENNIS JACOBSON 042007 04/20/2007 148.75 148.75 132036 06/29/2007 005158 LYNN JOHNSON 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132037 0612912007 000371 LA SALLE NATIONAL BANK 453317 05/18/2007 58,373.66 58,373.66 132038 06/29/2007 004845 JOHN CARSON 062507 06/25/2007 100.00 100.00 132039 0612912007 006211 MELISSA LAY 042007 04/20/2007 187.00 187.00 132040 0612912007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 062807 06/28/2007 64.00 64.00 132041 06129/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 061807 06/18/2007 120.00 120.00 132042 06/29/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070555 02/08/2007 2,492.78 070551 02/08/2007 1,288.93 070666 03/22/2007 483.35 070267 12/01/2006 343.75 070265 12/01/2006 237.40 4,846.21 132043 0612912007 006212 MATT LYNCH 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132044 06/29/2007 004061 HOWARD D MANKINS 062707 06/27/2007 60.00 60.00 132045 06/29/2007 006088 MATCO TOOLS 11721 06/19/2007 180.01 180.01 132046 0612912007 006225 DEBORAH MC FARLEN 062207 06/22/2007 ' 30.00 30.00 132047 06/29/2007 006020 RYAN MICHAEL 062507 06/25/2007 60.00 60.00 132048 06/29/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 208168 06/04/2007 42.31 210960 06124/2007 38.77 210809 06/23/2007 38.07 208614 06/07/2007 37.65 211162 06/26/2007 31.54 210276 06/19/2007 23.59 210366 06/20/2007 20.42 210221 06/19/2007 19.89 210684 06/22/2007 19.35 211127 06/25/2007 18.30 908381 06128/2007 18.27 Page: 10 apckHist 07/02/2007 3:08PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 11 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 211037 06/2512007 16.15 210533 06121/2007 15.60 210486 06/21 /2007 14.51 208293 06/05/2007 12.92 210599 06/21 /2007 12.91 211048 06/25/2007 11.84 211028 06124/2007 11.29 210521 06/21/2007 10.21 211070 06/25/2007 10.19 208491 06/06/2007 9.69 211133 06/25/2007 8.07 210472 06/2112007 7.76 209018 06/02/2007 6.45 210719 06/22/2007 4.34 211011 06/25/2007 3.22 211041 06/25/2007 2.68 211103 06/25/2007 2.00 211293 06/2612007 1.07 210005 06/17!2007 -1.29 210765 06/22/2007 -10.75 211132 06/25/2007 -25.83 211333 06/27/2007 -92.90 338.29 132049 06/2912007 005650 NAPA AUTO PARTS 201475 03/28/2007 12.34 204705 05/04/2007 10.11 201486 03/28/2007 -12.34 10.11 132050 06/29/2007 005744 OCEANO COMMUNITY AG-8 06114/2007 510.00 510.00 132051 , 06129/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 389921067-001 06/15/2007 62.05 .389159167-001 06/08/2007 57.10 389921059-001 06/15/2007 50.91 388273341-001 05/2512007 -3.60 388274574-001 05/2512007 -3.60 162.85 132052 0612912007 005587 MATT OSBORNE 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132053 06/29/2007 001675 OUTDOOR CREATIONS, INC 680 05/18/2007 670.31 670.31 Page:11 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 12 07/0212007 3:08PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check p Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 132054 06/29/2007 0062131GNACIAOWEN 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132055 06/29/2007 000492 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH-FD 06/28/2007 22.12 22.12 132056 06/29/2007 006214 JAIME PIERCE 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132057 06/29/2007 000809 MATTHEW POLKOW 061907 06119/2007 14.00 14.00 132058 06129/2007 006215 SERGIO QUINTANA 042007 04/2012007 166.75 166.75 132059 06/29/2007 006216 SHERSTIN ROSENBERG 062207 06/2212007 60.00 60.00 132060 06/29/2007 001380 DEBORAH ROWLEY 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132061 06/29/2007 000810 RRM DESIGN GROUP 05071307502 06/05/2007 1,323.60 1,323.60 132062 06/29/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 062807 06!28/2007 180.00 180.00 132063 06/29/2007 006217 SHIRLEY RUTLAND 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132064 06/29/2007 006067 SANTA MARGARITA FIRE 062507 06/25/2007 1,241.53 1,241.53 132065 06/29/2007 006218 TOMASITA SARABIA 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 132066 06129/2007 000578 ANGELITA ANN SARMIENTO 062507 06/25/2007 40.00 40.00 132067 06/29/2007 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 062507 06/25/2007 64.00 64.00 132068 06/2912007 003024 MARK SCHAFFER 062507 06125/2007 40.00 40.00 132069 06/29/2007 006219 BARBARA SEPULVEDA 062507 06/2512007 21.38 21.38 132070 06!29/2007 002624 SERVICEMASTER CBM 200269 06/19/2007 44.16 44.16 132071 06/29/2007 005351 SIERRA DISPLAY, INC 10103 06/25/2007 3,250.92 3,250.92 132072 06/2912007 003160 JOE A SILVA, JR 925861 06/25/2007 108.60 108.60 132073 06/29/2007 004860 TAMMY SMITH 062507 06/2512007 64.00 64.00 132074 06129/2007 003343 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 23Vl13834186 06/08/2007 139.25 139.25 132075 06/29/2007 002327 SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION 1401734 06/06/2007 4,440.68 1403497 06/08/2007 2910 4,469.78 Page: 12 apCkHist 07/02/2007 3:08PM Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor 132076 06/29/2007 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 132077 06/29/2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 132078 06/29/2007 000540 ST PATRICK'S SCHOOL 132079 O6/29I2007 006220 STACEY STANEK 132080 06/29/2007 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 132081 06/29/2007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 132082 06/29/2007 006221 ROSEMARIE SWIGERT 132083 06/29/2007 005935 THOMAS CONSULTING 132084 06/29/2007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 132085 06/29/2007 006222 GLORIA TORRES 132086 06/29/2007 006223 POLLY TULLIS 132087 06/29/2007 066224 ROSEMARY VERNON 132088 06/29/2007 000685 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF 132089 06/29/2007 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC 132090 06/29/2007 004897 WOOD RODGERS INC 186 checks in this report Check History Listing Page: 13 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 1824308 06/01 /2007 207.72 1823362 06/01/2007 106.76 1832808 06/01/2007 106.76 1830009 06/01/2007 5.62 426.86 062507 06/25/2007 100.00 100.00 062507 06/25/2007 742.50 742.50 6262007 06/26/2007 80.00 80.00 55120 05/21/2007 3,570.00 3,570.00 51046225.001 06/13/2007 26.84 26.84 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 062107 06/21/2007 201.93 201.93 1020110 06/18/2007 67.34 67.34 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 062807 06/28/2007 25.00 25.00 062207 06/22/2007 30.00 30.00 22781 05/07/2007 11,991.05 22782 05/07/2007 6,889.98 22783 05/07/2007 706.25 22956 05/07/2007 44.63 19,631.91 0704 06/12/2007 11,830.00 11,830.00 56888 06/18/2007 7,514.15 7,514.15 boa Total: 2,462,854.21 Total Checks: 2,462,854.21 Page: 13 ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 6/1107 - 6/14!07 06122/07 FUND 010 392,291.62 5101 Salaries Full time 207,784.76 FUND 220 18,847.88 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 19,837.44 FUND 284 707.71 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 11,026.61 FUND 285 707.76 5105 Salaries OverTime 12,854.55 FUND 612 6,492.41 5107 Salaries Standby 383.64 FUND 640 19,427.16 5108 Holiday Pay 1,262.90 438,474.54 5109 Sick Pay 3,789.83 5110 Annual Leave Buyback 5111 Vacation Buyback 128.57 5112 Sick Leave Buyback 5113 Vacation Pay 9,236.22 5114 Comp Pay 7,919.29 5115 Annual Leave Pay 20,759.14 5121 PERS Retirement 72,396.99 5122 Social Security 21,128.55 5123 PARS Retirement 390.57 5126 State Disability Ins. 628.25 5127 Deferred Compensation 725.00 5131 Health Insurance 40,109.42 5132 Dentallnsurance 4,412.10 5133 Vision Insurance 1,032.27 5134 Life Insurance 597.08 5135 Long Term Disability 953.96 5143 Uniform Allowance 5144 Car Allowance 600.00 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance 242.40 5148 Boot Allowance 5149 Motor Pay 75.00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00 438,474.54 8.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL H~ FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO SOUZA CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRISCO ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT, PW 2007-02 DATE: JULY 10, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council: 1. award a contract forthe construction of the Brisco Road Rehabilitation Project, PW 2007-02 to Souza Construction, Inc. in the amount of $270,878; 2. authorize the City Managerto approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $27,088.00 for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project (total construction costs = $270,878 + $27,088 = $297,966); and, 3. transfer $107,966, currently allocated for the Annual Pavement Management Program. FUNDING: The projected estimate forthe total cost of the project is $297,966, based on the receipt of the construction bids. This is $107,966 more than the $190,000 currently allocated to the project in the Capital Improvement Program. A transfer from the funds currently allocated for the James Way Microsurtacing project in the Annual Pavement Management Program is requested to cover the difference between the total cost projection and the current Capital Improvement Program budget for the project. The Annual Pavement Management Program budget will be reduced from $203,289 to $95,323. This will result in a delay in improvements to James Way. If the City receives unbudgeted funds in this fiscal yearfrom the recently approved State Bond Act, the full James Way project could proceed later this fiscal year. DISCUSSION: On June 21, 2007, three bids were opened for the Brisco Road Rehabilitation Project. The lowest responsive bid, from Souza Construction, Inc. of San Luis Obispo, was in the amount of $314,878. This cost includes a base bid of $239,508, for road rehabilitation, and Schedule A in the amount of $31,370 for underground utility improvements at 183 Brisco Road in anticipation of a proposed development as the City's pavement cut policy CONSIDERATION OF AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO SOU2A CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BRISCO ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT, PW 2007-02 JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 2 discourages utility cuts in roadways for five years following paving. Upon development of the subject site, the developerwill reimburse the City forthe total cost to install the utilities, including testing & inspection. Due to the limited availability of project funds, it is recommended that Schedule B be excluded from the project scope of work for storm drain improvements in the amount of $44,000. The current project budget in the Capital Improvement Program totals $190,000. This includes money for design, construction, construction contingencies, contract administration and testing. The total project budget is now projected at $297,966 (total construction costs = $239,508 base bid + $31,370 utility undergrounding + $27,088 contingency = $297,966). Staff recommends transferring $107,966 from the James Way Microsurfacing project to cover the additional costs that were not anticipated during development of the original project. Staff is anticipating advertising the James Way Microsurfacing project for bids in August 2007. Dependent upon the bids received, the scope ofthe project may need to be reduced to fit within the available funding. Staff is dividing the project into separate schedules, using major intersections as dividing lines, to facilitate adjustments in the event they are deemed necessary. Including Schedule A at this time will allow developments along the project corridor while preserving roadway improvements. The contract time for this project is specified at 45 calendar days. Work is expected to begin in late July 2007 and be completed by September 2007. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staff's recommendations; • Do not approve staff's recommendations; Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or • Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Bid Opening Log Sheet 2. Tentative Project Schedule S:\Public W orks\Engineering\Capifal Projects\2007\PW 2007-02 (5655) Bdsco Road Rehabilitation\Council\Staff Reports\Council Memo - Award.doc BID OPENING LOG SHEET CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEADLINE: June 21, 2007, 2:00 p.m. Brisco Road Rehabilitation SUBMITTED BY: TOTAL Union Asphalt, Inc. $254,138 (Base Bid) Santa Maria, CA $ 35,800 (Schedule A) 57 000 (Schedule B) $346,938 (Total Bid) Granite Construction Co. Santa Barbara, CA Souza Construction San Luis Obispo, CA KellyKelly We remot remot Director of Adr $250,074 (Base Bid) $ 31,240 (Schedule A) 53 500 (Schedule B) $334,814 (Total Bid) $239,508 (Base Bid) $ 31,370 (Schedule A) 44 000 (Schedule B) $314,878 (Total Bid) Services/City Clerk c: Director of Public Works/ City Manager ~nrr.~.rn r,:,npyDE CITY SUN ~ 5 2007 _ i':'a'E`<3?i<S DEPT. Attachment 2 Tentative Froject Schedule For Brisco Road Rehabilitation Project Project No. PW 2007-02 Bid Opening (Thursday, 2:00 p.m. City Council Chambers) ...................................................June 21, 2007 Award of Bid at City Council meeting ..................................................................................... July 10, 2007 Notice of Award ........................................................................................................................ July 1 I, 2007 Pre-Construction Meeting (Thursday, 2:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers) ........................... July 12, 2007 Notice to Proceed ..................................................................................................................... July 31, 2007 Contract Completion (45 calendar days) ........................................................................ September 14, 2007 9.a. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing att 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following item: 1. Development Code Amendment 06-004 to Amend the Zoning Map; Applicant: City of Arroyo Grande; Location - 12.77 Acres North of East ~ Cherry Avenue Extension (Subarea 2 of the East Village Neighborhood Plan) and Approval of Neighborhood Plan No. 04-001 (East Village Neighborhood Plan); Applicant: Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location - 22 Acres East of Noguera Court Subdivision, North of East Cherry Avenue Extension, and South of Arroyo Grande Creek. The City Council will consider a proposed Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to change the zoning of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan. The City Council will also consider a proposed Resolution approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan which is intended to coordinate infrastructure for the area. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt per Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines. The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. Information about this item is available by contacting the Community Development Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Kelly Wet ore ity Clerk (Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, June 29, 2007) MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL - FROM: STEVE ADAMS CITY MANAGER BY: KELLY HEFFERNON ' ~ ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF: 1. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 06-004 TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF SUBAREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF); APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - 12.77 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION 2. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN NO. 04- 001 (EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN); APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC; LOCATION - 22 ACRES EAST OF NOGUERA COURT SUBDIVISION, NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION, AND SOUTH OF ARROYO GRANDE CREEK DATE: JULY 10, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that City Council introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to change the designation of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF). Staff further recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan. LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL JULY 10, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION Background The Subarea 2 property is currently zoned Residential Rural (RR) and is divided into ten (10) parcels developed with twelve (12) residences (Janowicz and Caldwell properties both have second units). In 2001, the General Plan was updated to change the land use designation of this property from Low Density Residential (LD) to Medium Density Residential (MD), or from one (1) dwelling unit per acre to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The purpose of this Development Code Amendment (DCA) is to bring the zoning into compliance with the General Plan by changing the zoning from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family Residential (SF), pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65860(c)'. If approved, the future development in this area will conform to the City's Development Code for SF zoning. According to the 2001 General Plan (LU2-7), the 12.77-acre property (Subarea 2) and the adjacent nine (9) acres (Subarea 1) are subject to a requirement for a Neighborhood Plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, Creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map. The Council considered the East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) on October 10, 2006 and determined it met the requirements of the General Plan provisions based on a finding that Subarea 1 adequately provides the necessary utilities, circulation and infrastructure to accommodate future development of Subarea 2 at its current General Plan designation (see Attachment 1 for Meeting Minutes). On November 28, 2006 the City Council adopted an Ordinance to change the zoning of the adjacent nine (g) acre Subarea 1' property from RR to SF, separate from the Subarea 2 property. Council directed staff to present zoning changes involving Subarea 2 separately for consideration so that potential density impacts, site constraints and other issues could be reviewed in greater detail. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Development Code Amendment on December 5, 2006 and January 16, 2007. On a 2:1 vote, the Commission recommended the City Council amend the zoning map to change the zoning of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan (see Attachments 2 and 3 for Meeting Minutes). Issues discussed included constraints of the property, changing the General Plan and zoning designation to a lower density while creating "no net loss" of residential units citywide based on State law (discussed further below under "compliance with State law"), creating an overlay for the property to allow a lower density, and applying a Specific Plan designation to the property. ' Government Code Section 65860(c): "In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to the plan, or to any element of the plan, the zoning ordinance shall6e amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended." CITY COUNCIL JULY 10, 2007 DCA 06.004 PAGE 3 Road Improvements Subarea 2 is accessed by a fifteen-foot (15') wide private road (extension of East Cherry Avenue, commonly referred to as "Dirt Cherry") that is currently unpaved and owned by many individuals. If the approved Cherry Creek Project proceeds, Dirt Cherry will be widened to thirty-two feet (32') along the Subarea 1 boundary. It is anticipated that Dirt Cherry will also be widened to City standards along the Subarea 2 boundary, including extending utilities under the road, as a condition of future development. After discussions with the residents, staff is recommending the roadway be narrowed to twenty-four feet (24') wide through Subarea 2 with no on street parking. Road widening and improvements would be the responsibility of future development and would extend from the boundary of Subarea 1 to the property proposed for development. Property owners of Subarea 1 (Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC) have initiated the road acquisition process for Dirt Cherry (from Branch Mill Road to the end where Dirt Cherry turns south). The attached road acquisition agreement (Attachment 4) has several parts to it, including a construction license and quitclaim deed. Once current owners of Dirt Cherry sign the quitclaim deeds, which will be placed into an escrow account. When road improvements have been completed and the road accepted by the City, the escrow account will close and the road would be deeded to the City. If for some reason the road improvements are not constructed, escrow would be cancelled and the deeds would be returned to the original owners. Another private access road within Subarea 2 is Lierly Lane, which connects perpendicular to the fifteen-foot (15') wide private extension of East Cherry Avenue between the Janowicz and Estes properties. Lierly Lane also has a narrow width (varies between eight and ten feet) and is considered inadequate to serve future development. Upon future subdivision in this area, Lierly Lane would require widening to a minimum of eighteen feet (18') for emergency access purposes. Agricultural Buffer All new residences in this area would be subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2) including a minimum of a one hundred foot (100') wide agricultural buffer that incorporates a minimum twenty-foot (20') wide landscape strip. The Neighborhood Plan previously considered by Council identified a one hundred thirty foot (130') wide buffer for both subareas. It should be noted that the intent of the agricultural buffer is to minimize potential conflicts related to new development adjacent to any designated agricultural district, and not impose restrictions on existing development. "Development" in this case is defined as subdivision of land, use permits and building permits for new residential units. Drainage Although it has not been determined whether future development would accommodate drainage individually or through some type of shared approach for Subarea 2, review of drainage impacts will be addressed prior to approval of any future subdivision or additional residential units. It is anticipated that additional stormwater runoff will be managed on site (e.g. with drainage basins or vaults) for individual properties. CITY COUNCIL JULY 10, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 4 l?ensity Analysis If the Development Code Amendment is approved, the new medium density zoning (SF) for the area would allow densities up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre, or forty-five (45) new residences. Given the various site constraints of the property (such as the creek channel and setback, riparian vegetation, agricultural buffer, and existing pattern of developmeht), it is not physically possible to develop the 12.77-acre property to the allowable maximum density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (or 57 total residential units). Based on a conceptual design prepared by RRM Design Group, Subarea 2 could have a total of twenty-six (26) lots, or 2.0 dwelling units per acre (see Attachment 5 for excerpt from the East Village Neighborhood Plan). The Planning Commission requested staff to research the maximum number of lots that could be created in Subarea 2 given the various site constraints. Included as Attachment #3 in Attachment 6 is a conceptual design for Subarea 2 developed by Mark Vasquez of Design Graphics, under contract of Subarea 2 residents. Once the various restrictions, of a 130' wide agricultural buffer, 25' wide creek setback, and sensitive riparian areas are removed from the total acreage, it is estimated that about 8.8 acres of the site remain as potentially buildable. Staff has worked with Mark Vasquez and RRM Design Group to integrate the proposed designs for Subarea 2 into the East Village Neighborhood Plan as a planning tool for future development. The table below summarizes the size and ownership of all existing parcels, the allowable density of each parcel for SF and RS zoning based on gross acreage, and a more realistic density estimate for each parcel based on site constraints and conceptual lot layout as illustrated in Attachment #3 of Attachment 6. Calculated constraints on Subarea 2 include 69,000 square feet of agricultural buffer and 104,000 square feet of sensitive creek area (3.97 acres total). With the proposed 4.5 dwelling units per acre, this equals 39 residential units allowed. As indicated in the table below, the Development Code does not allow rounding up on densities. Therefore, the total estimated number of units allowable within Subarea 2 is 37. CITY COUNCIL JULY 10, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 5 Density Analysis Existing Existing Existing SF SF RS RS Difference 10 Parcels Residences Parcel Density Concept Density Zoning Between (s.f. est.) (4.5/gross Layouts (2.5/gross Maximum SF and RS acre acre A: Janowicz 1 unit 14,586 2 units 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None B: Titus 1 unit 12,106 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None C: Loone 1 unit 60,333 6.2 units 4 units 3.46 units 3 units 1 unit D: Estes 1 unit 87,026 9 units 8 units 5 units 5 units 3 units E: Harrison 1 unit 12,882 1unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None F: Janowicz 2 units 30,630 3.2 units 2 units 1.8 units 2 units` None G: Janowicz 1 unit 43,513 4.5 units 4 units 2.5 units 2 units 2 units H: Summerfield 1 unit 28,115 3 units 2 units 1.6 units 1 unit 1 unit I: Caldwell 2 units 78,541 8.1 units 4 units 4.5 units 4 units None J: Miner 1 unit 188,083 19.4 units 10 units 10.8 units 10 units None Totals 12 units 12.77 56 units 37 units 29 units 30 units 7 units acres± maximum° (2.9 maximum° du/acre Notes: a The attached Subarea 2 concept plan for SF zoning (see Attachment #3 of Attachment 6) is provided to show the realistic development density for Subarea 2 based on lot size and area constraints. Using the General Plan land use density of 4.5 du/acre and individual property constraints, the development potential is significantly less than using gross acreage. The Development Code does not allow rounding up on densities, therefore fractional units were not rounded up. `2 existing units on this property. Compliance with State law As an alternative, the Council could consider a Residential Suburban (RS) zoning designation, which allows up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre, or thirty-two (32) units total (20 new units). This would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA). If the Council determines that RS is a more appropriate zone for this area, it will require compliance with Government Code Section 65863 (b) and (c), set forth below. "(b) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, or legislative action, reduce, require, or permit the reduction of the residential density for any parcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3, unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following: (1) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element. CITY COUNCIL JULY 10, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 6 (2) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. (c) If a reduction in residential density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584, the jurisdiction may reduce the density on that parcel if it identifies sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity." As indicated above, the City cannot reduce the residential density for any parcel that is below the density identified in the City's certified Housing Element unless it can be determined that sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites can offset the loss of density. Based on gross acreage (not considering existing lot configuration or site constraints), the 12.77-acre property would allow 57 units under the SF zoning and 32 units under the RS zoning. Given State law, it would be necessary to make up the 25- unitdifference somewhere else within the City. Staff has analyzed other potential sites that could offset the decrease in density of the subject property and has determined that only one site qualifies, which is an eleven (11) acre property off of Valley Road adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School. Council approved a zone change for this site from Community Facilities (no residential development potential) to Residential Hillside (1.5 dwelling units per acre gross) on August 22, 2006. The increase of seven (7) units is not adequate to offset the 25-unit difference required if the City down zoned the project site from SF to RS. There have been no other up zoned properties since the Housing Element was certified. Therefore, it does not appear that the City can make the necessary findings of "no net loss" of density with down zoning of the subject property, unless other residential properties can be concurrently considered by GPA and DCA to provide at least eighteen (18) units of additional housing potential. Neighborhood Plan As mentioned above, Council determined that the East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) met the requirements of the General Plan provisions and deemed the EVNP adequate last October. Staff recommends that the previously considered EVNP be modified to reflect a more accurate calculation of density given the various site constraints. Specifically, it is recommended that the "Attachment #3" be replaced with a new concept plan for Subarea 2 and that editorial changes be made to reflect the new exhibit (see Attachment 6 for Draft East Village Neighborhood Plan). Finally, staff recommends that the revised Neighborhood Plan be approved by adopting the attached resolution. Specific Plan As mentioned above, the Planning Commission discussed the option of requiring a specific plan for Subarea 2 as a method of controlling the density and ensuring that CITY COUNCIL JULY 10, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 7 adequate infrastructure and agricultural buffer would be provided. This option would also require a General Plan Amendment. Specific plan regulations are outlined in Government Code §65450 and require comprehensive analysis. In summary, a specific plan must include the following (see Attachment 7 for "The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans" for more information about preparing specific plans): (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: 1. The .distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. 2. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, wafer, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. There are two areas within the City that require a specific plan, including Berry Gardens (approved in 1998) and the Fredrick property located on the southeast portion of the City. Historically, the specific plan process has been cumbersome (especially with multiple property owners) and expensive. It is staff's opinion that requiring a specific plan is unnecessary, since a Neighborhood Plan already exists. Coordinating a more detailed specific plan with ten (10) separate property owners would be a long and complicated process. PUBLIC COMMENTS A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and was published in the Tribune on Friday, June 29, 2007. Staff has received several letters as part of the Planning Commission public hearing, which are included as Attachment 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff has determined that the proposed project is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Note that any CITY COUNCIL JULY 10, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 8 future development requiring discretionary review in the Subarea 2 area would require comprehensive environmental review. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are presented for the Council's consideration: - Introduce the Ordinance and adopt the Resolution as proposed. - Modify the Ordinance and/or Resolution as appropriate and introduce the Ordinance and adopt the Resolution. - Direct staff to pursue other GPA and DCA or to enable rezoning to RS in compliance with State law. However, the City would still be required to comply with Government Code Section 65863 (b) and (c). - Do not introduce the Ordinance or Resolution and provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2006 2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2006 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2007 4. Road Acquisition Agreement 5. Excerpt from the East Village Neighborhood Plan (RRM Concept Plan) 6. Draft Revised East Village Neighborhood Plan 7. The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans 8. Letters from the public regarding the project S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherry Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\CC DCA 2 rpt.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF); DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUBAREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN) WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map designates the subject 13-acre property as Single-Family Residential Medium-Density with a Neighborhood Plan requirement; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map designates the subject property as Single-Family Rural Residential (RR); and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has initiated Development Code Amendment 06- 004 to amehd the Zoning Map and designate the project site as Single-Family Residential (SF); and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning designation would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 06-004 at a duly noticed public hearing on December 5, 2006 and January 16, 2007 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard and recommended approval of said amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Development Code Amendment 06-004 at a duly noticed public hearing on March 13, 2007, in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: A. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 B. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Development Code. Medium Density residential development within the project area would be required to meet development and design standards under the SF zoning designation that insure orderly development. D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct. SECTION 2: Development Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision', paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall file a Notice of Exemption. SECTION 5: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 On motion by Council Member ,seconded by Council Member and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of 2007. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN D. ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A r+uasNa Ro ~\ ~~ i i m,~9,\ ~y, ~\ i~ ~~ :~'~~~~ '\~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CASE NO. 04-001) FOR APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF THE NOGUERA COURT SUBDIVISION, NORTH OF THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION, AND SOUTH OF ARROYO GRANDE CREEK; APPLICANT - CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan which became effective on November 9, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the 2001 General Plan specifies that the "21± acre area south of Arroyo Grande Creek east of Tract 409 (Noguera Park), and north of E. Cherry Avenue designated Single-Family Residential -Medium Density (SFR-MD) is subject to a requirement for a neighborhood plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural butter, creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map"; and WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on the East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) on October 10, 2006 and July 10, 2007 and determined it met the requirements of the General Plan provisions; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on November 14, 2006 for the Cherry Creek Project, including Neighborhood Plan Case No. 04-001; and WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and relevant evidence, the City Council has determined that the EVNP can be adopted based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Neighborhood Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan because circulation, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer and conservation/open space considerations have been adequately coordinated. 2. The proposed Neighborhood Plan will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern because Subarea 1 adequately provides the necessary utilities, circulation and infrastructure to accommodate future development of Subarea 2. 3. The Neighborhood Plan is necessary and desirable in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts Neighborhood Plan Case No. 04-001, approving the East Village Neighborhood Plan, a copy of which is on file with the Community Development RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 Department, based on the above findings. On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member ,and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2007. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ATTACHMENT1 Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8.0. Consideration of Engineer's Report and Adoption of Resolution`of Intention to Form the Grace Lane Assessment District (Tract 36):f- Action: Reviewed and approved the-Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 3959 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING AN INTENTION TO FORM THE GRACE LANE ASSESSMENT 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS Council Member Dickens declared a conFlict of interest due to his indirect financial interest in the Dixson Ranch and stepped down from the dais. 9.a. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007, Neighborhood Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Planned Unit Development 04-002; Applicant: Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location - 22 Acres Located East of Noguera Court and North of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Cherry Creek). Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for residential development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting of two (2) subareas. Subarea 1 is a proposed thirty (30) unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on nine (9) of the twenty-two (22) acres. Subarea 2 encompasses thirteen (13) acres where no subdivision is proposed at this time. The Planning Commission recommended the Council find the current Mitigated Negative Declaration insufficient and require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project. The Planning Commission further recommended that the project be returned to the Planning Commission after Council consideration of the environmental determination. Consulting Engineer Campbell gave an overview of the existing drainage flows from Newsom Springs; demonstrated how the improvements proposed by the Cherry Creek development would significantly improve drainage flows, explained future drainage improvements in the regional plan; and responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. John Knight, RRM Design Group, representing the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Administrative Services Department) which highlighted regional issues associated with the project (Neighborhood Plan, drainage, agricultural buffer, and emergency access), and site specific issues associated with the project (density and lot size, drainage, street design, agricultural buffer, and creek enhancement); noted that the applicant had met with the neighbors to create a conceptual Neighborhood Plan for Subarea 1 that would address infrastructure (sewer, water, drainage system, agricultural buffer, creek setback, and emergency access) improvements which would also serve Subarea 2; reviewed components of the previous site plan for Subarea 1; reviewed the revised site plan for Subarea 1, including proposed density and lot size, drainage system, street design, agricultural buffer/entry features, and creek/channel features; and provided an overview of the supplemental environmental studies conducted for the proposed project. He asked for Council support of the project. Minutes: City CouncillRedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Cliff Branch, co-owner/applicant, addressed the density issue and noted that a lot of land was required for drainage swales, setbacks, open space, and buffers, so the lot sizes had to be reduced so the land could be used for other things. He explained the project includes 27 new lots and anything less would not be feasible; therefore they are proposing the lowest density possible which is lower than the City's standards allow. He referred to the creek and stated it was important not to have parking along that side of the street. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Larry Turner, Noguera Place, spoke in support of the project as proposed, requested the City abandon the existing drainage easement behind Noguera Place, supported the drainage plan, and supported the proposed single story homes behind Noguera Place. Steve Ross, Garden Street, spoke in support of the revised project; however, he encouraged the improvement of E. Cherry Avenue. Gary Scherquist, Short Street, urged the Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and expressed concern about the historical resources on the site, potential impacts to the creek, potential traffic impacts, and the proposed density of the project. Polly Tullis, Garden Street, distributed photos of the former Stilwell property located at 734 Myrtle (on file in the Administrative Services Department), spoke about its historic walnut farm, that it was important to recognize that the trees on the site have historic value, and expressed concern about the removal of the walnut trees and the loss of prime farmland soils. She urged the Council to require an EIR for the project and stated she would like to see fewer homes on the property and see it used for heritage farming and gardening. She said there are many environmental issues that have not been addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Jim Dickens, Branch Mill Road, representing the Dixson Ranch Agricultural Preserve, provided comments about the MND, referred to page 4, and said the land use classification for the property located to the South of the project (the Dixson Ranch) should be designated as "Agriculture Preserve", not "Agriculture" and that the current uses of the property are not "Undeveloped". He said a more accurate and appropriate description of the land uses to the South of the proposed project would be "Commercial Agricultural Production". He also stated that all references in the MND to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) should be stricken and recommended the City adopt a modified version of the LESA Model which examines Arroyo Grande's distinctive set of circumstances and site conditions. Further, he acknowledged the Council's direction and progress on the Newsom Springs regional drainage solution; however, he expressed concern that the proposed project's drainage improvements were not adequately and thoroughly considered in the MND and requested that appropriate time and consideration be given to ensure the Dixson Ranch is not adversely impacted due to drainage project amendments on or adjacent to their property. He requested that the current MND be amended'to reflect the concerns he addressed. Colleen Martin, Olive Street, spoke of the importance of public involvement in local government; expressed concern about the proposed drainage plan and its continuing evolution; concern with the Neighborhood Plan and the lack of an improved road on E. Cherry to serve Phase 2; stated that the Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 staff report does not address accommodation of development as proposed by the Neighborhood Plan; stated that the applicant has deviated from the wishes of the community regarding density and said she would like to see less density in Phase 1 or in Phase 2; expressed concern about the proposed', bioswale and how the water gets into the bioswale; said discussion has not taken place regarding}the increase of impermeable surfaces that the development will include; and stated that there continue to be many issues that can be addressed with an EIR, including tree removal, traffic safety, and improvements. She noted that the plan includes an enormous amount of monitoring and wondered how that was going to be accomplished. She further expressed concern with design aesthetics and the issue concerning the prime soils definition and the mitigation for prime soils. She noted the project. has gone through many changes. She referred to the Planning Commission's recommendation for requiring a full EIR and asked the Council abide by its recommendation. She said if the Council decides against an EIR, she agreed that the MND needs to be reconsidered, amended, and recirculated to agencies to reflect the correct land use category descriptions as noted by Mr. Dickens. She concluded by urging the Council to consider an EIR for the project. Cliff Branch, co-owner/applicant, responded to public comments concerning the zoning of the property and stated he hoped the Council could stay consistent with the philosophy that was developed during the 2001 General Plan Update. He also commented that the walnut trees are not native and are near the end of their life cycle and some are dying. He noted that they have done a lot of environmental studies, and in addition, more study will occur on the drainage plan. Tony Jariowicz, Lierly Lane, read a letter into the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department) supporting the project as proposed. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, spoke in support of the project as proposed and acknowledged the drainage,;sewer, road, and emergency access improvements that are part of the project. She urged the Council to listen to the majority of neighbors in Subarea 2 who support development of the Cherry Creek project and to develop E. Cherry. She noted that the surrounding neighborhoods are higher density with smaller residential lots. Polly•Tullis, Garden Street, expressed concern about the proximity of the bioswale to the former Vanderveer house and its potential impact to the structural integrity of the house. She also stated she did not receive a public hearing notice; however, she was not sure if her property was located within the 300 ft. distance for notification. She also suggested that it would be worthwhile to determine if any of the acreage within the 22-acre property has irrigation rights as it relates to loss of prime agricultural land. There were no further public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Mayor Ferrara called for a recess at 9:01 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:09 p.m. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - In determining whether the MND is adequate, he stated that drainage and environmental impacts to prime soils were the most significant issues and he referred back to the 2001 General Plan Environmental Impact Report which adequately addressed mitigation for the loss of prime soils in this area; - Noted that the property in question was not zoned as Agriculture; Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - Expressed concern with drainage and favored the proposed drainage plan; however, he wanted to ensure that the development does not move forward until it ties into the completion of the EIR on the drainage issues for Newsom Springs regional project; - Acknowledged that setbacks are established for creek protection; - Noted that siltation would be addressed in the regional drainage solution and would tie in with the proposed drainage system; - Does not believe there any additional pesticide calculations that need to be addressed that come from Dixson Ranch; pesticide calculations for the project would be adequately addressed in the MND; - Would like to see the MND amended to show the correct descriptions of the properties; - Does not think a full EIR is warranted for the project; - Suggested a reduction in density with lot sizes larger than 6,000 square feet; - Supports proposed lot sizes for the duet lots; - Suggested that Subarea 2 be zoned as Medium-Low Density when that comes forward; - Stated the issues with E. Cherry Avenue should be adequately addressed which guarantees that the road is going to be improved. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Referred to the Report on Conservation of Prime Agricultural Resources dated July 2003 (on file) which addresses all the agricultural lands in the City and stated that the agricultural Class 1, 2, & 3 soils on the subject property is referred to on Maps 4 and 5; and acknowledged that farming could not occur on any of the land because zoning for the majority of the property is residential; - Acknowledged that this property has been zoned as residential for a very long time; and if someone wanted to bring commercial agriculture operations to this property, an agricultural buffer would be required and would substantially reduce the usable land; - Believed that residential development was planned for this property and is appropriate; - Believes there is a need to mitigate the loss of the one acre of prime soils with an in-lieu fee; - Does not support eminent domain on E. Cherry; however, acknowledged difficulties in determining/contacting owners; - Supports extension and improvement of E. Cherry Avenue; - With regard to Subarea 2, suggested that Planning Commission revisit the zoning for that area; Medium-Low Density may be more appropriate; - Supported the abandonment of the Noguera drainage easement, assuming this project moves forward with the correct drainage plan implemented; - Need to ensure the proposed drainage system is sufficient before development occurs; - Supports number of lots proposed; - Supports one-story homes backing up to Noguera Place; - Can approve the MND as amended to remove the LESA model and to correct the land use description for the Dixson Ranch. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Referred to the 2001 General Plan Update and remembered specific discussion regarding the rezoning of the property to a higher density classification and that the reason was specifically related to the drainage issue and the potential to solve the biggest flooding issue in Arroyo Grande, as well as that this was a good in-fill project adjacent to the Village; Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 8 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - Spoke about transitional housing as it relates to the adjacent agricultural use and the agricultural buffer concept; - Did not recall any previous discussion about prime soils on the property which required special consideration as it has always been zoned residential; - Also noted that in 2003, there were changes to the Agricultural Element and there was no discussion about the prime agricultural potential on this property; - Believed that the General Plan language that refers specifically to an EIR required for loss of prime agriculture soils does not apply for this project; - Supports MND with modifications to the land use definitions for the surrounding property and supports the use of the LESA model. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Referred to 2001 General Plan Update and agreed that discussion regarding prime soils did not come up; however, the issue of density did come up; - Believes the zoning should have remained as Rural Residential or at least Medium-Low density; - Acknowledged the site has always been zoned Residential and is pleased the proposal for Subarea 1 has fewer units per acre than what it is currehtly zoned for; - Has issue with Subarea 2 as it relates to zoning and spoke about the need for transitional zoning; recommended sending Subarea 2 back to the Planning Commission for review of potential change in General Plan land use designation; - Stated he is comfortable with the MND for Subarea 1 as it relates to addressing all the constraints on the site, including creek protection and the drainage plan; - Acknowledged that any~proposal for Subarea 2 would require detailed environmental review; - Supports the MND as modified to clarify the land use description of the Dixson Ranch as indicated; and before adding language about the use of the LESA model, recommended being clear about the criteria being applied; - Supports the MND as it relates to Subarea 1; has issue with Subarea 2 and prefers going back to review the density. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following additional comments: - Requiring mitigation for loss of prime soils on residential zoned property would set a bad precedent; - Supports the Neighborhood Plan as it provides adequate infrastructure to develop the rest of the area; - Supports the 130 foot agricultural buffer for the proposed project; - Supports the drainage plan and emphasized how big of an improvement it is to the community; - Noted that development impacts fees will provide for traffic improvements; - Eminent domain for E. Cherry might be necessary as last resort; - Agreed that parking should not be allowed along creekside. Brief discussion ensued regarding the suggestion to include mitigation for loss of prime soils on residential zoned property. Action: Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subarea 1, as amended to remove the LESA model reference, to change the land use category definition of the Dixson Ranch to reflect the existing commercial agricultural operations, to mitigate the loss of the Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 9 Tuesday, October 1Q 2006 one-acre ~of agricultural land at a similar rate that was used on the Fair Oaks project, and to send Subarea 2 back to the Planning Commission to review the zoning for that area. Council Member Costello asked if the two Subareas could be separated. City Attorhey Carmel responded that he did not think they could be separated without going through the mitigations to see what should be taken out and what should not and requiring some level of recirculation of the document. As a matter of clarification, he explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the Neighborhood Plan component, which identifies whether the Subarea 1 project provides adequate infrastructure for Subarea 2. He recommended not separating out Subarea 2 from the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He clarified that Subarea 2 would have a project, of a sequence of projects, that would all be evaluated separately with full environmental review. ' City Manager Adams explained that recommendations regarding the zoning for Phase 2 could be considered separately. Mayor Ferrara asked for clarification on whether the City was moving forward with the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Neighborhood Plan only. City Attorney Carmel explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates all components including 'the Development Code Amendment, the Neighborhood Plan, the Planned Unit Development, and the Tract Map. He noted that the Development Code Amendment is a City initiated application and process to achieve General Plan consistency; however, the City is not taking action tonight on the Development Code Amendment. He explained that approval of the Mitigated:Negative Declaration allows approval of the Development Code Amendment at a later date; however, does not bind the Council to approve it as currently proposed. He explained that the City could amend its Development Code Amendment application to consider Subarea 1 separately and exclude the Subarea 2 portion. Mayor Ferrara inquired whether the motion could be separated into two motions to 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2) to direct staff to review Subarea 2 separately. - Council Member Arnold amended his motion to not separate out Subarea 2 from the Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, he said the remainder of the motion stands. Mayor Ferrara clarified that the motion includes the issue concerning the mitigation of the loss of 1-acre of prime soils. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Guthrie ABSENT:. Dickens Action: Council Member Arnold moved to direct staff to amend the (Development Code Amendment) application for Subarea 2 and send it back to the Planning Commission to revisit the zoning for that property. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 AYES: Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens Discussion ensued concerning the process for continued review of the project, and clarification that Subarea 2 would be considered separately from Subarea 1. Further Council discussion ensued clarifying that approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed environmental issues related td the project and that Council would be directing the project back to the Planning Commission to review only the specific proposed project (Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development) for Subarea 1. City Attorney Carmel clarified that the Council would be directing only the Development Code Amendment, Planned Unit Development and Tentative Tract Map for Subarea 1 back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Action: Council Member Arnold moved to continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of November 14, 2006 and to return the project to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for Subarea 1. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens Mayor Ferrara called for a recess at 10:29 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:37 p.m. 9.b. Consideration of Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-001, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004 -Location: APNs 006-095-001 8 002; h> I ding and Adjoining Arroyo Grande High School at Valley Road/Fair Oaks,Avenue. Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1) Adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the-subject properties as Residential Hillside (RH) and Public Facility (PF), initiated by the C' of Arroyo Grande for property located on and adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School; and 2 Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 located south of and including-part of Arroyo Grande High School campus at Valley Road and Fair Oaks Avenue, initiated by'the City of Arroyo Grande, including improvement and extension of Castillo Del Mar Drivfrom Orchard Street to Valley Road. City Manager Adams briefly explained- issues that~had arisen regarding the design of the proposed road extension and identification of feral drainage issues which have increased the cost of the project. He outlined the associated-costs and recommended that the Council authorize execution of a Reimbursement Agreeme with JH Land Partnership in a form approved by the City Attorney; and authorize the City M Hager to execute an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting proposed changes in the payment provided by JH Land Partnership and any other minor modifications determined to be necessary to carry out the direction provided by City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ATTACHMENT 2 DECEMBER 5, 2006 ij-=~~~.-- ,,~ ~Ty '1 ` `_: :~ .~. .: ~:~~ ~. ,. t.1 Discussion: In response to question by Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Strong~epfied that the Police .Department will review the lighting plan (including over thwalkway in the parking lot). In response to Commissioner Tait, Commissioner town added to his motion and Commissioner Ray agreed to: • The mitigation measure for sycamores to be moved h II be increased due to the size of trees. and adopt: 06-2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE SCANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPRC')VING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06-009; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 06-003 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. -002, LOCATED AT 1400 EAST GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR RCI REALITY, LLC The motion was proved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: None ABS T: None Strong recused himself from the meeting due to conflict of interest for the next item. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-004; APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION -SUB-AREA 2 (CHERRY CREEK). Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for this zoning change from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF). Staff answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding state limits on downzoning; state allowance to consider environmental constraints; timeliness or urgency of rezoning; ability to build out to 4.5 units/acre; concern for lack of environmental review for future development; using eminent domain for all of dirt Cherry vs. only the Subarea 1 portion; similarity of planning issues in both subareas; City Council's and City Attorney's reasons for separating Subarea 2 from Subarea 1; buffer distance in, Subarea 2 of 100' (General Plan minimum) vs. 130' (NP overlay minimum); RRM's estimate of Subarea 2 buildout vs. what Subarea 2 property owners' plans are; concern foi• developers' sense of entitlement to buildout at 4.5 un./ac.; applicability of the "categorically exempt" environmental determination done solely for the purpose of changing zoning vs. for each future individual project; possibility for mitigated negative declarations to be done for future small projects; lack of additional information from RRM regarding the map that shows 2.0 un./ac. buildout; need for changing the General Plan if consensus is to change zoning to RS (Residential Suburban) instead of SF; CEQA exemption 152828T; ability to condition subdivisions vs. plot plan reviews for road right of way; City Council majority opinion on "Medium-Low Density'; PLANNING COMMISSION ~,-~~,-y ~,. dd~~a,;,, MINUTES i`:_:>'":`~e;~".,`F, DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 5 environmental review of new single family residences being built in Subarea 2; and necessity for conditions to have an applicable nexus with each project. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Nora Looney. 444 Lierlv Lane (in Subarea 21, spoke in support of rezoning as recommended by staff and consistent with the General Plan. She read a letter dated November 13, 2006 from other property owners in Subarea 2 supporting it also. She also read a letter dated December 4, 2006 from Byron Grant (on file at CDD) against downzoning. Her potential buildout at 4.5 units/acre is 3 lots and they wouldn't demo their own custom home. Downzoning would cause them to lose one of those lots. Tony Janowicz, 445 Lierlv Lane, spoke in support of staff's recommended rezoning and stated that each parcel should be considered on a case by case basis. Existing owners know they won't be able to buildout to 4.5 un./ac. and they won't destroy their custom homes in order to build more units. He'd be willing to sign a deed restriction to limit the number of new lots to three. Colleen Martin. 855 Olive Street, requested the record reflect her concern that these Planning Commission minutes be sent to City Council in plenty of time to consider before their own deliberations on this item. Zoning could be different for different properties. She's aware of the concern regarding cluster development from merging two parcels and doing a PUD. At 4.5 du./ac., constraints would- have to be considered. Ownership changes over time, but when considering zoning, the current owners need to be considered as well as future ones. Transitional zoning is a good idea (from urban to ag). At 2.2 un./ac., all the properties would qualify for secondary units. Damien Mavis, co-owner of Subarea 1, spoke on behalf of the Subarea 1 owners. They have a vested interest in keeping it nice and building nice homes. It's logical to continue SF zoning into Subarea 2 consistent with the General Plan. The residents are in favor. While difficult to achieve 4.5 ac./un. density, the zoning makes it much easier to develop as far as minimum lot frontage, lot depth and lot size. It's actually easier to avoid the PUD (clustering) and follow the Development Code this way. The natural barriers will keep the average lot size up and average density down. The General Plan says nothing about splitting Subarea 1 into a different density than Subarea 2, and it would be difficult to make separate findings to downzone Subarea 2. Downzoning encourages sprawl. This is an infill area and always will be. The Subarea 1 development ended up at 3.3 un./ac. and it's unlikely to do a cluster development in Subarea 2 at more than that. Karen Estes, 811 E. Cherry, believes they should at least have the option to build up to 4.5 du./ac. When an area is downzoned, it increases the cost of each house. There are problems in the City with the lack of affordable housing. Each property owner should be allowed to build up to what they can with appropriate Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2006 «.,;~~'`y e,` x ~-~ ~~~ PAGE 6 review. If they can only build a small amount, it doesn't restrict others from developing and creating more affordable options. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments on the project: Parker: • It's noteworthy that of 10 parcels, some could build out to 4.5 du/ac., but others couldn't; about half of them could be affected by environmental constraints. • She has a problem with clustering and is concerned that with 4.5 du./ac., developers will feel they have an entitlement and won't acknowledge environmental restraints, so they'll come in with very dense PUD's. • She agrees with Mayor Ferrara that density should slow down towards the east near ag land. • She's concerned applicants will become angry when told about natural constraints if they feel they're entitled to build to the maximum density (4.5 du./ac.) It's important to be honest with them up front, or it will be hard to work with them. If half of them can build up that far, but the others can't build at all, it doesn't seem fair. • She felt she swung around from first comments above, because at the same time, she wouldn't want to sideline those who could build up to 4.5 du./ac. Each property needs to be looked at individually as plans come in. Brown: • He agrees with Ms. Parker that it's bad to create a false sense of entitlement. • He's not willing to vote tonight based on available information and would like staff to get definitive information in regards to changing zoning based on the State approved Housing Element. When they did the Neighborhood Plan (NP), a 130' ag buffer line was drawn across Subarea 2 and Mr. Estes was not comfortable with that. Therefore, the NP for Subarea 2 wasn't flushed out enough to validate 4.5 du./ac. • He would like a survey of what property owners want to do before changing the zoning. • There's no indication of friendly condemnation on dirt Cherry continuing through Subarea 2. That's important, so whatever Council does with Subarea 2 rezoning, he would like friendly condemnation to go all the way through. Tait: • He agrees they need to take property owners' plans to heart. • At the same time, zoning comes first. He would have liked somebody to have mapped out the constraints on Subarea 2. • In an ideal world, it's fine to let natural constraints dictate density, but it may not actually work that way. • The current Planning Commission and City Council will uphold the constraints (creek riparian setbacks and ag buffer to protect citizens and the environment), PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES ~~~~~ ~ "` DECEMBER 5, 2006 ~° ~ ^~ ~ ~' but he's not sure about future Commissioners and Council members. RS zoning may act as a safeguard for the future. • It's wise to consider the proposal of 2.0 du./ac. • Councilmembers Costello and Arnold and Mayor Ferrara expressed desire for Medium-Low density. • Guthrie discussed transitional zoning as it relates to adjacent ag use, and that relates to General Plan Ag 5.3 (land use conversions against land designated ag). • Things need to be researched more, including current landowners' plans. Ray: • After considering the staff report, she agreed density should be 4.5 du./ac. With the public testimony and Commissioner views, while there have been valid arguments for 2 du./ac., she still feels it should be 4.5 because of following: o To match the zoning of Subareas 1 and 2 ultimately guarantees the transitional nature of Subarea 2. Because lot size and maximum buildout are so varied, it guarantees variety. o She would need to have a really good reason to take away rights of property owners, and she doesn't see a compelling argument to do so. None of the properties can subdivide to 4.5 du./ac., so the question is just how much can they build. She understands the reason for a blanket 2.5 du./ac., but environmental constraints are so strong, there's no need to take it away from property owners who can do more. o Discussion with current property owners is too mercurial. What one homeowner wants today may be different tomorrow, as is nature of personal property owner rights. Current owners shouldn't have to sign anything (deed restrictions). o There is an expectation when somebody buys a home of what they can do. That expectation is also important to us as a City. o The possibility of cluster development isn't inherently wrong; the Planning Commission would have to review the project. She doesn't want to downzone just for fear of cluster development later. o The extensive environmental restraints will keep density down. o The false sense of entitlement is very valid, but it doesn't reflect the City's honesty. People should be trusted to take the zoning and do what's necessary for the City. Subarea 1 testifies that the process works. o There have been many PUD's and the process is getting better -like with the recent change adhering to setbacks of adjacent properties. That will really apply here. o She's not in favor of downzoning and agrees with the General Plan at 4.5 du./ac. Fellows: • Whenever considering a project, Commissioners have to consider first what's best for the community. They may get a 100-signature petition, but they have to keep things in context. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~°~°~ r=~ ~ ~.N„,, DECEMBER 5, 2006 'sf_-~~ `: ~,~:. ~. @s"` ~; r. 6 PAGE 8 • Subarea 2 borders the creek to the north and east, the Caldwell trust, and has an ag buffer. He disagrees with Ms. Scot-Graham's argument that high density would save ag land here, because in this location it's a threat to ag and the creek. • He also disagrees that high density will make homes more affordable. That would be true in other areas, but wouldn't be a large factor here. • He's always felt that it makes good sense to do transitional zoning. He doesn't agree that variety inside a border constitutes that. There should be more density on one side and lower density toward the ag land and creek to diminish those threats. • Three of five Councilmembers requested Commissioners to consider RS zoning, but that hasn't been done tonight, and it needs further study. "No City shall reduce the residential density to any parcel unless the City makes certain findings." Staff needs to consider it and he's in favor of RS zoning at this point. His uncertainty is if staff can suggest the finding there's no net loss of housing capacity. He needs more information before voting. • People would consider higher density as an entitlement, and zoning is the only way to guarantee that it's lower. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-004 for further analysis, not particularly to RS or Low-Medium density zoning, but based on the question of whether lower density can be considered based on the Housing Element; also, staff shall come forth in writing with a description of how environmental constraints would be the same or different in Subarea 2 as in Subarea 1 (because there may be more constraints in Subarea 2, thereby justifying transitional zoning). The motion, was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Parker and Ray ABSENT: None C. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06-009; APPLICANT - TO Y~ANOWICZ; LOCATION - 795 CHERRY STREET. Associate 'Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the report. She answered Commission questions for clarification of the eta report regarding: no Planning Commission review requirement if he was o doing an addition; the only difference in the project with different zoning woul setbacks; the distance of the new structure from ag land (a little over 70' ~ e LSA letter and adding conditions to the project regarding cultural resource rvey; handling asbestos during demolition; the ag buffer as the "mechanism minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and non- agricultural Ian es"; consideration of the demo and re-build project as a new "use' vs. as a "structure" and the associated interpretation of the General Plan and Dev~nt Code; legal non-conforming status of, existing structure and allowance to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 ATTACHMENT3 Vice Chair Brown again stated that 4o ask anything less than what Sub area 1 required would be wrong; a MND should be prepared for Commission review for this project. Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Brown, to continue consideration of the project to a date uncertain, and request that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a drainage plan, and a Ag buffer plan, prepared by a design landscape architect, be brought forward to the Commission. Discussion: Commissioner Ray stated that she was having difficulty with requiring a MND, as that would be adding time to a process that the Commission had already dealt with on this project. The reason she requested a MND was to maintain clarity on the City's position, the process itself regarding the Ag buffer and why Janowicz was allowed to build within the buffer, so there would be no ambiguity with sub-area 2. Vice Chair Brown stated environmental impacts are determined by CEQA and governing bodies; any decision made on this project would be precedent setting for Sub-area 2. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Parker, Brown, and Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tait 8:40 g.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-004; APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - 13 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUB-AREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN) Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for continued consideration of a proposal to amend the Zoning Map to designate the subject property from Residential Rural to Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Heffernon explained that the Planning Commission continued this item to allow time for further analysis on whether a low density residential zoning could be implemented and adequate findings made given state law regarding regional housing needs and affordable housing requirements. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the Development Code to change the zoning designation of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 PAGE 8 subject property from Rural Residential to Single-Family or one of the other alternatives suggested in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions on the staff report. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Vasquez, agent for the Sub-area 2 property owners, described the proposal and the project constraints. He explained that the conceptual design was based on input from the neighborhood meetings, a 100-foot Ag buffer, and would have a rural feel to it. He stated that all the owners had seen the conceptual plan and were in approval of it. Ruel Estes, East Cherry, stated his concern at the requirement for an Ag buffer; he would like to use his property as he pleases and does not want to see it downgraded; hopes the Commission does not have apre-conceived idea of what is going to happen here. Colleen Martin stated the plan is really nice and she likes it; why not zone as proposed and what is appropriate instead of zoning for 4.5 units per acre, which could cause an additional 57 units in this area in the future. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, urged the Commission to designate Sub-area 2 to Single- Family zoning consistent with the General Plan and requested the Commission to not downzone the area. Speaking for all the property owners in Sub-area 2, she stated Mr. Vasquez had designed a good neighborhood plan and all owners of Sub-area 2 have seen the conceptual plan and the consensus has been positive. She understands the concern about PUD's, but they are just asking for a change in the zoning. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Ray: • "No net loss" is not possible here, but we do have the best-case scenario. If we can't downzone we end up functionally downzoning anyway and end up with the paper density. We will actually protect rural communities by changing it to SF to meet the General Plan and protect the personal property rights of those people who would be losing opportunity if we downgrade; this is going to be a transitional area because of the environmental constraints. Parker: • The property dictates the zoning; considering the map it almost fits into the City's RS zoning and maybe there could be an overlay allowing for 3.2 units. Brown: Does not agree with staffs analysis that the density cannot be made up elsewhere; when the General Plan was adopted this area went from a Specific Plan to a Neighborhood Plan and many hours were spent on sub area 1, and in effect they ended up with a Specific Plan; Sub-area 2 has no less of a burden to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 PAGE 9 climb than Cherry Creek, but the process could be speeded up if issues could be resolved upfront. He proposed that a solution for all parties would be to keep the densities the same, call it a Specific Plan area and it would then be equitable to all owners; he could support zoning for 4.5 units per acre and recommend to City Council that Sub-area 2 have a specific plan/general plan amendment. Commissioner Parker stated that some owners may not want to have a specific plan at this time and may not be prepared to do this. Commissioner Ray asked how a specific plan would protect 11 different owners. In reply to Commissioner Parker's questions Ms. Heffernon explained that a specific plan would be regulated by State law and could be a long process; an overlay already exists as a neighborhood plan. Mr. Vasquez stated that RRM Design Group had done a layout for Sub-area 2 in their neighborhood plan and this could be amended and recommended to City Council to be incorporated into the neighborhood plan. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend that City Council amend the zoning map to change the zoning from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family (SF) consistent with the General Plan, and adopt: RESOLUTION 07-2024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF) CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004) The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray and Parker NOES: Vice Chair Brown ABSENT: Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16t" day of January 2007. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: ATTACHMENT 4 ROAD ACQUISITION AGREEMENT This Road Acquisition Agreement ("Agreement"), is entered into as of 2007 ("Effective Date"), by and between CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Creekside") and ("Owner"). RECITALS A. Creekside is the current owner of certain real property described as Tentative Tract 2653, in Arroyo Grande, California (the "Cherry Creek Property"). B. Owner owns an undivided interest in APN 007-711-004, and an undivided interest in APN 007-711-008. C. APN's 007-711-004 and 007-711-008 comprise a road (the "Roadway") that serves Owner's property and other adjacent properties in the area (collectively, the "Adjacent Properties"). D. As part of Creekside's development of the Cherry Creek Property, the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") has required Creekside to improve a portion of the Roadway. E. Once the required interests in the Roadway are obtained and any necessary improvements completed, the Roadway will be presented to the City for acceptance as a public road. F. Creekside and Owner wish to enter into this agreement to provide for payment of compensation to Owner for his/her/its interest in the Roadway, and for the subsequent transfer of the Owner's interest in the Roadway to the City. G. Creekside also wishes to obtain, and Owner wishes to grant, a construction license over the Roadway in order to complete improvements required by the City in connection with the development of the Cherry Creek Property and other Adjacent Properties (the "Work"). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Transfer of Owner's Interest in the Roadway. Owner hereby agrees to transfer his/her/its undivided fee interest in the Roadway to the City of Arroyo Grande, California, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Owner shall execute the grant deed attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Quitclaim Deed") and deposit it into escrow at Cuesta Title ("Escrow Holder"), C:\D000mcnu and Senings\KHefPemon\LOCaI Settings\Temporery Inmmet Files\OLKO\ROad Acquisition Ags 04J0-W.doc Escrow # B7500212 ("Escrow"). The Quitclaim Deed shall not be recorded, unless and until: (i) All other owners of the Roadway have likewise agreed to transfer their interest in the Roadway to the City; 2) the City has agreed to accept ownership of the Roadway to be transferred by the Quitclaim Deed; 3) Creekside has obtained any required reconveyances and/or releases of the Encumbrances as required pursuant to Section 1.2 below; and 4) Creekside has deposited the Purchase Price, less any amounts advanced pursuant to Section 1.2, into Escrow and Escrow Holder is prepared to release those funds to Owner immediately following recordation of the Quitclaim Deed. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE OWNER'S INTEREST IN THE ROADWAY BE TRANSFERRED TO CREEKSIDE. If for any reason the aforesaid conditions are not met and the Grant Deed is not recorded within five (5) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. Furthermore, if the City requests that sections of the Roadway be accepted at different times, and/or that the interest conveyed be that of an offer of dedication of a public right of way or easement, Owner agreements to execute any and all documents which are reasonably necessary and/or desirable to complete such a conveyance. 1.1. Owner's Representation and Warrantv. Owner represents and warrants to Creekside that he/she/it is the sole owner of his/her/its interest in the Roadway and that his/her/its interest in the Roadway is unencumbered by any lien, mortgage or other encumbrance, except as set forth on Exhibit "B" (the "Encumbrances"). Owner further represents and warrants that the transfer of his/her/its interest in the Roadway is a valid and enforceable obligation against Owner and does not require any third party consent or agreement (other than as disclosed on Exhibit B) to be effective. 1.2. Encumbrances. Owner hereby authorizes Creekside, at Creekside's sole cost and expense, to acquire all necessary releases regarding the Encumbrances which are required to transfer Owner's interest in the Roadway to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement (collectively, the "Releases"). Owner agrees to cooperate with Creekside to acquire such Releases, including but not limited to providing information regarding the encumbrance to enable Creekside the ability to acquire its release, the execution of any and all documents and the performance of any reasonable actions that are necessary or deemed by Creekside desirable to acquire such Releases. If Creekside is unable to obtain the Releases within three (3) months after the Effective Date, or the cost of the Releases or conditions imposed upon the Releases are unreasonable, at any time after said three month period Creekside shall have the right to terminate Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Agreement regarding acquisition of Owner's interest in the Roadway, but retain the License set forth in Section 4, with written notice thereof to Owner. 2. Purchase Price. Upon recordation of the Quitclaim Deed (or other similar conveyance document as required by Section 1), Creekside shall pay Owner Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), which amount is based an appraisal by Warren Reeder which values the entire Roadway at Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($5,500). The Purchase Price shall be deposited into escrow at least two (2) business days prior to the anticipated recordation of the Quitclaim Deed (or other similar conveyance document as required by Section 1). 3. Recordation of Memorandum. A memorandum of this Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C" shall be executed concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and delivered to Escrow Holder for immediate recording. 4. License. C:\WCUmenu and Settings\KHeffemon\LOCaI Settings\Temporary Income[ Files\OLK4Utoad Acquisition Ag[ 04d0-0].doc 4.1. Grant of License. Owner hereby grants to Creekside, its agents, contractors, subcontractors, employees, representatives, and assigns, this temporary license and right to enter upon the Roadway, at no charge, to perform the Work. 4.2. Term. This license shall continue in full force and effect until the Work, as it pertains to the entire Roadway, is completed. Provided, however, in any event, this Agreement shall terminate at S:OOp.m., Pacific Time, on the date which is five (5) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement. 4.3. Notice Prior to Commencement of Work. Creekside shall provide at least five (5) days prior written notice to Owner before commencement of the Work, and periodically thereafter at any time work is commenced after a cessation of more than ninety (90) days. 4.4. Governmental Approvals. Creekside shall obtain from governmental authorities, all permits, approvals, and permission that are required, if any, to perform the Work; and, Owner shall sign any and all consent forms required by governmental agencies for Creekside to perform said Work. 4.5. Cost. All Work shall be performed at Creekside's sole cost and expense. 4.6. Indemnification. Creekside shall indemnify and hold harmless Owner from and against any and all claims and damages, including, but not limited to, personal injury, property damages, fines, and penalties which Owner may hereafter be liable for, suffer, incur or pay which results from Creekside's Work on the Roadway. 5. Miscellaneous. The following miscellaneous provisions shall apply to this Agreement: 5.1. Countemarts. This Agreement maybe executed in any number of counterparts and delivered by facsimile or other means of electronic transmission, each such counterpart being deemed to be an original instrument, and all such counterparts shall together constitute the same agreement. 5.2. Laws. It is specifically stipulated that this Agreement will be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be in the courts in and for San Luis Obispo County, California. 5.3. Amendments. No modification or amendment of this Agreement will be of any force or effect unless made in writing and executed by both parties. 5.4. Successors and Assiens. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives and successors. Creekside shall be permitted to freely assign all or any portion of its interest in this Agreement. 5.5. Multiple Parties. If Seller constitutes more than one person or entity, then all of such persons or entities shall collectively be referred to herein as Seller and such C.\Documems and Swings\KHefhmon\LOCaI Settings\Temporary Inmmet Files\OLK4Utoad Acquisi\ion Agt 04 }0-OZdoc persons and entities shall be jointly and severally responsible for the performance of Seller hereunder. 5.6. Further Documents. The parties agree that they will execute such other instruments and documents as are or may become necessazy or convenient to carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. 5.7. Pronouns. All pronouns and any variations thereof shall be deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine or neuter, singular or plural, as the identity of the person, persons or entities may require. 5.8. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains al] of the understandings and agreements of whatsoever kind and nature existing between the parties hereto with respect to this Agreement, and the rights, interests, understandings, agreements and obligations of the respective parties and their prior oral agreements, if any. 5.9. Headings. All headings in this Agreement aze inserted only for convenience and ease of reference, and are not to be considered in the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. 5.10. Attomeys' Fees. If any legal proceeding, arbitration or other action is brought or threatened for the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, or because of an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this Agreement, and the prevailing party in any such action(s) should incur any legal fees, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, expert witness fees and other similar costs, the successful or prevailing party or parties to any such dispute or action shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees and additional legal costs incurred, together with any other relief to which they may otherwise be entitled, as determined by an azbitrator, judge at trial, or upon appeal or petition. 5.11. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of a party hereto, by his or her signature, represents that he or she maintains full authority on behalf of the applicable party to execute this Agreement, and thereby bind the applicable party to all covenants, duties and obligations contained herein. 5.12. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given (i) if delivered personally, when received; (ii) if transmitted by facsimile, upon the generation by the transmitting facsimile machine of a confirmation that the entire document has been successfully transmitted; (iii) if sent by recognized courier service, on the business day following the date of deposit with such courier service, or (iv) if sent by registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, on the third business day following the date of deposit in the United States mail. All such notices shall be addressed to a party at its address as set forth below, or to such other address or facsimile number as a party shall notify the other of in accordance with this Section 5. If to Owner C \Documcn6 and 5<nings\KHetiemonLLOCaI Seuingc\Tempomry Inremn Filca\OLK4\Road Acquisition Agt 0440-0] doc If to Creekside: Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Attn: Damien Mavis 5.13. Invalid Provisions. If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity or unenforceabilityshall not affect any other provision hereof, and the intent manifested thereby shall be recognized. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on and as of the date first above written. "OWNER" "CREEKSIDE" CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Covelop, Inc., a California corporation By: Damien Mavis, President By: Covelop, Inc., a California corporation By: Bradley G. Vernon C'.\OOCUmcros and Settings\KHefftmon\LOCaI Settings\Temporary Imemd Filcs\OLK4Vtoad Acquisision Agt 04J0-0].doc 5 EXHIBIT "A" FORM OF QUITCLAIM DEED C:\000Umcnu and Setings\KHeRcmoo\LOCaI Settings\Temporary Internet FiIcs10LK4Vtoad Acquisision Ags 04J0-0].doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO, AND MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Creekside Estates, LLC P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Attn: Damien Mavis (Above Space for Recorder's Use Only) No Documentary Transfer Tax Due: Exempt per California Revenue & Tax Code §11922 QUITCLAIM DEED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, ("Grantor"), hereby releases, remises and forever quitclaims to the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA, all of Grantor's right, title and interest in the real property described on Exhibit "A" hereto. DATED: , 2007 "Grantor" *** Subject to acceptance by the City ofArroyo Grande, a copy of which is attached hereto. C:\D000menss and Settings\KHCf@mon\LOCaI Setings\2emporary Imemes Fila\OLK4\ROad Acquisition Ags OC-SO-O]:doc CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC State of California County of On before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared personally lmown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and aclmowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature C \Documents and Seningc\KFIeflemon\LOCa15eVinga\Tempomry Imeme~ Filn\OLK4\ROad Acquisition Agt 0430-0].doc Exhibit "A" Legal Description Parcel l Certain real property located in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as more particularly described as: Part of Lot 90 of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, Pismo and Bolsa de Chemical, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to the map made by James T. Stratton, in September, 1873 and recorded in Book A, Page 65 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 90; thence North 65- 3/4° East along the Northwest line of said Lot, 40 feet to the East line of a public road and 744 feet to the most Southerly comer of Lot 33 of the Resubdivision of a part of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, Pismo and Bolsa de Chemical, as surveyed by R.R. Hams, November, 1885; thence South 33-1/4° East, 16 feet; thence South 56-3/4° West, parallel with the first course, 704 feet to the East lien of said public road and 744 feet to the Southwest lien of said Lot 90; thence North 33-1/4° West along said Southwesterly line, 16 feet to the place of beginning. Except therefrom that portion thereof conveyed to the County of San Luis Obispo for road purpose by Deed dated July 12, 1911 recorded in Book 88, Page 485 of Deeds, records of said County. (APN 007-117-004) Parcel 2 Certain real property located in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, more particularly described as: Part of Lot 90 of Ranchos Conal de Piedra, Pismo and Bolsa de Chemical, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, according to map made by James T. Stratton, in September 1973 and recorded in Book A, page 65 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county, and part of Lot 7 of the lands of D.F. Newsom and Anna Newsom, comprising part of the Rancho Bolsa de Chemical, in said city, county and state, according to map recorded June 5, 1891 in Book A, page 77 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the most Northerly comer of said Lot 90, said comer being also the most Westerly comer of said Lot 7; thence South 56 3/4° West along the Northwest line of said Lot 90, 490 feet to the most Southerly corner of Lot 33 of the Resubdivision of a part of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, Pismo and Bolsa de Chemical, as surveyed by R.R. Hams, November 1885; thence South 33-1/4° East, 16 feet; thence North 56- 3/4° East, pazallel with the first course, 489 feet to the Southwest line of land of J.R. Withrow in said Lot 7 as described in Deed recorded November 4, 1919 in Book 134, Page 170 of Deeds; thence North 43°28' West, 16.25 feet; thence South 56-3/4° West, 4.62 feet to the place of beginning. (APN 007-117-008) CdDOCUments and SeLLingslKHeRernonV.ocal5ntings\Temporary Inkmft Files10LK4Vtoad Acquisition Agt 0430-0].do< EXHIBIT "B" ENCUMBRANCES [Describe any encumbrances on Owner's interest in the Roadway (mortgage, deed of trust, etc.] C.\DOCUments and Settings\KHeffemon\LOCaI Servings\Tcmporery Imemm Filcs\OLI:aVtoad Acquisilpn Agt 06-]0-0].doc EXHIBIT "C" MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT C'.\Dacumena and Servings\KHeRemonVgcal Srnings\Temporary In¢met Ftles\OLK4Vtoad Acgmstbn Agt 0440-01.doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Creekside Estates, LLC P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Attn: Damien Mavis (Above Space for Recorder's Use Memorandum of Agreement This Memorandum of Agreement (this "Memorandum") is made as of , 200_ by and between ("Owner"), and CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Creekside"). 1. Owner is the current owner of an undivided interest in certain real property located in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as more particularly described on Exhibit "A" hereto (the "Property"). 2. Owner has entered into an agreement with Creekside (the "Agreement"), wherein Owner has agreed to: i) transfer the Property to the City of Arroyo Grande, California; and ii) Creekside is granted a license to perform certain road improvement work on the Property prior to transfer to the City. 3. The purpose of this Memorandum is to give notice of the Agreement and al] of its terms, covenants and conditions to the same extent as if the Agreement were fully set forth herein, and this Memorandum is subject to all of the terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement. If there should be any conflict between this Memorandum and the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement shall govern. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum as of the date first above written. "OWNER" "CREEKSIDE" CREEKSIDE ESTATES OF ARROYO GRANDE, LLC, a Califomia limited liability company By: Covelop, Inc., a California corporation Damien Mavis, President Bv: Bradley G. Vernon, Secretary C.\DOCUments and Senings\KHefrcmon\Incal Servings\Temporary Intemn Files\OLK4Utoad Acquisition Ag[ 04d0-W.doc CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC State of California County of On before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC State of California County of On before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature C\DOCUments and Sertings\KHeRemon\LOCaI Sittings\Tempumry Inmmn Files\OLKO\ROad Acquisi\ion Agt 0430.0] doc CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY PUBLIC State of California County of On before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature C:\OOCUmena and Seumgs\KHeliernon\Local Swings\Temporary Internet Fil<s\OLK4\Road Acquisition Age 04-JO-0].doc Exhibit "A" Legal Description Parcel 1 That certain real property located in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, as more particularly described as: Part of Lot 90 of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, according to the map made by James T. Stratton, in September, 1873 and recorded in Book A, Page 65 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 90; thence North 65- 3/4° East along the Northwest line of said Lot, 40 feet to the East line of a public road and 744 feet to the most Southerly comer of Lot 33 of the Resubdivision of a part of the Ranchos Corral de Piedra, Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal, as surveyed by R.R. Harris, November, 1885; thence South 33-1/4° East, 16 feet; thence South 56-3/4° West, parallel with the first course, 704 feet to the East lien of said public road and 744 feet to the Southwest lien of said Lot 90; thence North 33-1/4° West along said Southwesterly line, 16 feet to the place of beginning. Except therefrom that portion thereof conveyed to the County of San Luis Obispo for road purpose by Deed dated July 12, 1911 recorded in Book 88, Page 48S of Deeds, records of said County. (APN 007-117-004) Parcel 2 That certain real properly located in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, more particularly described as: Part of Lot 90 of Ranchos Con•al de Piedra, Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal, in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map made by James T. Stratton, in September 1973 and recorded in Book A, page 6S of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county, and part of Lot 7 of the lands of D.F. Newsom and Anna Newsom, comprising part of the Rancho Bolsa de Chemisal, in said city, county and state, according to map recorded June S, 1891 in Book A, page 77 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the most Northerly comer of said Lot 90, said comer being also the most Westerly corner of said Lot 7; thence South S6 3/4° West along the Northwest line of said Lot 90, 490 feet to the most Southerly comer of Lot 33 of the Resubdivision of a part of the Ranchos Con•al de Piedra, Pismo and Bolsa de Chemisal, as surveyed by R.R. Hams, November 1885; thence South 33-1/4° East, 16 feet; thence North 56- 3/4° East, parallel with the first course, 489 feet to the Southwest line of land of J.R. Withrow in said Lot 7 as described in Deed recorded November 4, 1919 in Book 134, Page 170 of Deeds; thence North 43°28' West, 16.25 feet; thence South 56-3/4° West, 4.62 feet to the place of beginning. (APN 007-117-008) C:\Documen~s and Se[[inga\KHeffcmon\Wcal Servings\Temporary In[emM Files\OLK4\ROad Acquisition Agt 04-30-0] da ;hborhood Plan z ATTACHMENT 5 her Cre July ATTACHMENT 6 Arroyo, G~ra~ndie, Of pRROYOC F x~c ~ owoA~rc u ,°, M .uir io, iau ~ C~~/FORN~P East Village Neighborhood Plan 7uly 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Neighborhood Plan Location and Setting 3 Existing Environmental Setting 3 Background 3 Summary of Neighborhood Plan Subareas 4 General Plan 45 II. Neighborhood Plan Proposals --- Subarea 7 Purpose and Objectives 5 Archeological and Biological Conditions ~6 Architectural Design Guidelines ~6 Land Use and Property Development Standards 6 Access, Circulation and Parking Standards ~7 Traffic Impacts 78 Green Space 78 Agricultural Buffer Zone ~8 Fences, Walls, and Special Entry Features ~9 Water, Sewer, and Utility Facilities ~9 Water Supply Svstem 9 Sanitary Sewer Collection, Treatment, and Disposal 9 Off-site and On-Site Drainage X10 Creek Side Path X10 Inclusionary Housing X10 III. Neighborhood Plan Proposals---Subarea 2 Considerations for Subarea 2 IV. Implementation and Administration T911 Entitlement Requests 11 Proposed Phasing of Development in Neighborhood Plan Area X912 Special Conditional Uses 1-1-12 Administration and Implementation of the Neighborhood Plan x-1-12 5\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neighborhood Plan 7-7-06 doc2+09fiB5B-6reeksi9e- €stat LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 Attachment #2 Attachment #3 Attachment #4 Attachment #5 Attachment #6 Attachment #7 Subareas Existing Ownership Neighborhood Plan General Pldn Water Supply System Sewer System Storm Drainage System -2- S\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiahborhood Plan 7-7-06.doc2~B06050-6reeksi9e- E-st2t Introduction Neighborhood Plan Location and Setting The East Village Neighborhood Plan area is comprised of approximately 22 acres in eleuea fourteen i 141 separate parcels. It is located east of the existing Noguera Court subdivision, north of the East Cherry Avenue extension, and bounded to the north and east by Arroyo Grande Creek. Currently, there are only plans to develop the western nine Jlacres, called Subarea l . The development in Subarea 1 is proposed by a partnership between Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande. Subarea 2 consists of the remaining parcels to the east. Refer to Attachment # 1- Subareas, and Attachment #2-Existing Ownership. Existing Environmental Setting The entire southern edge of the Neighborhood Plan area borders the Dixson Farm, which is an active agricultural field and is subject to a 130 ft. agricultural buffer. Arroyo Grande Creek forms the border to the north and east, which requires a minimum 25-foot setback from the top of the creek bank. Most of the developable portion of the Neighborhood Plan area is level to slightly sloping in the direction of the creek. Subarea 1 has three houses and is dotted with non-native walnut trees. Subarea 2 is developed with a mixture of homes on larger lots. Other vegetation in the area includes various fruit and avocados trees, as well as some palms. The creek area contains a variety of native and non-native Ip ant species. Background The developers of Subarea 1 began to research and implement the details of the ^~Citv's Neighborhood Plan requirement after acquiring the Stillwell property. These requirements were focused on developing a cohesive strategy for the current and future development of this area. This concept worked well with the goal of engaging the community in the planning process. Drawing from past experiences, the developers of Subarea 1 believed that the community surrounding the proposed development could provide valuable input that can help shape the design aspects of the project. With the help and vision of the neighbors, a community based concept has been developed. The public outreach process was initiated by having the developers walk door to door in the neighborhood. They introduced themselves, briefly explained their goals, and distributed a "Hello Neighbor Letter" and reply card. The requirements for the Neighborhood Plan were easily incorporated into the development's public outreach effort, allowing both to proceed concurrently. The developers compiled the suggestions and concerns posed by the community regarding both the Neighborhood Plan and the proposed development. These became the topics of three community meetings that were held. To help facilitate these community meetings, a planner from RRM Design Group was present and active, as well as e+f+~City staff from the Communiiv Development Department. The first neighborhood meeting engaged the property owners within the entire East Village Neighborhood Plan area. At this meeting, topics were discussed that affected the Neighborhood Plan, such as east-west collector alignment, agriculture buffer, and density. The layout and vision for the site was also discussed. For the second community meeting everyone that returned a reply card was invited, as well as everyone in the immediate neighborhood surrounding our development. This meeting focused on how the site would interact with the existing neighborhood to the west. Traffic, drainage, and site layout were all discussed. Following the second meeting, four alternative concept site plans were generated in response to the community's suggestions. These drawings were presented at the final community meeting and the pros and cons of each design were discussed. -3- S1Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiahborhood Plan 7-7-06 doc2906050-Creekslde- The preferred concept plan for Subarea 1 was prepared for review and approval by the Planning Commission. The final plan for Subarea 1 was revised several times after hearings and extensive public input. Modifications were made to the plan to address comments received during the hearing process. Summary of Neighborhood Plan Subareas Subarea 1 is approximately 9.0 acres and is being processed as a Planned Unit Development, bringing the zoning into conformance with the 2001 General Plan. The ;=land use designation of medium density single-family residential as specified ~y-in the 2001 General Plan enables a density of 4.5 units per gross acre, or 40 units for the nine acres. Based on the latest plans submitted to the City at the time of review of the Neighborhood Plan, a total of 30 lots are proposed at a density of 3.3 units/acre. The three existing homes in Subarea 1 will be placed on lots within the new subdivision. Subarea 2 is approximately thirteen 13j acres and has no current plans to develop. The adoption of the Neighborhood Plan and a Development Code Amendment will bring Subarea 2 into conformance of with _the 2001 General Plan with a zoning of 4.5 units per gross acre. Conceivablv, ithis would allows a total of 59-57 units within Subarea 2 without taking anv site constraints into consideration. The future development in this area will be subject to additional review by the City as development proposals come forward. At the request of the Planning Commission, &&PA-Besig~6xeugMark Vasquez of Design Graphics prepared a conceptual design of how Subarea 2 could be subdivided. 8esed-e+~ .Once the restrictions of a 130' wide agricultural buffer, 25' wide creek setback, and sensitive riparian areas are removed from the total acreage, it is estimated that about 8.8 acres of the site remain as potentially buildable. The table below summarizes The size and ownership of all existing parcels, the allowable density of each parcel for SF zoning based on gross acreage, and a density estimate for each parcel based on site constraints and conceptual lot lavout as illustrated in Attachment #3. Calculated constraints within Subarea 2 include 69,000 square feet of agricultural buffer and 104 000 square feet of sensitive creek area 13.97 acres totall. Existing Existin Existing SF SF 10 Parcels Residences Parcel Density Concept s.f. est. (4.5/gross Lavouta acre A: Janowicz 1 unit 14 586 2 units 1 unit B: Titus 1 unit 12,106 1 unit 1 unit C: Looney 1 unit 60.333 6.2 units 4 units D: Estes 1 unit 87.026 9 units 8 units E: Harrison 1 unit 12,882 lunit 1 unit F: Janowicz 2 units 30,630 3.2 units 2 units G: Janowicz 1 unit 43 513 4.5 units 4 units H: Summerfield 1 unit 28,115 3 units 2 units I: Caldwell 2 units 78,541 8.1 units 4 units J: Miner 1 unit 188.083 19.4 units 10 units Totals 12 units 12.77 acres± 56 units maximum6 37 units 2.9 du/acre -4- S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiahborhood Plan 7-7-06.doc2006050-Creekside- Notes: a The attached Subarea 2 concept plan for SF zoning (see Attachment #3) is provided to show the realistic development density for Subarea 2 based on lot size and area constraints. Using the General Plan land use density of 4.5 du/acre and individual property constraints, the development potential is significantly less than using gross acreage., 6 The Development Code does not allow rounding up on densities, therefore fractional units were not rounded up. A summary of the two sSubareas is as follows: Subarea Maximum Allowable Units Proposed Units Jul 2006 Existing Homes Likely Additional Units 1 40 units 30 units 3 homes 27 units 2 ;9-57 units n/a 1-i-12 homes 25T3 units Summa 99-97 Units 30 units X415 Homes 42-52 units Note: Although TT-lithe General Plan would allow a maximum of X97 units within both Ssubareas, the total unit count is likely to be below the maximum density allowed given the various site constraints. Approval of this Neighborhood Plan restricts Subarea 1 to the-30 units prepesed. Future approvals within Subarea 2 will be restricted to the allowable density within that S_subarea. . Unused density is not transferable between phases or between individual development proposals. Refer to Section IV,, Implementation and Administration for a list of approvals that will be required for each Ssubarea. General Plan The City of Arroyo Grande 2001 General Plan identifies the property as NP or Neighborhood Plan (refer to Attachment #4-General Plan). The text of the document includes the following policy relative to what should be included in a Neighborhood Plan Policy LU2-7 The 21+/- acre area south of Arroyo Grande Creek east of Tract 409 (Noguera ParkJ, and north of E. Cherry Avenue designated Single-Family Residential -Medium Density (SFR-MDj is subject to a requirement for a neighborhood plan fo coordinate street, drainage, wafer, sewer, agricultural buffer, creek side trail, and conservation/open space consideration prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map. Sections II and III address the coordination of the above concerns. II. Neighborhood Plan Purpose and Objectives Very high goals have been set for the 22--acre East Village Neighborhood Plan. This area is one of the last developable parcels-properties in the v+liege-Village area and should reflect all its best attributes. Feedback received from the community has been an invaluable tool in preparing the Neighborhood Plan. The collective vision of the community was to have a quality neighborhood that incorporated the historical Vandeveer residence, the existing Stillwell residence, and created apedestrian-friendly community that incorporates open space. -5- SiCommunity Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neighborhood Plan 7-7-O6.doc2006050-6reekside- €8tates-New-6herrvl Archaeological and Biological Conditions Given the unique creek side setting of this project, Phase 1 and Phase II archaeological studies and a biological survey were performed for Subarea 1. The archaeological studies included both pre-historic and historic investigation. The archaeological studies concluded that the site contained limited pre-historic archaeological resources. Historic resources included the existing stone house (Vandeveer), .The area in front of the house, primarily in the creek corridor, contains historical trash dumps. Additional sub-surface testing and/or monitoring by an archaeologist will be necessary prior to the construction of the storm drain outfail into the creek area. An archaeologist will also be required to review the plans prior to construction to address any potential changes. Separate Archaeological studies will be needed for the parcels within Subarea 2 as development proposals are submitted. The biological survey for Subarea 1 revealed limited concern of sensitive biological resources with the exception of the riparian corridor along the creek. Provided that construction in or near the creek corridor is minimized, there should be limited biological impacts. The one exception is the outfail of the storm drainage that will discharge into the creek. Mitigation will be required in accordance with standards and requirements by the Army Corps of Engineers and/or the State Department of Fish and Game. Extensive environmental monitoring by a qualified biologist will be required in accordance with the approved environmental document. The complete reports and mitioation requirements are on file with the City of Arroyo Grande. Eet3nei6 Separate Biological studies will be needed for tk~e-parcels within Subarea 2 located adjacent to the creek as development proposals are submitted. Architectural Design Guidelines A portion of this property lies within the existing historic design overlay district D-2.4 . As a part of this district, specific architectural guidelines and standards are provided. These are contained in a separate document that is subject to review by the City's Architectural Review Committee (ARC). The project includes the standards that would require ail of Subarea 1 to be consistent with the previously adopted Village Design Guidelines. This will require that the homes built in the neighborhood are of a cohesive community style. All architectural styles will be allowed, as specified by the historic district design guidelines, except Spanish Eclectic. To establish a high level of craftsmanship, minimum standards for building materials, such as roofs, siding, and driveways, will be specified, Restrictions on architectural style will promote an attractive streetscape and Community interaction.. . Architectural stvle sait#ed-fer-of homes proposed within Subarea 2 will be reviewed when rx~ere3pecif+e development proposals are submitted. Land Use and Property Development Standards Development within the Neighborhood Plan Area will be subject to the standards and requirements of the SF district of the City's Development Code. An excerpt from the Development Code referring to the SF District is contained below: -6- S1Community DevetoomenflPROJECTSINPSCherrv Creek5DCA1CC 07-10-475Neighborhood Ptan 7-7-06.doc~&36050-6seeksiAe- 16.32.020.E. Single-Family Residential (SFJ District. The primary purpose of the SF district is to provide for residential development on common sized suburban lots. This district is intended as an area for development of single- family detached residential, small lot single- family detached residential, and mobilehomes at a maximum allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. To provide greater flexibility, ladiviindividual development proposals have the option of submitting a separate Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for review and approval by the City. The PUD allows for the adjustment of the SF standards such as setbacks or lot coverage to address site specific needs. An excerpt from the Development Code referring to PUDs is contained below. ~-4481-0:16.16.060 Purpose and Intent ~.,~The planned unit development permit process is intended to facilitate development of properties designated for residential and commercial uses or planned development in the General plan and development code. This process is used where Greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible throuah strict application of conventional zone or land use district regulations. A PUD has been submitted for Subarea 1'. Whether on not PUDs are submitted for Subarea 2 will be subject to each land owner or developer. Access, Circulation and Parking Standards There will be two public access points for the Neighborhood Plan. One connection will be at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. The second connection will be located at the extension of Myrtle Street. These connections provide convenient access to city-City streets and helps split trips on both EasT Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street. Easf Cherry Avenue Exfenslon: East Cherry Avenue will be extended as a public street through Subarea 1 to provide access for Subarea 1 and future development in Subarea 2. The improvements will include a 32 foot wide paved roadway, curbs on both sides, with parking and a sidewalk on the north side within Subarea 1. The extension of East Cherry Avenue from the intersection of Branch Mill Road should incorporate the existing, dirt, 15' strip immediately north of the Dixon Ranch property. Extension of East Cherry Avenue east of Subarea 1 (into Subarea 2) could include a reduced road way width at the discretion of the City. To address public safety concerns, a minimum road width of 20' shall be provided, or as otherwise required by the Fire Code. East Cherry Avenue Enhances: Within Subarea 1, Easi Cherry Avenue entrances will be identified with an accented pavement roadway with two travel lanes, both 12 feet wide. Both sides of the roadway will consist of a concrete curb, gutter, landscape border, and sidewalk. Entrances within Subarea 2 will be subject to separate review. Myrtle Sfreef Entrance: Myrtle Street will be extended to form a second entrance to the neighborhood. The existing cross section of a 40 foot wide paved roadway will be transitioned to -7- S'\Community Develoomenl\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiohborhood Plan 7-7-06 doc2A96950-Creekside- Estat a 36 foot wide paved roadway as it enters into the subdivision. This will allow for parking on both sides. Before the historic Vandeveer residence, Myrtle Street will turn south, out of its current alignment. Internal Sfreets: The internal streets provide access to the majority of lots in this community. Due to low traffic volume, community input, and space considerations, a 36-foot wide pavement roadway with concrete curbs and gutters on both sides is proposed within Subarea 1. The internal streets will include detached sidewalks with trees lining both sides of the road. Narrower, tree-lined streets will help create a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood. To address public safety concerns, a minimum road width of 20' shall be provided for roads within Subarea 2, or as otherwise required by the Fire Code or the City. Emergency Access: To provide additional emergency access between Subarea 1 and Subarea 2, a 20' wide emergency access easement is being provided as part of the plan submittal for Subarea l .This emergency access easement will need to continue into Subarea 2 at the time of development of the Looney property. Traffic Impacts Higgins and Associates studied the traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhood as a result of development. Two studies were performed: Existing conditions plus Subarea 1 build out, and existing conditions plus Subarea 1 and 2 build out. The study concluded that the impact under all conditions would be less than significant, and no segment or intersection would experience a decrease of LOS jlevel of service) in the first study. Both Myrtle Street and Garden Street (north of Myrtle Street) will notice increased traffic due to the fact that they are currently very lightly used. This impact is considered less than significant, and both streets maintain a TIRE (traffic infusion on residential environment) neighborhood quality of life level A. Therefore, project impacts to these streets will not be significant. The complete traffic study can be found on file with the c-ityCity. Green Space Green space was central to the design process=with much of the community input supporting green space and open space within the Neighborhood Plan. Within Subarea 1, green space was achieved by providing: (1) a large landscape buffer along Cherry Avenue, (2) a vegetated channel through the center, and (3) open space next to the creek. Green space within Subarea 2 will include the creek channel, the 25' creek setback and the 130' wide Agricultural Buffer. Agricultural Buffer Zone The use of an agricultural buffer is a central feature of #l~eve4ept-wewtboth Subareas. The site borders the Dixson Ranch to the south, which is an operational farm and in a permanent agriculture preserve. Separation of these two diverse land uses ensures a high quality of life for the residents of this community, as well as the continued productivity of the neighboring farmland. Some of the issues this buffer addresses are farm operation noise and lights, airborne drift (both chemical and dust), crop pilferage, and domestic animal intrusion. The buffer will extend from the edge of the Dixson Ranch property line for 130 feet to the edge of the first residential property line. The buffer width will apply to both Ssubareas for new residential units only. Contained within the buffer will be features that aid in the isolation of the two land uses. In Subarea l ,the buffer is further enhanced by the provision of a masonry wall. There will also be a fence on the south side of the East Cherry Avenue extension to discourage crop pilferage, animal intrusion, and block any farm operation light sources. Within Subarea 1, a landscaped area ranging from a minimum of 60 feet wide to a maximum of 80 feet wide will be provided. The City's Development Code requires a minimum of a 20-foot wide landscaped strip -8- S'\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiohborhood Plan 7-7-06 doc200605B-Greekside- €stat The total buffer width is 30 feet larger than the minimum 100 feet required by the ~~Citv's agricultural buffer policy. The buffer will be planted with several rows of trees and tall shrubs. This area will aid in mitigating any airborne drift. After the landscape buffer, a b foot high masonry wall atop a 2 foot tall berm will act as an acoustic shield. Behind the wall there weeild-will be 5 feet before the edge of the first habitable structure. Fences, Walls, and Special Entry Features These features will be incorporated into this site in different forms to enhance privacy, separate residential and agriculture land uses, and to establish the entrance to a distinctive community. Within Subarea 1, the agricultural buffer along East Cherry Avenue will contain a wall described above. Elsewhere in the development, walls and fences will mainly act as privacy and site enhancement. A b foot high steel picket. fence will be provided for lots that back up to the vegetated drainage channel. A b foot wood fence will be used for the internal fencing where privacy is needed. A 6 foot high wood rail fence with hog wire will be provided to restrict access to the agricultural field across the street. It will also provide protection for the drainage inlet where water drops underneath East Cherry Avenue. Within Subarea l ,the main entrances to this development will be located on the East Cherry Avenue extension. Street trees will be planted to line the entry roads, while enhanced paving and decorative landscaping will be provided to establish a sense of entry. Fencing, walls, and entry features within Subarea 2 will be reviewed separately upon time of submittal of development proposals. Water, Sewer, and Utility Facilities Master Plans for Water, Sewer and Storm Drain facilities are attached. These plans are based on the likely development scenarios within the two subareas. The approval of the Neighborhood Plan does not "lock in" or approve the layouts within each Ssubarea. Individual proposals will be reviewed separately by the City. Water Supply System The City of Arroyo Grande supplies water service within its sCity limits (including the Plan Area). Municipal water is provided by the Lopez Reservoir and, in part, by the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. Historically, the City has had good water quality. The Plan Area will utilize three points of connection to the existing City of Arroyo Grande Water Supply System including connecting to an existing 16" water line on Branch Mill Road and a 6" water line on Myrtle Street. Water system design criteria shall conform to the City's standards. The existing and proposed Water Supply System can be found in Attachment #5. Sanitary Sewer Collection, Treatment, and Disposal The City of Arroyo Grande provides sanitary sewer collection services connecting to a trunk line leading to a 7.6--acre sewer treatment plant near the Oceano Airport. This facility is operated by the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. wefeF , Sewer service in the Plan Area will be provided via a new connection to the East Manhole at Pacific Railroad Way. This is a new connection as adjacent development was determined to have insufficient capacity. Design criteria for the sewer collection system shall conform to City of Arroyo Grande standards. The proposed Sewer System can be found in Attachment #b. -9- S'\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv CreeklDCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiohborhood Plan 7-7-06 doc2BB60S9-F,reekside- E-stale Off-Site and On-Site Drainage The site is located in the downstream end of the Newsom Springs drainage area. In low-flow situations, drainage flows around the edges of the farmer's fields (south of the Neighborhood Plan area) and through a system of earthen ditches to Arroyo Grande Creek. In higher flow situations, or a 100-year storm, the drainage will sheet flow across the farm fields and continue across the site to the creek. In the past, large storms have caused flooding to surrounding neighborhoods. To address flooding and other drainage issues in the area, development of Subarea 1 has been requested to facilitate the installation of a 48-inch wide pipe adjacent to the Dixson Ranch farm (along Branch Mill Road). The water will then flow under the extension of East Cherry Greek Avenue into the vegetated channel. The channel will assist in cleaning out the sediments and other contaminants. After the water leaves the vegetated channel, it will outfall into Arroyo Grande Creek. The proposed Storm Drain System can be found in Attachment #7. Creek Side Path According to the General Plan, the feasibility of a creek side pedestrian path must be explored. This topic was discussed at a neighborhood meeting, and it was intensely rejected by the surrounding residents. A creek side path from downtown to the site would have to traverse approximately 15 existing residential properties bordering the creek. It became clear talking to neighbors that they would not tolerate a path through, or adjacent to, their private yards. Furthermore, the examination of aerial photographs revealed that in many instances there was not even room to weave a path through these properties. Although there are fewer property owners to the east of the site, the same issues are present, making a path to the east not feasible. The Myrtle Street right of way currently extends to the east end of the Neighborhood Plan area, although it drops into the creek bank toward the east end of Subarea 1. The banks of Arroyo Grande Creek are very steep, and constructing a path in this environmentally sensitive area would be very difficult. Due to the existing ownership patterns, the location of the creek bank, and the opposition from affected property owners, it has been determined that a creek side path would be infeasible. Inclusionary Housing Inclusionary housing is a very important part of any new development. It creates diverse neighborhoods and promotes a healthy demographic. In accordance with the 2001 General Plan and the 2003 Housing Element, Subarea 1 will provide 10% of the housing units for sale to households earning a moderate income, which equates to two 12) affordable units. The remaining , fractional portion of 0.7 of a unit will be provided via payment of an in-lieu fee. Affordable housing provisions within Subarea 2 will be subject to affordable housing requirements in affect at the time of submittal of individual development proposals. -10- S'\CommuniN Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiahborhood Plan 7-7-06 doc2~B06050-Creekside- III. Neighborhood Plan Proposals -- Subarea 2 Considerations for Subarea 2 The developers of Subarea 1 have no current ownership or financial interest in any property contained within Subarea 2. However, there are important considerations regarding the impact development in Subarea 1 will have on future development of Subarea 2. Access and road alignment in the Neighborhood Plan area were both topics of community meetings. It was decided that the only viable access was to continue East Cherry Avenue in its existing alignment. This would be improved to the end of Subarea 1 when it is developed. This would enable its future path to be determined to suit future development. Utilities, sized to service the future development of Subarea 2, will be brought to the end of Subarea 1 during its development. The zoning proposed by the 2001 General Plan is SFR-MD and would be enabled by this Neighborhood Plan. This would allow for subdivision up to a density of 4.5 units per gross acre conforming to the Ceity's Ddevelopment Dsode. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) could also be proposed in this area. It is important to enable this zoning at this time to prevent any future development conflicts. Emergency service or fire access can be provided via a private driveway and public easement on the west side of Subarea l . IV. Implementation and Administration Entitlement Requests A variety of approvals are needed in order to implement the Neighborhood Plan. A summary of these entitlements is described below. Development Code Amendment: A Development Code Amendment rezones the property from its current Residential Rural IRRI non-conforming zoning to Single-Family Residential Biskiet-(SF). The SF zoning allows for development of single family homes within the Neighborhood Plan at a maximum density of 4.5 units per acre. Neighborhood Plan: The adoption of this Neighborhood Plan further defines and restricts what can be developed within each Subarea. The standards and requirements within this Neighborhood Plan will supplement the standards contained within the SF zoning district. Land Division: In order to subdivide property, a tentative subdivision map or parcel map must be submitted for review. The City of Arroyo Grande shall confirm that it complies with the standards and requirements of the Neighborhood Plan. A vesting tentative subdivision map has previously been submitted for Subarea 1. Future subdivision proposals will likely be submitted for Subarea 2. The Subarea 2 proposals will be subject to separate review by the City of Arroyo Grande at the time of submittal. Planned Unit Development: To provide greater flexibility, Individual development proposals have the option of submitting a separate Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for review and approval by the City. The PUD allows for the adjustment of the SF standards such as setbacks or coverage to address site specific needs. A Planned Unit Development request has previously been submitted for Subarea 1. Future PUD proposals wilfJikelycould be submitted for Subarea 2. The Subarea 2 proposals will be subject to separate review by the City of Arroyo Grande at the time of submittal. The vicinity and size of tJais-the Subarea 1 development lends itself to a Planned Unit Development. Although the underlying zoning of 4.5 units/gross acre is not being exceeded, site conditions and the level of amenities offered dictate that many lots within the Neighborhood -11- 5\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiohborhood Plan 7-7-06 doc2~BB6B50-6reekside- Plan will not meet all the development standards for traditional Single Family zoning (lot size and setbacks). Given the freedom to adjust these standards for site-specific conditions allows development to respond to the community's vision. This will create a higher quality neighborhood with a strong sense df place. The site conditions and amenities include lot size variation, conservation of existing and historical homes, preservation of the Arroyo Grande Creek corridor, provision of a vegetated channel, provision of inclusionary housing, and implementation of an agricultural buffer. Environmental Review: Environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be required for each development proposal. E:~~r#+fieat+ea-ei-en . Future development proposals in both Subareas 2 will be subject to separate environmental review when individual proposals are submitted. Proposed Phasing of Development in the Neighborhood Plan Area Development will commence in Subarea 1 as soon as the Neighborhood Plan is adopted. Individual homes are anticipated to be built primarily by a single home builder/developer. Development of Subarea 1 is estimated to be largely completed within 2.5 years. Once the Neighborhood Plan is adopted, development in Subarea 2 could begin at the landowner's discretion, pending ep rmit approval by the City. Special Conditional Uses The Neighborhood Pian enables the zoning specified by the 2001 General Plan. Certain conditional uses such as daycare, churches, and private schools may be granted subject to a Csonditional Uase pPermit. It is the Csity's responsibility to approve, conditionally approve, or deny such requests in accordance with the zoning of RSF-MD. Administration and Implementation of the Neighborhood Plan Subarea 1 will require a Homeowners Association )HOA) to administer maintenance of open space arks-and common areas, as well as the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The developer of Subarea 1 will submit proposed by-laws and articles of incorporation for the HOA and CC&Rs for the State of California Department of Real Estate and the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department and City Attornev review and approval. -12- S'\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherrv Creek\DCA\CC 07-10-07\Neiahborhood Plan 7-7-06.doc200606B-Greekside- ~~. ~~'~ f ~ ',i \'r. f 1 .,~'~ ate' " ` ~~ ~~+f ,, .. et ~~ ..+~ ~ r' r Y.;~ _ ~ ~• t. $... •. 4~~ VV 1 i"< < :E`• •-e AT w .- X 1 N" ~_.., e ~ l:~J y ,yr'' . f ~ L' k t r f % ~~ r ws N ' c~~ r ~ ~`.~: 1 ~' • r r r Ni ~ w Y' < '`' Lam, ~ .`c~k~,,Lr~ .~~K, ~ Dix~rr Ita~ .s' N~~~ ~"` x y ~~ ~ ~ v ~w# Attachment # 1 ~i ~~ ~~ ~- rrmdes~g~gr ~.,,r ~-~----~ _.=-~'' ` 1 Subarea 2 ----zrtwno ,..nn ir+ ,-.oz~uw mw i~ ir~eti..n ~ •w i..wz~.~.... zwn •riw ,+w~r... ,nom xr+ z..wr~.+.~ .,~ ,~~n ~.::~ ;~~ ioi..w .+wv~+ww uwrw +oi..w ix~.+.~ tiw. nzw. n......n. a..n..R.R_z. ,z,...~ (Y.ywnnul~MlafM4nYb'90RwINm I W RRgiw.lpyM.n w~v (.~onrt.niwirS.xnwMMMNIXtlMBGi t WLro M. Sbs rw.x a.w~unnRr~ z-~ynnuwnw~eav.w. Seu.ow.r nz.nwn+..~wn.www EAST PILLAGE NEIGHBOIZHOOd PLAN zararraenrues nurceznnamruira ----..- nowsmzsrtzn -~-~_ nmrazmzuzcrn iuwrssmvroez nw~mrzn.+muwwwnwzo icr,vwmrmzzva wczuu~zxic a w~ W n S 7 rt W irY/}RSSV S]G1BM ..waM.~w+¢.i.mn ~~~~~l~~~l~ ~'~ u ~1 ~~ _ - - _ VVateC system r;,,;..r,.~. i _~w i _..- ~„ ....w • ~~ East V1N~ Sys~^ ~D 7 ~+ ~w~ ~ ..w •-r- r Sao wed East Village $!W~ SY`~ Sealer System c~ rn ., _--_ ~' ~*~ f -_ J` y~M `~~ Mlw ~~ ~ ~ ~~~VM Q ,.~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ a~ East Village Puy- Dre1na9e System W V ATTACHMENT7 Governor Gray Davis The Planner`s Guide t~ Specific Plans Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)445-0613 Steven A. Nissen, Director Terry Roberts, Manager, Sfate Clearinghouse January 2001 Edition The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Contents Introduction 3 Part I. The Specific Plan 4 Part II. Guidelines for Preparing Specific Plans 7 Part III. CEQA and Specific Plans 23 Part IV. Adoption, Amendment, Repeal, and Administration 25 Part V. Relationship to Other Planning Measures 29 Part VI. Implementation Measures 33 Part VII. Plan Summaries 37 Appendix A. Court Cases 40 Appendix B. Selected Statutes 43 Appendix C. Local Specific Plan Guidelines 45 Bibliography 46 z The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Introduction his guideline was originally produced in 1998 as a replacement for an earlier publication entitled Specifac Plans in the Golden State, written by the Office ofPlanning and Research in 1989. Since the original publication, specific plans have evolved in use and creative application. However, specific plans continue to function as versatile tools for implementing general plans without substantial legal challenge to the nature of their use. They systemati- cally implement the general plan for alt or part of the area under its scope in any of three ways: I) by acting as statements ofplanning policy that refine the general plan policies applicable to a defined area, 2) by directly regulating land use, or 3) by bringing together detailed policies and regulations into a focused development scheme. The use of specific plans, in many cases, has gone beyond the original legislative intent and combined detailed development plans with environmental poli- cies,programs and goats to create defined areas which are functional, livable, and affordable and which offer the sense ofplace commonly envisioned in the creation of the general plan, Although specific plans are being used for projects ranging from "new towns" to manu- facturing and wazehousing developments, there re- main many basic uncertainties about what a specific plan is, how it functions, its relationship to the imple- mentation of the general plan, and the extent of its powers. The purpose of this document is to clarify these uncertainties and provide new and innovative examples ofspecific plans and their use. It examines the pertinent statutes (Government Code §65450 et seq.}, suggests guidelines for the preparation and implementation of a plan, and provides examples and references to unique or innovative plans prepazed throughout the state. While researching this guide, the Office of Plan- ningand Research reviewed the preparation and adop- tion of specific plans and the related environmental documents. In addition, we examined those specific plans which have received APA Comprehensive Plan- ning Awards and others which are commonly viewed as exceptional. We have reviewed California court cases concerning specific plans and detailed the most relevant cases on the subject. The Planner's Guide To Specific Plans is written primarily as a guide to counties and general law cities; however, charter cities will find the information con- tainedherein to berelevant intheir use of specific plans as well. Although charter cities are exempt from the specific plan statutes contained in Government Code §65450-65457, once a charter city adopts a specific plan, the city must make findings of consistency be- tween the specific plan and any proposed tentative subdivision map before the subdivision can be ap- proved. The information contained in this document is meant to provide direction and references to planning practitioners for the development of specific plans. Interested individuals and other participants involved in local land use planning may also find it useful. The suggestions for style, format and techniques are meant to be advisory only and should not be construed as being mandatory. All references are to the Government Cade unless otherwise noted. The Plaouer's Guide to Specific Plaus Part One: The Specific Plan The Specific Plan A specific plan is a tool for the systematic imple- mentation ofthe general plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from the type, location and intensity ofuses to the design and capacity of infrastmcture; from the resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision. A specific plan may encompass an area as lazge or larger than the 2,800 acres affected by the Ahmanson Ranch Specific Plan in Ventura County, or as small as a single acre. A specific plan may be developed in response to a single policy issue, or to address each applicable policy of the general plan. It may also diverge from the issues contained in the generatplan into other subjects viewed by the community as being of relevance. To an extent, the range of issues that is contained in a specific plan is left to the discretion of the decision- making body. However, all specific plans, whether prepared by a general law city or county, must comply with Sections 65450 - 65457 ofthe Government Code. These provisions require that a specific plan be consis- tent with the adopted general plan of the jurisdiction within which it is located. In addition, specific plans must be consistent with any Airport Land Use Plan pursuant to Public Utilities Code §21676. In turn, all subsequent subdivision and development, all public works projects and zoning regulations must be consis- tent with the specific plan. The initiation of the specific plan process may be motivated by any number of factors including develop- ment issues or the efforts of private property owners, elected officials, citizen groups, or the local planning agency. As with a general plan, the authority for adoption of the specific plan is vested with the local legislative body pursuant W §65453(a). However, un- likethe general plan, which is required to be adopted by resolution (§65356), two options are available for the adoption of a specific plan: 1) adoption by resolution, which is designed to be policy driven, or 2) adoption by ordinance, which is regulatory by design. The adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act similaz to adoption of a general plan or zoning ordi- nance. Therefore, specific plans may be subjected to voter initiative and referenda (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Ca1.3d 561 and De Vita v. County ofNapa, (1995) 9 Cal. 4'" 763). (For further discussion see Part 4.) Specific Plan Attributes & Disadvantages A thorough specific plan can enable planners to effectively implement selected long term general plan objectives in a short time frame. The enabling statutes are flexible, allowing public agencies to create stan- dards for the development of a wide range of projects or solutions to any type of land use issues. The plan may present the land use and design regulations which guide the development of a city center, such as the City of Brea's Towne Plaza Specific Plan, or incorporate land use and zoning regulations, infrastructure plans, and development approval processes for the develop- ment ofresidential, office, commercial and open space uses, such as the City of Folsom's Pazkway Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. The plan may be orga- nized into a concise set of development policies and include land use regulations, a capitol improvement program, or financing program within a single docu- ment. A specific plan may be used to implement the policies of an optional economic development element of a general plan. Policies of the general plan which aze specific to financing infrastructure improvements and extensions, or cost recovery programs may be imple- mented by matching land uses with supporting public facilities. This is done to assist development engineer- ing departments and developers avoid ineffective or undersized streets, sewers, water lines, and other nec- essary improvements. In addition, it may directly im- pose exactions in association with the general plan's capitol improvement policies. The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans The specific planprocess must provide opportuni- ties for the general public, as well as residents Located within planning areas, to assist in the planning of their particular communities. Public involvement helps de- fine the community's vision of future growth and development. Future development proposals may benefit from the foundation created by the specific plan. For ex- ample, aerogram EIR adopted to fulfill the plan's CEQA obligation may streamline the processing of subsequent discretionary projects by obviating the need for additional environmental documentation. The specific plan represents a good tool for devel- oping acommunity "sense of place." A creative and innovative specific plan may bridge the gap between monotonous urban development and a livable neigh- borhood. The specific plan also has disadvantages. These include the time, cost, and obligation of staffresources to prepare and implement the plan. To be effective, the plan requires the collection and analysis of significant amounts of detailed data. Since most planning agen- cies do not have the staff to commit to the preparation process, most plans include the involvement and cost of outside consultants. Similarly, the incorporation of the plan into the day to day planning processes may require the commitment of additional staff time, par- ticulazly when the plan establishes regulations which are only applicable to the area affected by the plan. Further, specific plans prepared for a single project maybecome obsolete if the project is not implemented. Theresultcouldinciudetheneedforextensiverevision or repeat. The adoption of a specific plan does not vest development by statute, but its entitlements may be defined by development agreements and vesting tenta- tive maps. Specific plans themselves are dynamic documents and maybe subject to change. There are no assurances to residentsandprojectproponentsthatthe plan will not be subject to future revisions. Statutory Requirements Section 6S4S 1 of the Government Code mandates that a specific plan be structured as follows: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, andextentoftheusesof land, including open space, within the area cov- ered by the plan. (2) Theproposeddistribution,location,andextentand intensity of major components of public and pri- vate transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facili- tiesproposed to belocated within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, devel- opment,and utilization ofnatural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, alyd financing measures necessary to carry out para- graphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. (The entire specific plan statute is included in Appendix B of this report for reference.) The statutes apply to all counties and general law cities. They do not apply to charter cities unless incor- porated by local charter or code. However, charter cities are required to comply with the Subdivision Map Act's findings requirements pertaining to a subdivision's consistency with an adopted specific plan pursuant to §654SS. Legal Adequacy A specific plan must meet the minimum require- ments ofthe statute listed above in order to be legally adequate. Numerous specific plans reviewed by OPR commonly lack one or more of the following: • Maps, diagrams or descriptions to adequately de- scribe the distribution, location, extent, and size of the major infrastructure components needed to serve the project Energy and solid waste facilities are commonly overlooked. • Athoroughdiscussionoftheimplementationmea- sures necessary to carry out §65451 (a)(1-4}. • A discussion of the methods to be used for infra- stmcturefinancing and a program for implementa- tion. • A detailed statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan, including consis- tency between both plans and a comparison of goals, objectives, and policies. • A discussion of how the plan implements the policies of the general plan. The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans Area And Community Plans Practicing planners in California have used a vari- ety of euphemisms to describe specific plans. The creative use and combination of planning terms to describe various planning tools has blurred the distinc- tionbetween specific plans, community plans, and area plans to the extent that the terms are often misused. The following discussion highlights the differences among such plans. A community plan is defined in Public Resources Code §21083.3 as a part of the General Plan which (1) applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, (2) includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in §65302 of the Govenunent Code, and (3) contains specific devel- opment policies adopted for the area, and identifies measures to implement those policies, so that the policies which will apply to each pazcel can be deter- mined. Area plans are not specifically mentioned in stat- ute; however, they are authorized under §65301(6), which allows individual sections of the general plan to be devoted to a particular subject or geographic area. In addition, they are also allowed as optional elements or subjects under §65303. Area and community plans address a particular region or community within the overall planning area of the general plan. An area or community plan is adopted as a general plan amendment. It refines the policies of the general plan as they apply to smaller geographic areas, and is implemented by local ordi- nances such as those regulating land use and subdivi- Sion. Area or community plans also provide forams for resolving local conflicts among competing interests. An azea or community plan must be consistent with the general plan of which it is a part. Specific plans differ from area and community plans in the following ways: • ' A specific plan is not a component of a general plan. It is a separately adopted general plan imple- mentation document. • Specific plans are described by statute (§65450 et seq.). There are no statutes that specify the con- tents of azea plans. • The purpose of a specific plan is the "systematic implementation" (§65450) of the general plan. Neither community plans nor area plans have an emphasis on implementation. They are used to refine the policies of the general plan relating to a defined geographic area. • Although a specific plan must be "prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as general plans" (§65453), it may be adopted by resolution or ordinance and may be amended as often as necessary. Community and azeaplans may only be adopted or amended by resolution, and the number of amendments is subject to the limits set out in §65358 for general plan amendments. Specific plans are required under §65451(a)(2) to identify proposed major components of infrastructure needed to support planned land uses. Communityplans and azea plans may, but are not required to, contain similar analyses. The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Part Two: Guidelines for Preparing Specific Plans he purpose of this part is twofold: (1) to outline a strategic approach to the prepazation, adop- tion, and implementation of specific plans; and (2) to provide a framework and explanation of the statutory requirements for specific plans. In addition, this part provides a brief discussion of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the role it plays in the specific planning process. 1. Decision To Prepare A Specific Plan Government Code §65450 provides that the local planning agency, planning commission and/or legisla- tivebody has the authority to initiate the preparation of a specific plan. Private parties may also initiate a plan as provided for by local agencies. An example of the initiation by a private party would be an application for a tentative subdivision map which, under a local sub- division ordinance or general plan policy, requires the concurrent preparation of a specific plan. 11. Planning Process The following model is a modified version of the strategic planning process described in the General Plan Guidelines, and adapted to the intricacies of specific plans. This model is conceptual and may be used as a reference to guide the selection or develop- ment of aprocess which meets the needs of the respec- tivejurisdiction. Other comprehensive planning mod- els aze available which may achieve similaz results. A. The Work Program The prepazation of a work program should be the first consideration after making the decision to prepare a specific plan. The program should set forth the responsibilities the departments, consultants, and/or individuals will take in each phase of the process. In addition, it should provide direction in the scope of the work to be performed, the funding mechanisms, con- sultants, public participation, and deadlines. Early Direction: The work program should incorporate early policy direction from the legislative decision making body, defining the general direction for the specific plan and its objectives and policies. This direction may take [he form of precise guidelines for what the specific plan should accomplish, or a general vision of the planning azea. This early direction may change as a result of public input, committee recommendations, or new information obtained during the collection or analysis of data. Regazdless, the eazly policy direction will provide staff, consultants, and the public a basis for beginning the process of preparing a specific plan. Consultant or Staff Preparation: The legislative decision making body has the dis- cretion to decide who may prepaze a specific plan. Specific plans may be prepared by agency staff, by a private consulting firm under a contract to assist staff, or solely by a consultant performing the role of staff. In other situations, specific plans may be a requirement of a project and prepared by a project proponent or by a consultant under contract to the project proponent. Private parties may also be responsible forpreparing or contracting for the prepazation ofa specific plan as part of a project application. Whenever a consultant is preparing the plan, the work program should require an administrative draft, so that agency staff can review progress of the plan. The agency must budget for sufficient staff resources to ensure that the administra- tive draft is reviewed for consistency with the general plan and other regulations of the city or county. Adoption Deadlines: Deadlines should be incorporated into the work program to ensure the timely completion of the specific plan. The deadlines should be reasonable to ensure that the quality of the product is consistent with the expec- tations of the decision makers. The time lines aze typically a product of either the political constraints of a local legislative body, or the development proposals which will follow after the adoption of the specific plan. The Planner's Cuide to Specific Plaas The Pemtit Streamlining Act is not applicable to the adoption of a specific plan. Therefore, prudence should prevail in the adoption of deadlines which are functional and realistic. Public Participation: The participation of those working or residing within a specific plan area or more broad participation of the local citizens can play an important role in the preparation of a speciftc plan. Section 65453 states that "Aspecific plan shall be prepared, adopted andamended in the same manner as a general plan..." as such, opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, public utilities, civic education, and other community groups must be provided pursuant to §65351. For example, the City of San Jose utilizes the assistance ofacommunity-based task force composed of property owners, business owners, residents, other agencies, school districts, and other stakeholders when preparing specific plans. The city credits this involve- ment for the general support apparent during public hearings on and implementation of its speciftc plans. B. Current Context The planning area, as it currently exists, is a func- tion ofpastdecisions and policies. Similarly, the devel- opment of aspecific plan which serves as the basis for decision making in the future is a function of the existing social, political, economic, and physical envi- ronments. The community's values and views of the existing planning area will strongly influence the di- rection and focus of the specific plan. Planning Area Issues: Each planning area possesses characteristic issues which should be addressed by the specific plan. The issues may include those relevant to historic preserva- tion, environmental quality, residential development, economic development, architectural regulation, com- merciaVindustrial pazks, and urban infill. These issues will form the basis for the detailed policies and imple- mentation measures of the specific plan. Existing Land Ilse: The existing uses of land within the planning area must be analyzed to determine the influence they will have and the role they will play under the specific plan. Existing agricultural, industrial, or floodplain open space uses may substantially affect the type of uses planned for adjacent properties. The continuation of existing uses may dramatically affect the planned uses set forth by the specific plan. Land uses surrounding the planning azea should also be analyzed and connec- tionsltransitions/buffers between uses designed to en- sure compatibility with those allowed by the specific plan. Environmental Conditions: An evaluation of the planning area's natural envi- ronment, including wildlife habitat, natural hazards, and resources, help provide direction to the type and intensity of development which is planned to occur. This analysis should also include an evaluation of the existing flood plain, seismic, slope and other con- straintswhich will determine the intensity of develop- ment and feasibility of implementing plans. Infrastructure Constraints: The type and intensity of future development pro- posed by a specific plan is limited by the capacity of existing infrastructure or the ability to provide new public facilities. The analysis should identifyavailable opportunities for development, as well as potential constraints resulting from the effect new development may have on schools, roads, sewage systems, water supplies, energy consumption and other public ser- vices and facilities. Existing utilities, easements, and encumbrances of property may also restrict land use. Existing Commitments and Policy Constraints: Past approvals of development entitlements and other quasi-judicial and legislative decisions may have produced limitations to the scope of the specific plan. The adoption of agricultural preserves, biological con- servation easements, vesting tentative maps, and de- velopmentagreements may limit the type and extent of uses allowed, or restrictions to development under the specific plan. For example, the land use and minimum parcel size for a specific plan prepared for an area subject to agricultural preserve contracts will be lim- ited by the minimum allowable parcel size and uses established by local ordinance consistent with the provisions of the Land Conservation Act {Williamson Act} of 1965. C. Long Term Direction As a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan, speciftc plans should provide the mecha- nism through which the long term direction of the general plan is implemented. This direction should be balanced against the objectives, policies, zoning ordi- The Planner's Guide to Specific Plana Hance, subdivisionordinance, and otherprograms which will be implemented through the specific plan. Issues, Opportunities, and Assumptions: The issues that have been identified and perhaps were the impetus for preparation of the specific plan should be systematically addressed through objec- tives, policies, and programs. The policies developed to address the issues must be considered relative to the direction provided by the general plan and the eazly guidance provided by the legislative decision-making body. Problems may often be resolved through cre- ative application of fmancing, design features, or at- tributes of the planning area. Development and/or conservation opportunities should be identified and utilized in the specific plan. For example, land owned by the local agency within the planning area may be suitable as a future public facility site, or land with significant habitat value may be suitable for a mitigation banking program. Analyses regarding infrastructure financing, ground water avail- ability, and mazket demand may also help decision makers assess the viability of the plan in the'future. The preparation of a specific plan requires deci- sion-makers, planners, and the public to form certain assumptions concerning the future of the planning azea. For example, assumptions might be made for a specific plan area traversed by riparian corridors that open space, and perpetual conservation and mainte- nanceeasements will need to be included for viability of the plan. Formulating Objectives, policies, and implementation measures: Objectives provide direction to the physical devel- opment ofthe planning azea. As such, they help define the range and types of data necessary for preparing the plan. Consequently, cities and counties should develop their initial objectives eazly in the prepazation process. Objectives tend to be general and lack the focus which is required to foster a functional specific plan, but can always be supplemented with more specific policies. A comprehensive set of policies should be devel- opedwhich define and implement the objectives. Poli- cies should be written with consideration of their implementation and the project specific implications. The functionality of the policies will often determine the success of the specific plan. The implementation measures should be func- tional and realistic by design. A specific plan which is well written and focused can be self-implementing. However, the submittal and approval of individual development proposals will normally result in imple- mentation. Including zoning ordinances and design criteria in the specific plan will shape the planning azea over time as individual development projects are de- signed for consistency with the plan. D. Steps /or Consideration The following is a general list of considerations and information for inclusion in specific plans. It I includes statutory requirements for coordination and review. ,; Data Collection and Analysis: The information used intheeazlystagesofspecific ', plan preparation must be current and kept up-to-date ~? throughout the plamdng process. The previously iden- tified issues, opportunities, assumptions, and initial 'i objectiveswillestablishadirectionforstudiesandhelp to define the range of information necessary to com- plete the plan. Background information and technical I analyses should be included in the specific plan appen- dices for future reference and use in future projects. The amount of data collected and analyzed should be sufficient to address any pertinent questions regarding i4 the plan and the plan azea. This information should be u. comprehensive enough to satisfy the needs of both the specific plan and its CEQA document Information Sources: A direct relationship exists between the quality of the information used to prepare a specific plan and its effectiveness. Case study examples of other jurisdic- lions' specific plans may provide angles for approach- .'. ing azea issues. The Office ofPlanning and Reseazch's I Book of Lists (updated annually) can help to locate recently adopted examples. In addition, the yearly awazds presented by the California Chapter of the American Planning Association, recognize up-to-date examples of "good" plans. A number of text book references aze available through the American Plan- p, Wing Association's BookService which covers com- prehensive planning. Several publications track and u analyze planning-related litigation including Daniel J. Curtin, Jr.'s California Land-Use and Planning Law. The State planning laws regulating planning, zoning, and development are another subject for reseazch. Each yeaz, the Legislature enacts laws affecting local " government planning activities. The Office of Plan- ,, Wing and Reseazch annually compiles these statutes "~ under the title of Planning, Zoning and Development Laws. The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans Public Agency Information: Other governmental agencies may adopt subse- quent projects which will affect the specific plan. These agencies may have information readily avail- able which will address issues or requirements ofthe plan. Agencies should be contacted at the local, re- gional, state, and federal levels. One issue which tran- scends each of these levels is the supply of water. For example, the local public works department may have information regarding infrastructure; at the regional level, the Local Agency Formation Commission may have information regarding the extension of services or forming service areas; at the state level, the regional water quality control boazd provides information re- gardinglevels ofwaterquality; and at the federal level, the Bureau of Reclamation has information regazding the water projects and supply in the state. Inter-Governmental Coordination: Section 65103(e)(f) requires local governments to coordinate the preparation of local plans (specific plans) with the plans and programs of other public agencies. Intergovernmental coordination involves more than an exchange of information and plans; rather, it fosters cooperative efforts to address issues and promotes planning on a comprehensive basis. The planning process enables various agencies to resolve conflict through collaborative efforts. In addition, CEQA requires that the agency preparing the specific plan consult with responsible and trustee agencies regazding the project implications and the environ- ment. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): CEQA requires local governments to prepare envi- ronmental documents prior to approving "projects." An initial study is prepared for a specific plan or amendment to analyze the potential for significant impacts to the environment. In such cases, where a significant effect may occur, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. The contents of a specific plan and its EIR overlap extensively. The data, analyses, and studies far one, will likely be necessary for the other. For this reason, both documents should be prepazed concurrently and may utilize much of the same information. Individual development projects which follow the specific plan may be well served by a detailed analysis in the EIR. Further discussion ofthis topic is contained in Part 3 of this document. Revising Objectives: Refinements to the draft objectives should take place throughout the planning process. The data, analy- ses, and input from advisory committees may change individual aspects ofthe plan. For example, the identi- fication of a threatened or endangered species within a portion of the plan azea may alter the type and intensity of proposed uses allowed by the plan. Policies, Implementation Measures, and Alternative Plans: For any set of objectives there will be a number of possible courses of action to pursue. Policies, imple- mentation measures, and programs should be devel- opedfor each of the alternative planning scenazios. The relationship of each objective and alternative course of action should be considered in light of the general plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, capital im- provement program, and other programs that will be implemented. Consistency with the general plan should be carefully analyzed and the plan amended as neces- sary. The policies, programs and implementation mea- suresprovide for the creative application of the specific plan to the planning area. Each should be carefully reviewed for clarity, effectiveness, and functional ap- plication. The alternative plans enable the decision makers, stakeholders, and other participants to choose from a variety of scenarios, solutions, and programs which will shape the planning area. Although the alternatives may only differ in their treatment of a particular issue, each must be realistic to ensure that the alternative is viable. In addition, the alternatives may be used to satisfy the EIR's requirements fora discus- sion of project alternatives. Selecting The Preferred Plan: After the plan alternatives have been thoroughly reviewed, decision makers should be able to select the preferred course of action from either one or a synthe- sis'of several alternative plans. When the decision is made to combine two or more parts of separate alterna- tives, the objectives, policies, and implementation measures may need refinement to ensure that the plan effectively and consistently accomplishes its purpose. Adopting The Plan: As previously noted, a specific plan may be adopted by either resolution or ordinance. Whether adopting a new specific plan or amending an existing one, the planning commission and boazd or council must hold at least one public heazing each to consider the pro- posal prior to making the final decision (§65453 and to The Planner's Cuide to Specific Plans 65353). At least 10 days prior to each ofthese hearings, public notice of the time and place of the hearing must be given in the manner pre- scribed by state law (§65090 et. seq.). As a project which would affect the "permitted uses or inten- sity of uses of real property," ex- c panded notice to property owners must also be given pursuant to ~ §65091. The EIR or other environ- ~° 0 mental documentation must be cer- ° V tified by the legislative body prior ~ to the adoption of the specific plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines E §15092. d 0 m Figure 1 Specific Plan Process Diagram The Work Program Funding, Policy Direction, Deadlines, Contracts, and Responsibilities Current Context Identify existing land use, environmental conditions, public facilities/infrastructure, antl planning area issues Implementation: ~, Section 65451(a)(4) requires that a specific plan contain apro- c ~ gram of implementation measures 10 including regulations, programs, c ° public works projects, and financ- o, ing measures. A plan adopted by ~~ resolution will primarily be imple- a mented through the enactment of ° separately adopted ordinances and programs. A plan adopted by ordi- a nancewillbeimplementedbyregu- lations and measures contained in the plan itself. Capital improvement projects, public facility financing, application of regulations to devel- opmentprojects, and habitat conservation and restora- tion projects may act to implement the plan. (Further discussion of this topic is contained in Section 6.) Long Term Direction Identify Opportunities and formulate objectives, policies, and implementation measures (Consider Alternatives) Steps Selection Adoption Implementation Maintenance v c a E 0 U a W U 11 TM1e Planner's Guide to Specific Plans MODEL SPECIFIC PLAN OUTLINE While state law specifies the mandatory specific plan contents pursuant to §65451, it leaves the Format to the discretion of the local legislative body. Many of the specific plans reviewed as part of this report utilized an approach to organization similaz to that ofthe individual elements ofa general plan, covering information relating to land use, housing, circulation, open space, and so on. The following model outline is intended as a guide to the organization of a specific plan which is effective, efficient, and statutorily complete. I. Introductory Plan Information A. Title Page 1. Name of the plan 2. Name of local agency (Project proponent and/or public agency) 3. Date of adoption B. Credits, acknowledgments and participants C. Table of Contents D. List of Tables E. List of diagrams and maps F. Copy of Adopting Resolution and/or Ordinance II. Summary A. Purpose statement and range of issues B. Location C. Acreage D. Summary of preparation process III. Introduction A. Detailed specific plan purposes B. Development and conservation issues addressed in the plan C. Project location, including influencing jurisdic- tions 1. Written description 2. Regional location map (See Figure 2) 3. Vicinity map (See Figure 3) 4. Site Location Map (See Figure 4) D. Planning azea information and environmental description E. Statement of whether the document is policy or regulatory by application (If the plan is both policy and regulatory by design, explain the relationship between the policies and regulations.) F. Statement of how the plans policies and/or regu- lations accomplish the objectives of the plan. G. Relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. H. Relationship of the specific plan to neighboring plans and those ofotherjurisdictions, regional agen- cies, and the state. I. A list of projects required by law to be consistent with the specific plan (e.g. rezonings, tentative sub- division maps and public works projects). IVJ Land Use Planning and Regulatory Provisions A. The land use plan - a statement of development policies (opportunities, issues, and analysis of data) pertaining to the planned type, intensity, and location of land uses consisting of 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Programs 4. Plan proposals a. Diagram and written description of planned land uses (See Figures 4 and 5). b. Chazacteristics of each land use designation (e.g. single family residential, neighborhood commercial, open space for conservation). 1) Development Standazds 2) Standards for conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. B. Land Use Regulations 1. Statement of purpose or intent 2. Applicability a. Statement of applicability of [he regulations to the planning azea and designations on the spe- cific plan land use plan diagram. b. Effective date of the regulations 3. Statement of relationship between the specific plan regulations and the zoning, subdivision, and other local ordinances. 4. Development standazds. C. Design Standards 1. Building design, massing & height 2. Pazking ratios/s[andazds, location & orientation 3. Garage door size & type 4. Entrances, access, & on-site circulation V. The Infrastructure Plan A. Transportation: Development policies pertaining to the planned distribution, location, extent and in- tensity of public and private transportation consist- ing of. 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Discussion of the relationship between the ob- jectives, policies and how they are implemented through the individual plan proposals. 1z The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans 4. Plan proposals a. Diagram(s) and written description of pro- posed ttansportationcomponents, including im- provements that support the planned land uses. (See Figure 6 and 7) b. Development standards for the primary com- ponents ofpublic andprivate infrastmcture (street cross-sections and material requirements). B. Public Service Infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage): Development policies pertaining to the planned distribution, location, extent, and inten- sity of water, sewer, and storm drainage consisting of: 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Discussion of [he relationship between the ob- jectives, policies and how they are implemented through the individual plan proposals. 4. Plan proposals a. Diagram(s) and written description of pro- posed water, sewer, and drainage systems, in- cluding the improvements which support the planned land uses. (See Figures 8 and 9) b. Development standazds for the primary com- ponents of public infrastmcture (See Figure 9). C. Solid Waste Disposal: Development policies per- taining to the planned distribution, location, extent, and intensity of solid waste disposal facilities and services consisting of. 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Plan Proposals a. Description of the type and location of pro- posedsolid waste disposal facilities and serving necessary to support the planned land uses. a. Description of the proposed facilities and services to be provided (e.g., transformation station and recycling). D. Energy: Development policies pertaining to the planned distribution, location, extent, and intensity of energy facilities and services consisting of 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Plan proposals a. Description of the type and location of pro- posed energy facilities, transmission lines, and easements necessary to support the planned land uses. b. Description of the proposed facilities and services to be provided (e.g., distribution of natural gas and the regulation of pressure). E. Other essential facilities necessary to support the proposed land uses (e.g., schools, fire stations, street lighting and landscaping). VI. Program of Implementation Measures A. Description of the regulations and ordinances which will implement the specific plan. B. Capital improvement progam 1. Estimated cost of capital projects identified in the specific plan's infrastructure plan. 2. The measures by which each capital project will be financed. 3. Identification of parties responsible completing each proposed improvement. C. Financing measures necessary for implementa- tion of each of the specific plan's proposals other than capital improvements. 1. List and description ofprojects needing financ- ing. 2. Cost estimates 3. The measures by which each specific plan pro- posal will be financed. 4. Identification of parties responsible for com- pleting each proposal. D. Phasing plan for the specific plan proposal includ- ing capital improvements (See Figure 10) E. Subsequent development entitlements F. Other Programs VII. Relationship of the Specific Plan's Environ- mental Document to Subsequent Discretionary Projects A. Projects that will be exempt from additional environmental documentation based on the plan's EIR. B. Projects that will require additional environmen- tal documentation. VIII. Specific Plan Administration A. Specific plan cost recovery fees authorized by §65456 B. Specific plan amendment procedures 1. State requirements 2. Local requirements IX. Specitic Plan Enforcement X. Appendicies A. Precise description ofthe specific plan azeaboand- ary. B. Summazies of key specific plan background data and information. C. Glossary of specific plan terms 13 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans is SPECIFIC PLAN AREA The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Placer Co. _ ~ / Satxamento Co. _~ ~ ~ \ ~~ ¢° ~°'~ "'i Folsom Lake ` N Oak Avenue Pk E ¢ ~ ~a ~\ IJOSCNE Nano pd wbmes DGM Oitrl~ Fyt ~7\ 0 sell Rarwit~\ Devebpment ect Site \ Hills neM \ eq~ 9~°ii S, .o a~~/ e 90 ipecific Plan and Design >om 15 The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans Ben Canyon Community Ahmanson Rantn =u Olic ORe^ Socce Detit<5on Arec 0 vge~e Center 01 Q a awnW:~ iwii i:::,°nv r°°ecuuw Nei hborhootl Center aF/A g nllk Cwn.nuMi.N~! f~W Singe F'emiy/At4cl5ed 5-~0 W/Mn ® 9i5de Famly Tradtionai ® Skala Femy 61ste 0.15-1 W/Iar~ %~~ Fleming Unil Ntmbar L~IVr r~~~~ Sna~ln9 vy 6011 COII008 ® Commurtity CPen SPett City of Hi00sn HiliS iANI~ I )SF. Pi AN Town HaA/Lbrary/Fre Slnlion/3herlf 3latbn D 'LAetdenance FeaTly/Recyang Canter/C-dfaon SLLxtation D Waler Redamahon FaeBty Water Storage Facity ® Commonly Perk ® Nei~borlwoH Park ® Ylape /7een ® Ekrner5tery 8chod ^~RS-_J py~~ ® VMIRS ~ 6`~ 'uaw ® Wye Corridor Underaowkp 16 The Planner's Guide [a Specific Plans LAND USE MAP -,~ High Density Residential (HDR) ®Combined Commercial Industrial/ it Li ht R il T (u4sdu/ad rans g a Live/Work Residential Overlay (CI-LW) ® High Density Residential General Commeraal Overlay (HDRLC) Public /Quasi-Public WQP) CalTrain Tnnsitoriented Mind Use (TMU) ® Publk (Ofatt and/or WaidmnaD ® G l c l GC ~ l c Figure 5 ommercia enera ( ) os a Land Use Diagram (Example 2) combined cnmme¢ial Imuslal (cT) ~ GRemroB d Source: Midtown Specific Plan, City of San ~ 17 The Planner's Guide to SpeciIIc Plans 18 The Planner's Cuide to Specific Plans /Jh\ PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ' u u'~ ~~ ~ Public Street Network Uedio6ed Pedestrian Way ~u~° Potential local Sneers & Mews Figure 7 -^~~ e„e1t~Parkaropes+spa~a Pedestrian Circulation Map 19 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans ~~~ i r'U""I_I~'1 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM e ~ '~ Purposed worm Drainage Lines u~u ~~~ Relief Sturm Drainage Lines B F.zisting Storm Drainage Lines 20 The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans .:::• j ,.., ~ -- ~~• ~~n.:. _. .._ ; < ,,: .J . q. ~, '~ ~ ...., ro• '~`~_ ~. t . _~- u . ~ ~ ~~f ~ ~ -• i" • '' , re - .... . ARC u e / I3 IS ~ c~.~u., \ -- ~ ~~; ~ocAC rnrtcnav ' slsmr ~ ~ ~.~ i gym/ ~../ ' ~ t ' ~ `~ ~ X ~ .. .. ~`.~, ,..a. ~ ~i ~~ro a ~'~~ wCTORv "' ,i :-~ ~/ ~~ r ~:.. r r.:, ~:::~ :\ ,. / ~ ~ ~' LAS VIRGENES `y THOUSANO\~~ `AHMANSON RANCH v ROAD OAKS BLVD. BLw. '~~~ a°`°"N`a°Nx BACKBONE Se~NITARY SEWER PLAN -sue ~~,~ 8 sewer Litz B Fbw Dlreetion B Ivree Man ® Pw,a SyerKK, © EroeNg Gravity sewer n N N C ~ V _ i n o '- ~\\ f E ~i~s `~` wh w \ r` .. cos '\~~ t ` 29 "42 /' / ~~~; .- Park /- ` / ' \~~ S "'lY' Park \ .~•i \\~ . ~ ~ / Scheel. '} ~; ~ y .3 ~~~.. /. ~ %7 ~>, ,P rk ,...;_ ~ .;~ ~ . ~::•:t Note: ~\ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ Phase I includes subphases A-F \\ ~B,•~~ ~~ \~: Phase 11 includes subphases C-I ~\ \'~:- ~``~ ~:::: __-:: J ~. ~~~ ,~ Concept Phasing Plan ~ .;\,~s HIGHLAND RESERVE NORTH " ~'= ~ ~ ~~-'~;'~ Highland Reserve NoRh L.P. !; Rosavt/la • MacKay d~ SompS Calt~rn{a R T e A o' n 3 b e The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans Part Three: CEQA and Specific Plans doption of a specific plan is a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, the specific plan normally requires the preparation and consideration of an envi- ronmentalimpact report (EIR) disclosing the potential significant environmental effects of the plan, plan alternatives, and the means by which possible environ- mental damage may be reduced or avoided. Revisions to an existing specific plan may also require CEQA analysis through a subsequent, supplemental, or tiered EIR, or a negative declazation. The information in the EIR provides decision makers with the insight neces- sary toguide policy development, thereby ensuring the plan's policies will address and provide the means by which to avoid potential impacts to the environment. This section discusses the relationship between the specific plan and its EIR. The EIR process and require- mentsare discussed in detail in the State CEQA Guide- lines. PlanlElR Analysis: To the extent feasible, the process ofpreparing the specific plan and the environmental analysis should proceed concurrently because both documents require many of the same studies and resulting information. As the name implies, a specific plan EIR should contain analyses specific enough to reflect the level ofdetail in the plan (CEQA Guidelines §15146). However, as shown in the decision of Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project, Sierra Club v. County ofStanislaus (1996) 48 CaLApp.4'" 182, analysis of significant effects may not be deferred to later developments under the specific plan, nor to later tiered EIRs. The Stanislaus court found that a specific plan EIR failed to discuss the impact of providing a long-term water supply for the project, and thus the county could not make an in- formed decision regarding the environmental conse- quences of the project. The court concluded that the county could not defer the analysis of crucial impacts to later environmental documents that would be pre- pared as the specific plan was implemented. CEQA Alternatives: CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines include provisions for streamlined approaches to environmen- tal review commonly referred to as "tiering" (CEQA Guidelines § 15152). Tiering is commonly used to simplify the environmental reviewrequired forprojects which follow specific plans and general plans. The result is a limited review of those project-specific effects which either were not examined or not fully examined in the specific plan EIR. Program EIR: A program EIR may be prepared for a series of related actions that aze characterized as one -arge project or program (CEQA Guidelines § 15168). Ac- tivities which relate to and follow the specific plan must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine if additional limited environmental analysis is warranted. Later activities which have been ad- equately analyzed under the program EIR will not require additional environmental documentation. If an activity may result in additional effects, or new mitiga- tionmeasures azeneeded, asubsequent or supplemen- tal EIR, or negative declaration must be prepazed (CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and 15163). Master EIR: A Master EIR functions similarly to a program EIR for amulti-phased project such as a specific plan. A Master EIR forms the basis for analyzing the effects of subsequent projects (CEQA Guidelines §15175, et. seq.). Later projects which are consistent with the specific plan and which fall "within the scope" of the plan's Master EIR require no further negative declara- tion or EIR. A master EIR may be re-certified for a subsequentprojectwhich isrelated toand substantially consistent with the specific plan (CEQA Guidelines §15178). Other projects which differ materially or result in potential impacts not previously analyzed, may be covered by a"focused EIR" that details the new project-specific impacts while incorporating the previ- ous analysis of cumulative and growth inducing im- pacts by reference (CEQA Guidelines § 15179.5). 23 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Tiering: When tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations must refer to the prior EIR and state where a copy ofthe prior EIR may be examined. The later EIR or negative declaration should state that the lead agency is using the tiering concept and that the EIR or negative declaration is being tiered from the earlier specific plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15152(e)). Exemption of Subsequent Projects: Section 65457 provides that once the EIR has been certified and the specific plan adopted, any residential development project, including any subdivision or zone change, that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with the specific plan is exempt from addi- tional CEQA review. This exemption does not apply if after the adoption ofthe specific plan, any of the events which would trigger prepazation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR occur, including substantial changes in the project or circumstances under which the project is being undertaken requiring major revisions in the project, or new information becomes available which was not known at the time the EIR was certified. However, if a supplemental EIR is prepazed covering the changes, new circumstances, or new information and is certified, the exemption will apply to the projects which then follow the specific plan. Another exemption is described under Public Re- sources Code §21080.7. In urbanized areas, no addi- tional EIR or negative declaration is required for "any project involving the construction ofhousing orneigh- borhoodcommercial facilities" when: (1) the project is consistent with a specific plan that has a certified EIR and that has been adopted not more than five years prior to making the required findings under this section; (2) the EIR is sufficiently detailed to identify the project's significant effects and corresponding mitigation mea- sures; (3) the lead agency has determined the type of environmental document needed in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.1 and has given notice of such fact in accordance with subdivision (b) or (c) of §21092 of that code; (4) the lead agency makes one or more of the findings required by Public Resources Code §21081 and §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines; and, (5) the lead agency files a notice of decision with the county clerk for posting. These examples of tiering and exemptions under- score the advantages of preparing an EIR which ana- lyzes the specific plan in enough detail to streamline the environmental review of subsequent projects. This is particularly important when a specific plan covers an extensive area or is the prelude to several development projects. Local agencies should include policies in the specific plan for the application of tiering and particu- larly exemptions of subsequent projects. 2a The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans Part Four Adoption, Amendment, Repeal, and Administration Procedure for Adopting and Amending a Specific Plan The process of preparing, adopting, and amending a specific plan is generally the same as that for a general plan (§65350-§65358). In addition, the specific plan statutes allow for exceptions and additional procedures (§65453, §65454, and §65456). Upon completion of the draft specific plan, the planning depaztment staff will prepaze reports to the planning commission and the legislative body. The reports will describe the contents of the plan, provide a recommendation for approval or denial, related find- ings (for the purposes ofthe CEQAand/or general plan consistency), and possibly a resolution for adoption. The report will normally include an analysis of the project's effect on the environment pursuant to the CEQA. If it has not occurred previously, staff will include recommendations for the certification of the enviromnental document. Any proposed amendments to the general plan or [he zoning ordinance related [o adoption and implementation ofthe specific plan should be presented at the same time. Hearing and Notice: The planning commission must hold at least one public hearing pursuant to §65353 prior to forwarding its recommendations to the legislative body. Pursuant to §65354, a recommendation for approval requires the affianative vote of not less than a maj ority of the total membership of the commission. The public hearing enables the public to present testimony regarding the plan and further involves interested individuals in the process. Section 65090 provides that public heazing notice must be provided at least 10 days preceding the hearing. This is accom- plished by placing notice in a local newspaper of general circulation. Alternatively, if there is no such newspaper, the notice must be posted in at least three public places within the jurisdiction ofthe local agency. If the adoption or amendment of a specific plan would affect the permitted uses or intensity of uses of real property, 10 day prior notice of the hearing must also be mailed or delivered directly to each of the following: (1) the owner(s) of the property or the owner's duly authorized agent, and to the project applicant; (2) each local agency expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools, or other essen- tial facilities or services to the project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be signifi- cantly affected; and (3) all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feetoftheboundariesoftherea]propertythatisthe subject of the hearing (§65091). However, where the notice to neazby property owners would affect more than 1,000 persons, a 1/8 page newspaper advertise- ment may substitute for that part of the notice. In addition, the commission must provide advance notice to anyone who requests it in writing (§65092 or 65945). The commission may provide additional no- tice in any other manner it deems necessary or desir- able. Specialnoticepursuantto §65096isrequiredwhen- ' ever a person applies for a specific plan amendment or any entitlement for use which would permit all or any part of a cemetery [o be used for other than cemetery purposes. Anyone may appeal the commission's decision to the legislative body under the procedures set forth under §65354.5. As with any legislative act, the legis- lative body, not the planning commission, has final say. In most cases, an appeal of the commission's decision may not be necessary because the legislative body must hold a public heazing on the matter anyway. A legislative body must hold at least one public heazing prior to adopting or amending a specific plan (§65355). A public heazing notice must be published in a local newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days prior to the heazing (§65090) or if a local newspa- per isnot available then notice shall be posted in at least three public places pursuant to this section. The legis- lative body must also notify anyone who makes a written request for notice pursuant to §65092 or 65945. The notice, as with the planning commission, may also need to meet the requirements under §65096. Once the heazing(s) have been completed, the 25 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans legislative body will take action to approve, condition- ally approve, or deny the specific plan. Any conditions of approval should be made an integral part of the specific plan prior to its adoption. If necessary, final approval should be delayed so that the conditions can be added. Ifthe plan is to be approved with a substantial modification not previously considered by the com- mission, the plan must be referred back to the comrnis- sion for their reconsideration and recommendation (§65356). Adoption Options: Unlike the general plan, which must be adopted by resolution (§65356), two options aze available for the adoption of a specific plan: Adoption by resolution or adoption by ordinance. An ordinance is a local statute, enforceable by law. According to Black's Law Dictio- nary, the term "resolution" "...is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the subject matter of which would not properly constitute a statute.... Such is not law but merely a form in which a legislative body expresses an opinion." The choice between the two is dependent upon the role which the plan is intended to fill. When adoption is by resolution, the specific plan becomes a policy document similar to the general plan. It takes the form of a more specific set of policies which may give direction to the mix of land uses or goals of a particular development. When adoption is by ordinance, the specific plan effectively becomes a set of zoning regu- lations that provide specific direction to the type and intensity of uses permitted or defines other types of design criteria including azchitectural standards. How- ever, it is important to note that as in City of Sausalito v. County ofMarin, (1970)12 Ca1.App.3d 550,565, the adoption of plans which effectively rezone property mustbe completedbyordinance consistentwith §65850. The enactment of a specific plan is a legislative act subject to adoption or repeal by voter initiative even when enacted by resolution (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 561, Midway Orchards v. County of Butte (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 765, De Vita v. County of Napa, (1995) 9 Cal. 4'" 763). Cities and counties have not only been subject to specific plan referenda (Chandis Securities v. City of Dana Point (1997) 52 Cal. 4'" 475), but have also sponsored voter initiatives to adopt specific plans for a variety of reasons. One common reason is to increase public involvement though voter approval. In other circumstances, adoption by voter initiative has been used due to controversy or political expediency. In effect, the electorate makes legislative decisions in place of the city council or county board ofsupervisors. The initiative and referendum may only be used to enact, change, or repeal a legislative act. An initiative may not be used to direct a plan to be prepared (Marblehead v. City ofSan Clemente (1991) 226 Cal. App. 1504). (See also: Growth Control by the Ballot Box: California's Experience, (1991) 24 Loyola ofLos Angeles Law Review) Legal Challenge: Actions filed to attack, set aside, void, or annul the decision of a city or county to adopt or amend a specific plan must be brought within 90 days of the agency's decision (§65009). Judicial review of a specific plan, including its conformance with the general plan, is based on whether the action by the legislative body was arbitrary, capricious, lacking evidentiary support, and/ or whether it failed to proceed with public notice, hearings, and other procedural requirements of law. For a more comprehensive discussion, see Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law. Fees Pursuant to §65456, the legislative body may im- pose acharge onpersons seeking approvals required to be consistent with an adopted specific plan or may require a deposit equal to the estimated cost ofprepar- ing aspecific plan for adoption, amendment, or repeal. Costs may be recovered in any of several ways. An applicant seeking to initiate aproject-related specific plan may be required to deposit the estimated cost of the entire specific plan process at the front end of the application process and then reimburse the agency for the final cost as a function of real cost accounting. Alternatively, a city or county may absorb the cost of the process and then recoup the cost through pro-rated developerfeesorpermitfeesforprojectsrequiredtobe consistent with the adopted specific plan. Cities and counties often utilize a combination of developer direct financing, developer fees, facility districts, and other financing mechanisms to recoup the cost ofthe specific planpreparation and implementthe requirements of the plan. Pu61ic and Governmental Agency Participation The specific plan is an accumulation of informa- tioncollected, organized, and transformed into a set of detailed policies, objectives, programs and standards used to guide future development. The information 26 The Planner's Cuide to Specific Plans collected as part of public and agency involvement ensures that concerns, preferences, priorities, andneeds aze discussed and considered in the decision making process. Section 65351 requires thatthe planning agency provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups through hear- ings and any other means deemed appropriate. Section 65352 further requires that the plan be referred to abutting cities or counties, special districts, school districts, local agency formation commissions, councils of government, public water systems supply- ing 3,000 or more customers, and specified air quality management districts. A city or county may accom- plish this through public hearings or any other appro- priate means including, but not limited to, community workshops, a website, written or telephone correspon- dence,and surveys. Each ofthese agencies has up to 45 days to comment on the proposed plan. A good example ofpublic and agency involvement is the San Luis Obispo's Railroad District Plan, which received the 1999 APA Award of Excellence. It was found to be a "fine example of the type of district plan that is useful, involves the public and is a good commu- nicationtool". It comprehensively addresses land use, transportation and circulation, aesthetics, open space and historic preservation, and implementation in the railroad corridor of the town. In addition to the statute requiring the referral of plans and notification to specified local agencies and the public of its public heazings, notification pursuant to CEQA is required for the plan's environmental document. For further discussion of public notice and responsible and trustee agency review, refer to the State CEQA Guidelines and CEQADeskbookbyRonald E. Bass, Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan. Additionally, §65919 et. seq. requires the proposal to adopt or amend all or part of a specific plan to be referred to affected cities and counties for comments and recommendations. Timing of Amendments Unlike the mandatory elements ofthe general plan which, pursuant to §65358(6), may not be amended more frequently than four times during each calendar yeaz, the specific plan may be amended as often as necessary by the local legislative body pursuant to §65453(a). However, no specific plan may be amended unless the proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan (§65454). Conditions of Approval OPR does not recommend attaching conditions to the approval of the specific plan, especially when the plan would rezone or otherwise affect the permitted uses or intensity of the use of land. Separating condi- tionsfrom the plan may complicate administration and implementation by creating policies or regulations that will directly affect the plan, but that aze not included in it. Internal inconsistencies between the plan and condi- tions may result. The plan should be revised as needed prior to final adoption to incorporate regulations and conditions directly into the plan. Specirc Plan Repeal A specific plan is repealed in the same manner that it is amended pursuant to §65453(6). Similar to the adoption, the planning commission and legislative body must each hold at least one public hearing prior to taking action. Alternatively, a specific plan may be repealed by voter initiative. Plan Administration The administration of specific plans require spe- cial caze.Often, the design standazds and zoning adopted under the plan will differ from that of the zoning ordinance covering the other portions of the commu- nity. Agencies which adopt several specific plans, each with its own format andunique development specifica- tions,may encounter increasedpermitprocessing times and errors due to varying plans, formats, and provi- sions. Several options exist to simplify plan administta- tion. The fast is educating planning staff about the intricacies of [he plan through plan summazies, com- parisons,and matrices. Existing zoning maps and other references should be changed to reflect the area cov- ered by the plan and any changes in zoning or permit requirements. If necessary, the local zoning ordinance should be amended immediately to establish confor- mitywith the plan. In jurisdictions where the adoption of several specific plans aze being considered, the agency may consider adopting written specific plan guidelines. Guidelines for the preparation of specific plans establish format and content requirements which will enable staff to familiazize themselves and more effectively implement the plan. The guidelines may also provide project proponents with an explanation of the required plan elements and how it is utilized by the z~ The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans particular agency. (See appendix C for an example of specific plan guidelines) Another option is [o utilize computer software programs to aid in administration. The advent of "on- line" technology and "automated" project and permit review has provided planners with increasingly so- phisticated tools which can be used to implement specific plans. For example, an on-line general plan enables planners to review projects fot consistency with the general plan by entering the important charac- teristics of land development projects into a software program. The program compares the project features with the plan, identifies applicable goals and policies by topical azea, and prepares a report. Similaz technol- ogy is available to assist in the implementation of the specific plan. 28 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Part Five A Specific Plan's Relationship to Other Planning Measures Consistency With The General Plan A specific plan may not be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan pursuant to §65454. Section 65359 requires that any specific plan of a city or county that is applicable to the same areas or matters affected by a general plan amendment shall be reviewed and amended as necessary to make the specific plan consis- tent with the general plan. Consistency is commonly demonstrated through the statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan as required by §65451(b) or through a discussion of the individual policies andprograms andhow each consistently imple- ments the general plan. Zoning, subdivision, and public works projects must be consistent with the general plan and specific plan pursuant to §65455. (See also §66473.5, 65860, and 65401.) The California Attorney General has opined that, "the term `consistent with' means `agreement with.' The courts have held that the phrase `consistent with' means `agreement with; harmonious with.' The term 'conformity' means in harmony therewith or agreeable to" (see 58 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 21, 23 (1975)). As used in the General Plan Guidelines and based on the language contained in the statutes and vazious legal interpretations by the courts, a general rule for consistency determinations can be stated as follows: An action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will Further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. A finding of a project's consistency with a general plan or specific plan would be reversed only if, based ontheevidencebeforethecouncil,areasonableperson could not have reached the same conclusion. (No Oil, Inc. v. CiryofLosAngeles(1987)196Ca1.App.3d223, citing McMillian v. American General Finance Corp. (1976) 60 Ca1.App.3d 175, 186) Specific plans may differ in their implementation of the general plan depending upon whether they are adopted by resolution or by ordinance. A specific plan adopted by resolution will propose implementation measures, whereas a specific plan adopted by ordi- nance imposes regulations. If the specific plan is regu- latory by design, the plan's regulations must promote the general plan's statement of development policies. In particular, the regulations must be enactments re- s~lting from and complying with the directives of the general plan's policies, plan proposals, or action pro- grams. Diagram Consistency: Section 65451(a) requires that a specific plan in- clude adiagram or diagrams which specify the distri- bution, location, and extent of the uses of land, includ- ing open space, within the area covered by the plan. The diagram(s) must be consistent with the general plan. In Las Virgenes Homeowners Association v. Los Angeles County (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 310, the court held that the general plan is only required to contain a diagram of the general locations illustrating the poli- cies ofthe plan. General plan policies can establish that parcel-specific designations are to be reflected in a specific plan. Therefore, the boundaries of a specific plan's land use designations need not precisely match ',the generalized boundazies delineated on a general plan diagram provided that it reflects a reasonable approximation of a general plan's land use designa- tions. The land use distributions and locations con- tained in the specific plan should be consistent with those of the general plan. For example, if a general plan designates an area for residential and neighborhood commercial uses, the specific plan for the same area should not have provisions for industrial uses. This would be inconsistent with the general plan. Because a specific plan is intended to systematically implement the general plan, its diagram does not supersede that of the general plan. Rather, it details and fosters the general plan's development policies. Specific plans which include multiple develop- mentphases and development over a longer time frame 29 The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans may not initially be consistent with the general plan diagram if provided for in the text of the general plan. For example, the first phases of a project may include existing agricultural land uses not shown under the diagram. However, later phases of the same project may include residential development on the same land, accurately portraying the allowable uses under the general plan diagram. Consistency With Airport Land Use Plans: In each county with a public use airport, an airport land use commission prepares a comprehensive airport land use plan (ALUP) addressing all such airports and their environs within the county. Section 65302.3 requires that the general plan, and any applicable specific plan be consistent with the ALUP. Further, §65302.3(b) requires that the general plan and specific plan be amended within 180 days to be consistent with any amendment to an ALUP. However, the consis- tencyrequirement may be overridden by the legislative body when findings aze adopted pursuant to Public Utility Code §21676 (See California Aviation Council v. City of Ceres, (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4'" 1384). Amendments to a specific plan or general plan affecting the airport planning area must be reviewed by the airport land use commission and a determination made as to the consistency with the ALUP. If the commission finds that the amendment is inconsistent and the local legislative body does not concur, the city council or board of supervisors may, by atwo-thirds vote, overrule the commission's determination pursu- ant to Public Utility Code §21676. Consistency With The California Coastal Act: The CaliforniaCoastalAct (Public Resources Code §30000 et seq.) exists to "protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources" (Public Resources Code §30001.5). The coastal zone extends from the California/Oregon bor- dertothe California/Mexicoborder, seaward to the end of the jurisdictional waters of the United States, includ- ing all offshore islands, and inland generally 1,000 yards (Public Resources Code §30103). The Coastal Act is applicable to all those portions of cities, coun- ties, and charter cities that are within the coastal zone, excluding the azea of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 220 (1987)). Local agencies with jurisdiction over land within the coastal zone must prepaze a local coastal program (LCP) to implement the Coastal Act. However, an agency may request, in writing, that the California Coastal Commission prepaze all or part of an LCP (Public Resources Code §30500(a)). An LCP is "por- tions of a local government's general plan, or local coastal element which aze sufficiently detailed to indi- cate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses..." (Public Resources Code §30108.5). The Coastal Com- mission has permitting authority over development within the coastal zone including certification of the LCP, oversight for local planning efforts, and perma- nent jurisdiction over development on coastal zone tidelands, submerged lands, andpublic trust land (Pub- lic Resources Code §30500). Just as a specific plan may be used to implement a general plan, it may also be used to implement an LCP. A specific plan may be used to enact the land use regulations covering the entire coastal zone within a city or county, or focus the policies of the LCP on only a portion of zone. Specific plans that amend an LCP must be reviewed and certified by the commission (70 Ops.CaLAtty.Gen. 220 (1987)). Consistency With SMA13A: The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) ensures that adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized, mined land reclaimed, mineral production and conservation encouraged, and hazazds to the public health and safety eliminated (Public Resources Code §2712). The Act requires cities and counties to adopt ordinances in accordance with state policy for the review and approval of recla- mationplans and for the issuance ofpermits to conduct surface mining operations. SMARA requires local agencies to prepare or amend a specific plan to "plan for future land uses in the vicinity of, and access routes serving..." a surface mining operation when requested by the mining opera- tor or other interested person (Public Resources Code §2764). This does not apply if the local general plan coritains mineral management policies consistent with SMARA which apply to the surface mining area. When adopting or amending a specific plan, the local legislative body mustmake findings as to whether the future land uses and access routes will be compat- ible with the mining operation. If the land uses and access routes aze not compatible with the continuation of surface mining, the local agency must also state why incompatible uses are proposed, in light of the regional importance of the operation (Public Resources Code §2764(b)). 30 The Planner's Guide to Specinc Plans Other Measures That Must Be Consistent With Specific Plans The specific plan statute under §65455 states that "No public works project may be approved, no tenta- tive map or parcel map for which a tentative map was not required may be approved, and no zoning ordi- nance may be adopted or amended within an area covered by a specific plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan." Section 65451 requires that a specific plan set forth detailed development criteria, standards, and implementation programs. Thus, there is little or no opportunity for programs and other measures, which implement the specific plan, to vary from its requirements. In addition to §65455, there are a number of other statutes that address the issue of consistency between specific plans and implementing measures. Annexations, Detachments, and Incorporation: Section 56841(g) requires Local Agency Forma- tion Commissions (LAFCO) to consider, among other issues, the consistency of proposals for annexation, detachment, or incorporation with applicable specific plans prior to approval. Capital Improvement Programs: Five-year capital improvement programs prepared by special districts, school districts, or other agencies created by joint powers agreements, must be referred to the planning agency of each affected city and county within which the district or agency operates, for review as to its consistency with any applicable specific plan. Section 65403(c) requires that the capital improve- mentprogram orany part of the program not be carried out if the planning agency finds that it is not consistent with any applicable specific plan. However, the find- ingmay be overruled bythe district or agency propos- ing to carry out the capital improvement program. Condominium Conversions: The requirements of the Subdivision Map Act for consistency with general plans and specific plans un- der§66473.5, §66474, and §66474.61 do not apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives that sub- divide airspace in existing structures unless a specific plan contains definite objectives and policies, specifi- cally directed to the conversion of existing buildings pursuant to §66427.2. Consistency may also be re- quired where new structures or additions to existing structures occur. Development Agreements: A specific plan facilitates the administration of a development agreement throughthe separation ofpoli- ciesand regulations which are specific to the site from those of the jurisdiction as a whole. As such, §65867.5 requires that a development agreement be approved only if the provisions of the agreement are consistent with any applicable specific plan. Housing Projects: Housing projects are defined by Health and Safety Code §34212 as being housing or community-related activities involving governmental funding or assis- tance. These projects are subject to applicable plan- ning, zoning, sanitary, building laws, ordinances, and regulations. Any housing authority planning a housing project must take into consideration the relationship of the project to any larger plan or long-range program (specific plan) for the development of the area in which it is located consistent with Health and Safety Code §34326. Land Projects: Section 66474.5 restricts local agencies from ap- proving a fmal subdivision map for any land project unless: (a) the local agency has adopted a specific plan covering the area included within the project; and (b) the agency finds that the land project, together with the provisions for design and improvements, is consistent with the specific plan. Land projects are defined by § 11000.5 of the Business and Professions Code. Park Land (Quimby Act): Local agencies may, by ordinance, require the payment of Fees or dedication of land for park or recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of a tentative or parcel map. Prior to imposing this re- quirement, the local legislative body must adopt a general plan or specific plan with policies and stan- dards forparksand recreational facilities. Therequired fee or dedication must be consistent with these policies and standards pursuant to §66477(d). Public Utilities: Public Utilities Code §12808.5 requires public utility districts to refer proposals to locate or construct lines and accessory structures for the transmission and distribution of electricity to each affected city or county for their approval. The local legislative body must hold one public hearing and, within 60 days, adopt a resolu- tion, including ftndings of consistency with any rel- evant specific plans, for approval or denial of the 3t The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans proposal. However, the utility district may, by a four- fifths vote, render the local agency's decision inappli- cable. Public Works Projects: Local public works projects may not be approved unless they are consistent with any applicable specific plan pursuant §65455. Subdivisions: Section 66473.5 requires that the local legislative body only approve a tentative map, or a pazcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it finds that the subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with any spe- cificplan which has been adopted covering the area of the proposal. Inconsistency between aproposed subdivision and an adopted specific plan is grounds for denial (§66474). This may include inconsistent design or improvement of the proposed subdivision. Section 66474.61 requires that the advisory agency, appeal board, or city council of a city with a population exceeding 2.8 million (Los Angeles) deny approval of a tentative map or parcel map if it finds that the proposed map or the proposed subdivision's design or improvement is inconsistent with applicable general and specific plans. Specific plans often contain conceptual subdivi- sionmaps which aze used to present the ideal pattern of development for the plan area. Subsequent tentative maps must comply with the standards for design, improvements, land use, and density; however, they are not and should not be required to strictly comply with the conceptual designs, unless so stated in the plan. Subdivision Land Reservations: A local agency may, by ordinance, require the reservation of real property in a subdivision for parks and recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries or other public uses. Section 66479 requires that reserva- tions be based upon an adopted specific plan or an adopted general plan containing policies and standards for those uses. The reservations must be consistent with these policies and standards. Zoning: Section 65455 requires that the adoption or amend- ment of a zoning ordinance be consistent with any applicable specific plan covering the same azea. A planning commission, in its written recommen- dation to acity council or boazd of supervisors regazd- ing the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance, must describe the relationship between the proposed zoning ordinance or zoning amendment with the appli- cable general and specific plan pursuant to §65855. Summary: Inconsistencies inimplementation orconflict with existing policies, programs, and ordinances must be identified and corrected as eazly as possible. Adjust- ments to existing planning and regulatory programs should be made before or concurrently with the adop- tionphase ofthe specific plan process. After adoption, any identification of inconsistency must be followed by the amendment of either existing plans and regula- tions or the specific plan itself. Failure to correct inconsistencies can result in the inability to enforce specific plan regulations and policies (see Anderson v. City ofLa Mesa (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 657). 32 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Part Six Specific Plan Implementation Measures Implementation Whether regulatory or policy oriented, all specific plans must contain a "program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures pursuant to §65451(a)(4). Common strategies are to include a form of an overlay-zone or other zoning-like regulation as part of the implementation program. Implementation of public infiastmcture and facilities policy is also commonly accomplished through [he inclusion of a capital improvements program. The specific plan must include or identify a financ- ingprogram. Various financing mechanisms are avail- able to fund the programs of a specific plan including special assessment districts, the Mello-Roos Commu- nityFacilities Act, and general obligation bonds. Tax- increment financing, city and county general fund money, exactions, and other means aze discussed fur- they in Table 2. OPR's A Planner's Guide To Financing Public Improvements, contains a detailed discussion of fi- nancing measures, most of which are applicable to specific plans. Other resources include OPR's General ,Plan Guidelines and William Abbot's Public Needs and Private Dollars, Solano Press. Other specific plan implementation programs may include affordable housing projects (implementing the policies of the general plan housing element), eco- nomicdevelopment, redevelopment programs, project .,phasing, transportation system management, habitat conservation plans, and local air pollution control measures. Table l Examples of Financing Measures Proposition 218: Proposition 218 added Articles XIII C and D to the California Constitution controlling how general taxes aze levied and requiring certain previously levied general taxes to be ratified by voters. It reduces all taxes to either general taxes or special taxes. It defines a general tax as "any tax imposed for general governmental purposes" and a special tax as "any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund." General and special taxes can be reduced or repealed through the initia- tive process. Benefit assessments and "property related fees and charges" cannot be imposed with- outprior voter approval. Fees, charges, and assess- mentscanbereducedorrepealedthroughtheinitia- tive process. A city, county, or special district (including a school district) contemplating a special tax levy must hold a noticed public heazing and adopt an ordinance or resolution prior to placing the tax on the ballot. The ordinance or resolution must specify the purpose of the tax, the rate at which it will be imposed, the method of collection, and the date of the election to approve the tax levy. Approval by a 2/3 vote of the city, county, or district electorate is necessary for adoption. For additional information concerning the implications of Proposition 218 to local government financing, see OPR'sAPlanner's Guide To Financing Public Improvements. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982: The Mello-Roos Act enables cities, counties, special districts, and school districts to establish community facilities districts and to levy special [axes to fund a wide variety of facilities and ser- vicesrequired by aspecific plan. AMello-Roos tax can be applied to the planning and design work directly related to the improvements being financed continued 33 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Table 2 continued and may also fund services on apay-as-you-go basis including: police and fire protection, ambu- lances, flood protection recreational programs, parks, and schools. AMello-Roos district must be established pursuant to the requirements of §53321. As with all special taxes, Mello-Roos taxes are subject to reduction or repeal by initiative. AMello-Roos tax is not a special assessment, so there is no requirement that the tax be appor- tioned on the basis of property benefit. The tax can be structured so that it varies depending upon the zoning or development intensity of the property being assessed. Apportionment cannot, however, be done on an ad valorem basis. Some of the projects that have been funded through Mello-Roos include public works prof ects in "planned commu- nities" for Orange County, Riverside County and San Diego as well as public park improvements and school facilities throughout California. See §53311 et seq. for detailed information regarding the estab- lishment of Mello-Roos districts. General Obligation Bonds: In 1986, California voters approved Proposi- tion 46, restoring the ability of local governments and school districts to issue general obligation (G.O.) bonds. General obligation bonds require approval by 2/3 of the jurisdiction's voters and are used to finance the acquisition and construction of public capital facilities and real estate (see §29900 et seq., 43600 et seq., and Education Code § 15100 et seq.). G.O. bonds are repaid through an increase in the ad valorem property tax being levied by the issuing jurisdiction. General Obligation bonds may be used to fund such things as schools, libraries, jails, fire protec- tion and capital improvements. According to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commis- sion, 27 G.O. bond measures were placed on local ballots in the November 1996 election. Fourteen passed, thirteen failed, and nine received more than 60 percent approval. Some of these bonds included K-12 school facilities and seismic-safety retrofit- ting of public buildings. Public Enterprise Revenue Bonds: Local governments have the ability to issue bonds to finance facilities for revenue producing public enterprises. The enterprises developedunder these funds aze fmanced by user chazges that, in turn, are applied to bond debt service payments. Revenue bonds do not require approval by 2/3 vote since they aze neither payable from taxes, nor from the general fund. The Revenue Bond Act of 1941 (§54300 et seq.) is the most commonly used bond act. Under this act, bonds may be issued for revenue producing facilities such as airports, harbors, hospitals, park- ing,and garbage collection. Bonds under this act are adopted by resolution of the legislative body and subject to approval by a simple majority of the voters voting on the bond measure. One exaznple of a public enterprise revenue bond is the Cambria Community Services District's 1989 bond financ- ing of a wastewater treatment plant. Tax-Increment Financing: Local governments may activate redevelop- ment agencies to improve blighted areas. Specific plans are also often used to improve the blighted azeas which may at the same time be subject to a redevelopment plan. As an area is redeveloped, it may generate new property tax revenue. This rev- enue is known as the tax increment. A redevelop- ment agency engages in tax-increment financing when it funds its activities with bonds, notes, etc., secured by the increment. With certain exceptions, the agency must allocate 20 percent of the tax inclement to funding low and moderate-income housing. (See § 16 of Article XVI of the Califomia Constitution and §33000 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code) Impact Fees and Exactions: Dedications of land and impact fees are exac- tions which lessen the impacts ofnew development resulting from increased population or demand on services. Local governments derive their authority to impose exactions from the "police power" granted to them by the State Constitution and/or specific state enabling statutes such as the Subdivision Map Act. A legally defensible exaction must (a) "ad- vance alegitimate state interest" (such as protection continued 34 The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans Table 2 continued of the public health, safety, and welfare) and (b) mitigate the adverse impacts to that interest that would otherwise result from the project (as held in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 107 S.Ct.3141). Additionally, in Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 114S.Ct.2309, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, in addition to the standazd for essential nexus establishedunderNollan,there must be a "rough proportionality" between the proposed exactions and the impacts that the project aze in- tended to allay. The California Supreme Court further defined the principals of legal exactions under Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996)12 Ca1.App.4~" 854. The Legislature has since amended the Mitigation Fee Act (§66000, et seq.) to require the local agency imposing the fee to identify the purpose ofthe fee and the use to which it will be put. The local agency must also specify the nexus be- tween the development project and the improve- ment being financed (§66001). It must further es- tablishthatthe amount of funds being collected will not exceed that needed to pay for the improvement (§66005). Special Assessment Districts: Special assessment districts are defined geo- graphical areas which local governments levy as- sessments topay for public projects such as streets, sewers, storxrl drains, landscaping and streetlighting. Special assessments pay for projects that are of specific and direct benefit to particular properties. For example, in order to finance the construction of street facilities which provide sole access to an industrial park, a local government may create an assessment district to cover the cost as it relates to the amount of benefit received by each property being assessed. Proposition 218 established com- mon procedures for forming special assessment districts under Section 4, Article XIII D of the California Constitution. Most assessment districts may use their proceeds to secure bonds. The following are some of the many special assessment and related acts: • Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and High- ways Code §5000 et seq.) • Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code § 10000 et seq.) • Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code §8500 et seq.) • ParkandPlaygroundActof1909(Government Code §38000 et seq.) • Tree Planting Act of 1931 (Streets and High- ways code §22000 et seq.) • Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code §22500 et seq.) • Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code §54703 et seq.) • IntegratedFinancingDistrictAct(Government Code §53175 et seq.) • Street Lighting Act of 1919 (Streets and High- ways Code § 18000 et seq.) • Municipal Lighting Maintenance District Act of 1927 (Street and Highways Code § 18600 et seq.) • Street Lighting Act of 1931 (Street s and High- ways Code § 18300 et seq.) • ParkingDistrictLawof1943(StreetsandHigh- ways Code §31500 et seq.) • ParkingDistrictLawof1951(StreetsandHigh- ways Code §35100 et seq.) • Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Street and Highways Code §36500 et seq.) • Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq.) • Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960 (Street and High- ways Code § 11000 et seq.) • Permanent Road Divisions Law (Streets and Highways Code § 1160 et seq.) • CommunityRehabilitationDistrictLawof1985 (Government Code §53370 et seq.) • Geologic Hazard Abatement District (Public Resources Code §26500 et seq.) • Open Space Maintenance Act (Government Code §50575 et seq.) • Fire Suppression Assessment (Government Code §50078 et seq.) 35 The Planner's Guide to Specinc Plans Specific Plans And Development Projects Local agencies may require that a specific plan be adopted for an area as a prerequisite to a development project as part of the requirements of an overlay zone, other ordinances, or for consistencywith the policies of the general plan. Development Agreements: A development agreement is a tool for establishing a vestedright to proceed with development in conform- ance with the policies, rules, and regulations in effect at the time of approval (§65864). Development agree- mentsprovide adeveloper with assurances for a speci- fied length of time that his/her project may proceed as originally approved, and no[ be affected by future changes in land use regulations. The authority of local governments to enter into development agreements was tested and upheld by the courts in Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, 84 Ca1.App. 4th 221 (2000). In many cases and in exchange for this assurance, the landowner/developer may agree to a larger dedication of land or in-lieu fee for public use as a condition of the agreement. A specific plan facilitates the administration of a development agreement by sepazating the develop- ment policies and regulations applied to a project site from those of thejurisdic[ion as a whole. This enables a local agency to revise its jurisdiction-wide plans and ordinances without affecting the policies and regula- tions "frozen" by an agreement. A specific plan adopted in correlation with a development agreement would only be amended when corresponding changes are made to the agreement. (See Midway Orchards v. County ofButte, 220 Cal. App. 3d 765 (1990); and 76 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 227 (1994)) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps: Section 66498.1(b) provides that when a vesting tentative subdivision map is approved, a vested right shall be conveyed to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standazds in effect at the time the application for thetentative map is complete. Once approved, a land- owner/developer may proceed with a project anim- peded by subsequent changes to the applicable devel- opment regulations. A specific plan adopted prior to the approval of a vesting tentative map may provide local agencies and the landowner/developer a single reference in determining the rights [o be vested. Redevelopment: Specific plans represent relatively precise devel- opment criteria, guidelines, and diagrams which may provide additional direction to agencies and the public in establishing uses and infrastructure improvements that aze planned within a redevelopment azea. Such plahs also set forth in detail the planning and imple- mentation programs that, in the opinion of the local agency, will lead to a successful redevelopmentproject. In addition, the precision of specific plans is useful in estimating the costs of public improvements to be funded by tax-increment financing and other fiscal programs. 36 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Part Seven Specific Plan Summaries Following are summaries of some good specific plans, including those recognized by the California Chapter of the American Planning Association with "Comprehensive Planning Awards of Excellence" over the past few years. The plans included are representative of a broad range ofplan types and subject matter included in numerous other plans from azound the state. City of San Jose Evergreen Specific Plan Adopted July 2, 1991 The Evergreen Specific Plan was prepared for the City of San Jose by Dahlin Group, Inc., in response to a general plan amendment in 1989 designating 865 acres as the "Evergreen Planned Residential Conunu- nity." The amendment included the requirement that a specific plan be adopted prior to approval of develop- ment. The specific plan relies on some unusual tech- niquesfor creating an innovative new community with edges that blend seamlessly into adjacent subdivisions and interior features that are distinctive both function- allyand visually. Traffic rotazies and radial sheets for example, provide direct routes to all of the plan's facilities and amenities for neighborhoods both inside and outside the plan area. The plan includes provisions for ongoing vineyazd and wine-making facilities at Mirassou Vineyazds, a circular commercial "village," parks and additional pazk acreage, two elementary schools, funding for a new high school, fire station, corridor trails, pocket parks, and extensive internal trail systems. Supporting documents include revisions to existing development policy, financing plan, and the zoning ordinance. Ventura County Ahmanson Ranch Specific Plan Adopted December 1992 The Ahmanson Ranch Specific Plan was produced by the Ahmanson Land Company for the County of Ventura as part ofa development proposal for residen- tial, commercial, and community facility uses. The planning azea encompasses approximately 5,433 acres of which 2,633 acres are to be dedicated as permanent public open space. The remainder of the planning area comprises clustered development on approximately 1,900 acres with an additiona1900 acres ofcommunity open space. The proposed community would consist of mixed-density and income housing units in a pedes- trianfriendly setting totaling approximately 3,050 units. The dedicated open space would be combined with surrounding open space areas to form approximately 11,000 acres of important wildlife habitat, corridors, and ecosystems, in an effort to balance the preservation of natural resources with the development of new communities. The plan includes comprehensive de- sign guidelines, development standards, and imple- mentation measures to create a livable community based upon compact and pedestrian oriented design. City of San Jose Midtown SpeciTic Plan Adopted December 8, 1992 The Midtown Specific Plan was prepazed by a consultant team including ROMA Design Group, with oversight from the Midtown Specific Plan Task Force, for the purpose of providing a vision for an azea that is undergoing considerable transition and change. This vision includes: creating a pattern of development that reinforces transit; providing diversity in housing op- portunities to establishe viable and livable neighbor- hoods; preserving viable industrial and commercial- service;creating anextensive system ofpedestrian and open space; balancing circulation needs with consider- ation of livability; and complementing and extending adj scent residential and commercial areas surrounding midtown. The specific plan will guide the evolution of this 210-acre mixed industrial and commercial azea into a new mixed-use community including high- 37 The Planner's Guide to Specinc Plans density commercial and residential uses oriented to- ward transit, while maintaining some industrial and service commercial uses. This plan provides for close to 3,000 new housing units, 920,000 squaze feet of new office development, 305,000 squaze feet of additional industria]/commercialuws, and 335,000 squaze fee[ of retail, restaurant, and entertainment-oriented uses. It also incorporates an extensive system of pedestrian ways and open spaces that promotes Midtown as a livable and walkable community, street patterns that prevent excessive residential street traffic in the future, and comprehensive urban design guidelines for creat- ing acompatible relationship with surrounding areas and neighborhoods. City of West Sacramento West Sacramento Triangle A Specific Plan for The Development of Downtown West Sacramento Adopted June 30, 1993 The West Sacramento Triangle Specific Plan was prepared for the City of West Sacramento by the Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership for the purpose of providing "a planned, waterfront oriented urban core... complementing established residential and commer- cial districts within the City with a balanced mix of uses." Its focus is to provide guidance for the develop- ment of approximately 188 acres while creating a sense-of-place, promoting economic development, and furthering the use of the area For living, working, and tourist-oriented development. The plan includes provi- sions for five sepazate development area components, each with its own identifying chazacteristics ye[ uni- fied through redevelopment and development guide- lines with anemphasis onestablishing asense-of--place based upon the waterfront. Sepaza[ely, the City adopted the Southport Frame- work Plan in May 1995 as part of its comprehensive planning efforts. Although this is an "area plan" and does not meet the criteria of a specific plan, its purpose is to establish connections between the individual specific plans within its boundazies to accomplish an overall comprehensive planning framework. It demon- strates the ability to provide integration between spe- cific plans and their respective planning azeas and regulations. City of Santa Monica Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan Adopted November 23, 1993 The Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan was prepared for the City by ROMA Design Group. Adop- tioti of [he plan was called for by the general plan in response to the need to comprehensively plan for public and private ownership in the area with a central theme of urban design. The planning area includes approximately 45 acres, 26 in public ownership and 15.8 under the ownership of one corporation. The site is within closeproximity to the beach and Santa Monica Pier, the Santa Monica Freeway, and adjacent to the city's recently revitalized downtown. The urban de- signtheme isintended toguide development ofthe area "that is, essentially a meeting place that brings together a broad range of activities within an attractive and inclusive environment." The plan includes a mix of uses including city of£ces, county justice courts, audi- torium, cultural, open space, residential, live/work, professional office, and retail. Development policies aze included which"Redefine Main Street" to establish it as a focal point, "Extending the Palisades Land- scape," bringing the chazacteristic landscape of the area into the Civic Center, and "Meeting the City Grid," making the area accessible and friendly by incorporating visual corridors, mixed-use streets, and pedestrian and bicycle ways into the azea. City of Folsom The Parkway Specific Plan and Design Guidelines Adopted December 1993 The Parkway Specific Plan and Design Guidelines were prepared for the City of Folsom by the Parker Development Company, The Spink Corporation, and Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. The planning azea encompasses 612 acres withprovisions for 360 acres of mixed density residential, 6.4 acres of office use, 11.8 acres of commercial use, and 242.4 acres of open space, parkway corridor, riparian mitigation, and other variations of open space uses. The plan incorporates zoning and development standazds which supersede prior designations, a financing plan for the provision of necessary public facilities, and a separate financing plan for a special assessment district. The plan has also incorporated a detailed set of design guidelines for landscaping, architecture, lighting and signage. Sepa- 38 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans rately, the plan includes as an appendix, the "Parkway and Resource Mitigation Plan." This section estab- lishes aplan for a natural corridor which bisects the planning azea providing for the preservation of impor- tanthabitat, passive recreation, and flood protection. It also forms a resource mitigation program for impacts to natural resources resulting from development, and provides far the preservation of open space and the quality of life in the city. Maziposa County Mariposa Town Planning Area Specific Plan Adopted January 14, 1992 Amended February 7, 1997 The Mariposa Town Planning Area Specific Plan was prepared by county staff at the direction of the Board of Supervisors. The plan encompasses the unin- corporatedtown ofMariposa,including approximately 1,900 acres, with apopulation of 1,565. The azea serves as the westerly gateway to Yosemite National Park with more than one million tourists passing through each yeas The plan provides for the preservation ofthe historic Mother Load design and atmosphere of the town while also allowing for commercial and residen- tial growth. Guidelines for design review, historic preservation, and other development standards have been incorporated into the plan. As the center for county government, services, and commerce, the plan ' policies focus on the viability of Mariposa as a com- mercial area while maintaining its historic Gold Rush chazacteristics. City of Roseville Highland Reserve North Specific Plan Adopted June 1997 The Highland Reserve North Specific Plan was prepared for the City of Roseville by Williams and Paddon, MacKay and Somps, and Wade Associates. The plan azea comprises 615 acres in the northeast portion of the city adjacent to Highway 65. It estab- lishesaframeworkforthedevelopmentoftheplanning azea including a village squaze, traditional residential neighborhoods, pedestrian pathway system, preserva- !I tibn and utilization of watershed open space corridors, I and emphasis on the design of public spaces. Plan implementation includes a development agreement 9 which sets forth public infrastructure and financing, I Quimby Act park land dedication requirements, and land use and infrastructure requirements. Comprehen- sive community and landscaping design guidelines 'have been defined for the purpose of establishing a 'j framework for development and coordinated land- ' scaping leading to the vision underlying the plan. City of San Luis Obispo Railroad District Plan Adopted June 16, 1998 The Railroad District Plan grew out of citizens' suggestions that a plan be prepazed to address several R important issues, including traffic circulation, open ',: space and historic preservation, safe pedestrian and bicycle connections, aesthetics, public safety and the I needforadditionalautomobilepazking.TheCityCoun- P cil directed staff to prepare a plan that would address !I these issues and ensure that the vazious public im- j~ provements planned or underway in the District would ~' be properly coordinated. The RailroadDistrict influences San Luis Obispo's ' economy, transportation, and urban character. Recog- j nizingthe importance of the District, the General Plan ~, identifies the Santa Barbaza Street corridor-the main k transportation "artery" which links the District with ? Downtown and State Highway 101-as a "special 1i. design azea" and calls for a plan to guide renovation I and improvement of buildings, streetscape, landscap- ' ing and public use azeas. This plan is intended to guide development in the District and to implement General 51 Plan policy for that portion of the special design azea ~~ encompassed by the District. 39 The Planner's Guide to Speciac Plans Appendix A Specific Plan Court Cases TABLE OF CASES • Yost v. Thomas • Chandis Securities v. City of Dana Point • Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project, Sierra Club v. County of Stanislaus • Mitchell v. County of Orange • Anderson v. City of La Mesa • People v. County of Kem This section identifies major specific plan-related litigation. The following brief summaries highlight the pertinent principles, but are by no means comprehen- sive discussions of each case. Our intent is simply to bring these cases to your attention. Readers should refer to the full text of the cases for in-depth informa- tion. For advice regarding the applicability of a case to specific situations, particularly those cases involving "takings," consult your legal counsel. CASES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT YOST V. THOMAS (1984) 36 Ca1.3d 561 The Pazk Plaza Corporation filed several applica- tions, including a specific plan, to authorize construc- tion of a 360-room hotel and conference center under the City of Santa Barbara's certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). After the council had approved the project, a local citizens' group attempted to file a referendum petition to reverse the council's action. The petition was rejected by city clerk Thomas. The City argued that its approval was ministerial under the Coastal Act and not subject to referendum. The citizens group sued and the trial court found for the City, holding that City's actions were administrative under the Act and that the powers of initiative and referen- dumapply only to legislative actions by a local govern- ing body. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court cited the established principle that referendum applies only to legislative acts. Since adopting or amending a general plan and rezoning are legislative acts, the Court rea- soned that specific plans are likewise legislative. The Court also concluded [hat in enacting the Coastal Act the Legislature had not intended to eliminate local legislative authority. While the Coastal Commission may disapprove an LCP which is inconsistent with state policy or too weak to effectively implement it, the Commission may not specify the precise content ofthe LCP. Furthermore, local governments may choose the means of implementing the Coastal Act and may be more restrictive of particulaz development than state policies require. CASES OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL CHANDIS SECURITIES CO. V. CITY OF DANA POINT (1997) 52 Ca1.App. 4'" 475 The council approved Chandis' general planamend- mentand specific plan for a hotel and 370-unit residen- tial development on the Headlands. Petitions were filed forcing a voter referendum on the project and, as a result of voters' denial, the council's action was reversed. The court held that although the city council acted reasonably to approve the project, the electorate is empowered to reverse that action, particularly since reversal did not conflict with the general plan and maintained the status quo. The court held that the restriction on denying a "development project" under Government Code Section 65589.5 does not apply to legislative projects. 40 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans STANISLAUS NATURAL HERITAGE PROJECT, SIERRA CLUB V. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS (1996) 48 Ca1.App. 4'" 182 ]n 1993 the County of S[anislaus certified an EIR for a proposed specific plan fora 29,500-acre resort community including 5,000 residences. Suit was brought contending, among other things, that the EIR was inadequate due to its failure to adequately discuss the environmental effects of supplying water to the project. The analysis of water covered the supply through the first 5 years of the project, but deferred further analysis of the supply of water to future phases of development. The county and other respondents contended that "there is no analysis of the potential impacts of the eventual long-term supply" relying upon the tiering provisions of CEQA. Tiering allows for a more specific EIR incorporating by reference the discussion in prior environmental documents allowing for concentration on the environmental effects not analyzed as significant effects in the prior report. The trial court denied the petition ruling in favor of the county and other respondents. The Court ofAppeal reversed the decision because the approval of the project did not follow the fundamental purpose of CEQA being to inform the public and decision makers of the environmental consequences of a project. An EIR must address the impact of supplying water in that the County must "attempt in good faith to fulfill its obligation under CEQA to provide sufficient meaning- ful information regazding the types of activity and enduonmenta] effects that are reasonably foreseeable (Laurel Heights I supra, 47 Cal.ed at p. 399.)." MITCHELL V. COUNTY OF ORANGE (1985) 1b5 Cal.App.3d 1185 During a public hearing on the North Tustin Specific Plan, a property owner requested that their land be re-designated for professional office uses. The Board of Supervisors adopted the North Tustin Plan, but in doing so designated the contested property for residential rather than office uses. The Board also found the plan to be compatible with the general plan, The owner petitioned for a writ of mandate claiming, among other things, that the specific plan was inconsis- tent with the general plan. The trial court denied the petition and the owner appealed contending that the court should have used the substantial evidence test when reviewing a specific plan s conformance with a general plan. The court of appeal armed the trial court's deci- sion, referencing Yost v. Thomas (t 9$4) 36 Ca1.3d 561, 571, noting that the adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act. Therefore, "Judicial review of `[a]ctions 'taken by an administrative agency in its legislative capacity ... is limited to an examination ofthe proceed- ingsbefore the agency to determine whether its action has been azbitrary or capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or whether it has failed to follow the procedure and give the notices required by law.' [citations]" This "arbitrary and capricious" test also applies to challenges to a specific plan's conformance to a gen- eral plan. Consequently, the court detemtined that the consistency determination rests with Orange County's board of supervisors and would not be set aside unless the board acted azbitrarily, capriciously or without an evidentiary basis. This case indicates that the "arbitrary and capri- cious" test, rather than the "substantial evidence" test, is the appropriate standard of judicial review For a specific plan adoption. The courts apply the "arbitrary and capricious" test to determine whether there is a rational basis for a legislative act, The burden of proving unreasonableness falls on the person who challenges the local legislature's action. The burden is heavy since, in general, the courts presume that legis- lativeactions are valid. The courts apply the substantial evidence test to adjudicative acts to determine whether they are supported by findings based on substantial evidence. Consequently, from a city's or county's viewpoint, the latter test is more rigorous. ANDERSON V. CITY OF LA MESA (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d b57 The city of La Mesa's standard zoning ordinances required single-family dwellings to be se[ backat least five feet from the side Lot lines while an applicable specific plan ordinance required ten foot setbacks. A property owner applied to the city for a building permit to construct a new house. The proposed placement was to be about seven feet from a side property line-in compliance with zoning, but not the specific plan. The city issued the permit and the home was built. The city inspected the house six times during construction; however, upon completion, the city refused to issue the occupancy permit unless the owner removed that por- tion ofthehouse within the ten foot setback required by the specific plan. Further, the city declined to grant a variance allowing a side yard setback encroachment. The owner filed a petition for writ of mandate. The superior court determined that the owner had acquired a vested right to the existing building location 4] The Planner's Guide to Specitlc Plans because she had relied in good faith on the building permit. In addition, the court found no grounds for denial of the variance, but that remodeling would cost $6,000. The court also found that the city had abused its discretion and ordered the variance and occupancy permit to be issued. The court of appeal affirmed the judgment. This case illustrates one of the problems that may arise if a city or county Fails to keep its zoning ordi- nance consistent with its specific plan. PEOPLE V. COUNTY OF KERN (1974) 39 CaLApp.3d 830 In May of 1972, Kern County approved tentative subdivision maps to create 356 lots on 275 acres in Cuddy Valley neaz Los Padres National Forest. The map approvals required the developer to obtain the county's approval of a specific plan and zone change. The county's adoption ofthe specific plan "...expressly provided that `amendments to the zoning ordinance applicable to the azea shall conform to this specific plan' in accordance with the tentative maps on file." The developer submitted a zone change application and prepazed a draft EIR. The zone change involved reclassifying the site from light agricultural to estate zones. The county circulated the draft EIR to interested public agencies and private groups. The county re- ceived numerous comments pertaining to the draft EIR, some of which raised serious environmental is- sues. The county approved the final EIR without re- sponding to comments on the draft. The county also approved the rezoning and thereafter issued a grading permit. In November of 1973, the California Attorney General filed an action against Kem County and the developer to prevent the issuance of building permits and other entitlements for construction and to require the preparation of an adequate EIR. The trial court denied apreliminary injunction and the Attorney Gen- eral appealed seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to issue the preliminary injunction. Kern County contended that the developer had acquired a vested right to develop by virtue of the approval of the tentative maps and adoption of the specific plan. It also claimed that the zone change was a ministerial act and not subject to CEQA. The Court of Appeal issued the writ of mandamus. It directed the trial court to issue the injunction enjoin- ing Kern County from granting the developer's build- ing permits and entitlements. Based on state law and county zoning ordinance, the court determined that Kem County retained discretion to approve or deny zone changes. Consequently, the approval of the tenta- tivemap and specific plan were not the only approvals subject to discretionary action. The approvals did not commit [he county to amend the zoning ordinance and as a discretionary project, the rezoning was subject to CEQA in which the final EIR was inadequate due to the lack of response to comments in the Final EIR. This case indicates that a local government's approval of a specific plan neither provides a vested right to develop nor an automatic zone change entitle- ment. A government retains its discretion in deciding rezoning application submitted to carry our specific plans. 42 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Appendix B Selected Statutes SPECIFIC PLAN STATUTES (Excerpted From The California Government Code) TITLE 7. Planning and Land Use DIVISION 1. Planning and Zoning CHAPTER 3. Local Planning Article 8. Specific Plans Section 65450. Preparation of specific plans After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, the planning agency may, or if so directed by the legislatve body, shall, prepare specific plans for the systematic imple- mentation of the general plan for all or part of the azea covered by the general plan. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984. Ch. 1009.) Section 65451. Content of specific plans (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. (2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private trans- portation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the azea covered by the plan andneeded to supportthe land uses described in the plan. (3) Standazds and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financ- ing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009; Amended by Stats. 1985. Ch. 1199.) Section 65452. Optional subjects The specific plan may address any other subjects which in the judgment of the planning agency are necessary or desirable for implementation of the general plan. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) Section 65453. Adop[ion/amendment procedure (a) A specific plan shall beprepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan maybe adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. (b) A specific plan may be repealed in the same manner as it is required to be amended. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009; Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 1199.) Section 65454. Consistency with [he General Plan No specific plan maybe adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with [he general plan. (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009) Section 65455. Zoning, tentative map, parcel map, and public works project consistency with specific plans No public works project may be approved, no tentative map or parcel map for which a tentative map was not required may be approved, and no zoning ordinance maybe adopted or amended within an area covered by a specific plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan. (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009) Section 65456. Fees and charges (a) The legislative body, afrer adopting a specific plan, may impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking gov- ernmentalapprovals which are required [o be consistent with the specific plan. The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, [hey defray but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the specific plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Re- sourcesCode. As neazly ascan beestimated, the fee chazged shall be aprorated amount in accordance with the applicant's relative benefit derived from the specific plan. It is the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge persons who benefit from specific plans for the costs of developing those specific plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to the specific plan. (b) Notwithstanding Section 60016, a city or county may require a person who requests adoption, amendment, or repeal of a specific plan to deposit with the planning agency an amount equal W Ore estimated cost ofpreparing the plan, 43 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans amendment, orrepeal prior [o its prepazafion by the planning agency. (c) Copies of the documents adopting or amending the specific plan, including [he diagrams and text, shall be made available to local agencies and shall be made available to the general public as follows: (1) Within one working day following the date of adop- tion, the clerk of the legislative body shall make the docu- ments adopting or amending the plan, including the dia- grams and text, available to the public for inspecfion. (2) W ithin two working days after receipt of a request for a copy of the documents adopting or amending the plan, including [he diagrams and text, accompanied by payment for the reasonable cost of copying, the clerk shall famish [he requested copy [o the person making the request. (d) A city or county may charge a fee for a copy of a specific plan or amendments to a specific plan in an amount that is reasonably related to the cos[ of providing that document. (Added byStats.1989, Ch. 1009; Amended byStats.1985, ch. 338 and Ch. 1199; Amended by Stats.1990, Ch.1572.) Section 65457. CEQA Exemption (a) Any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of [he Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmen- tal impact report for [he specific plan is prepazed and certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is certified, the exemption specific in this subdivision applies to project undertaken pursuant to the specific plan. (b) An action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has approved a project pursuant to a specific plan without having previously certified a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan, where required by subdi- vision (a), shall be commenced within 30 days of the public agency's decision to carry out or approve the project. (c) This section does not supersede but provides an al[er- nativeprocedure to Secfion 21080.7 of [he Public Resources code. (Added by Stats. ]984, Ch. 1009.) 44 The Planner's Guide [o Specific Plans Appendix C Local Specific Plan Guidelines Many local jurisdictions have adopted written specific plan guidelines. These guidelines establish the ground rules forpreparing and adopting a specific plan within aparticulaz jurisdiction. The guidelines are effective a[ keeping specific plans consistent with the local general plan by establishing minimum content requirements and by specifying a com- mon format for all plans that will be adopted by a commu- nity. They also provide developers with a written summary of what a specific plan is and how it is used in that jurisdic- tion. Guidelines ac[ to facilitate the preparation and adoption of specific plans by standardizing the local procedure for evaluating and considering such plans. Standardizing [he specific plan format through local guidelines also helps planners and other staff members familiarize themselves with new plans. This, in tum, reduces the potential for errors [o occur during the administration of the plan. The Office ofPlanning and Research encourages cities and counties which will be considering several specific plans in the future or that regulazly use specific plans to implement their geneml plans to adopt their own specific plan guidelines. The following outline provides one ex- ample of what local guidelines might contain. SPECIFIC PLAN GUIDELINES 1. Introduction: What is a Specific Plan? a. Explains what specific plans aze and how [hey are used in the community b. Discusses the relationship between specific plans and the local general plan's objectives, policies, and implementation measures c. Enumerates local policies, regulations or programs that directly relate to specific plans 2. Plan Content a. Reviews the state-mandated issues per §65451, including projected land uses, infrastructure iden- tification, and implementation and financing pro- grams b. Reviews locally-required issues that must be ad- dressed in each specific plan c. Specifies the types of criteria (e.g., policy state- ments, regulations), standards, text and diagrams that must be included in each specific plan 3. Local Procedures a. Enumerates [he required submittals (i.e., legal de- scription, maps, application form, environmental assessment information, etc.) and submittal speci- fications (i.e., maps sizes, etc.) b. Enumerates locally-requiredstudiesorreports(i.e., economic impact study, market analysis, archeo- logical survey, geologic report, etc.) c. Describes the staff review procedure, including pre-filing conference (if applicable) and the initial staff review of [he application d. Defines the roles of the staff and the developer in planning and [he related environmental review (i.e., who does what, how many copies of each document must be submitted forreview, when does staff review the developer's work, etc.) e. Reviews the CEQA/environmental review process and local CEQA guideline requirements, if any f Describes[hehearing/publicmeetingprocess(i.e., public notice requirements, roles of [he planning commission, advisory committee, and legislative body, projected number of hearings, etc.) g. Enumerates [he criteria by which the planning commission and legislative body will evaluate the proposed specific plan h. Specifies the required method of plan adoption (i.e., by resolution, ordinance, or both) i. Enumerates the required planning and processing fees 4. Plan Format a. Presents an outline of how the specific plan is to be organized (e.g. the chapters containing policies, regulations, and other topics) b. Establishes standards for the design and content of the plan's diagrams/maps c. Establishes standards for the design and size of the plan and diagrams (i.e., loose-leaf, bound, type- written, size specifications, etc.) d. Provides examples of acceptable forma[ 5. Application Forms(attachmentstothelocalguidelines) a. Specific plan applicaton form (contents based on local needs) b. Environmental analysis form c. Related application forms (i.e., rezoning, subdivi- sion map, etc.) d. List of fees 45 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans Bibliography Bass, Ronald E, et al., CEQA Deskbook, 2nd ed., Solano Press, Point Arena, 1999 with 2001 supplement. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.• A Reference and GuidejorLocalAgencies, CaliforniaDepar[ment ofTrans- portation, Division of Aeronautics, Sacramento, 1994. Curtin, Daniel J. Jr., Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law, 21st ed., Solano Press, Point Arena, 2000. Fulton, William ]., Guide to California Planning, 2nd ed., Solano Press, Point Arena, 1999. The California Planner's Book afLists, Govemor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, 2000. General Plan Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Reseazch, Sacramento, 1998. APlanners Guide to Financing Publiclmprovements, 1997, Govemor's Office ofPlanning and Research, Sacramento, 1997. Planning, Zoning, andDevelopmentLaws, 200QGovemor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, 2000. Kelly, Eric D., Selecting and Retaining a Planning Consult- ant, PAS Report 443, American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 1993. Kostka, Stephen L. and Zischke, Michael H., Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Con- tinuing Education of [he Bar, Berkeley, 1996. Longtin, James, Longtin's Califon:iaLand Use, 2nd ed. and 1997 Supplement, Local Government Publications, Ber- keley, Califomia, 1987. Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Guidelines, 3`^ ed., National Recreation and Park Association, Alex- andria, VA, 1996. RevitadizingDowntown, National Tmst for Historic Preser- vation, 1991. Remy, Michael H., et al., Guide to the California Environ- mental Qualify Act, 10th Ed., Solano Press, Point Arena, 1999. Internet Sites For Planning Information: American Planning Association, APA: http://www.planning.org American Planning Association, California Chapter: http://www.calapa. org California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES), California Resources Agency: http://ceres.ca.gov Land Use Planning Information Network (LUPIN, Califor- nia Resources Agency: http: //ceres.ca.gov/planning/ 46 ATTACHMENT8 November 13, 2006 To: City Council Members of Arroyo Grande and Planning Commission. The property owmers in Sub-area 2 of the Cherry Creek Area of Arroyo Grande would like you to know the following: 1. We are in favor of the Cherry Creek Development in Sub-area 1. 2. We would prefer that our zoning be 4.5 units per acre as specified in the General Plan. Each project in Sub-area 2 will be submitted on an individual basis and we realize that each of our properties is very unique and may not be able to build out to 4.5 units per acre, but we want to have future development potential and aren't interested in down- zoning or transitional zoning. We don't see the logic in changing the zoning at Lierly Lane. The Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east and the agricultural land to the south are the natural boundaries for zoning changes. 4. We will voluntarily work with the City of Arroyo Grande regarding "Dirt Cherry". Respectfully submitted, lS~'k-~~/~~L /' ~~ 9sJLEYU~~. _1 /~~ ~~7 ~~~~~ ~~ ` ~( ~~ ~~~~ ~G~itnitit,~/z~ie~~yP J ~~ " ~ ~ ~` a2l'`Zt ~"Gf IJ s „tL-1, ~Y~ / `~.. ~ V..~ // C J^ C ////J(//~~ ~" , ,- ,-f ; / : ~ ~ ter' /; ~.; L~: ~i~ ..~ ~~i~~E. ~GSr ill ~-)>E=/ G ~~ h:fC tc/,~ C, z- 1 `i ~ C, `~ l~` ~ "' /~: ~ ,-tit!-, ~-~ti-i7 i~-::~.i1~,:r: i - i ~~.'S t'~S ~ ~V~~t'~ttl ,~ \ f"i t:. ,: ~ i, November 30, 2006 Planning Commissioners City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Planning Commissioners: i, t ,~s ria. ~,a .-~ . _s .. ~~„ c _ CITY OF RP,RC'; n :;~aN~E COMNU ~!ITY +=;~VE~G~~~:~El~~i -• My family owns the property at 835 East Cherry Lane. At this time we have no plans to develop our property, but want to protect the ability to do so in the future. After a very lengthy and involved process the City of Arroyo Grande adopted its current General Plan only 5 years ago in October, 2001. That Plan calls for 4.5 lots per acre in the area around and including our property. I strongly oppose any move by the City that would reduce that ratio. While there has been some recent talk of arbitrarily changing the zoning at Lierly Lane, I can see NO logic in that idea. The Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east, and the agricultural land to the south are the obvious and natural boundaries for zoning changes. Please remember these facts (the current General Plan and the existing natural boundaries) as you consider the zoning on"our property and our neighbors' property. Sincerely, li1 ~ ~ ~I%~~. Mike Miner FROM [A PHONE'N0. 8055470785 Dec. 01 2006 02:24Pf9 P2 November 30, 2006 Dear Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, As the owners pf Subarea one we would tike to voice our collective support for a Development Code Amendment which would briwg the zoning of Subarea two to Single- Family Residential -Medium Density (SFR-MD) (4.5 units/aere). A. General Plan Consistency- h1 the Urban Land Use Element (LU2-'n of the 2001 General Plan update "fhe 2i+- acre area mouth of Arroyo Grande creek east of Tract 409 (l3oguera Park), and north of E. Cherry Avenue designated Single- Family Residential - l~Iediam Density (SFR-MD) is subject to a requirement fox a neighborhood plan to coordinate street, dxai~nage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, cn:ekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map » This development code amendment is completely consistent with the general plan and perhaps should have been done long ago. Part of the Planning r~ t4Q1ons job is to interpret the general plan. The interpretation is clear (SFR-MD) anything else would be clearly going agauast the general plan! LU2-7 says nothing about splitting the neighborhood plan area into two different maximum densities; it could have but does noi. B. Control over development- The individual owners in subarea two will have to bring their projects forth fox review. lust like every other project proposed in the city it will still have to comply with CEQA and the Title 16 of the Development Code. These will insure that all potential environmental impacts will be mitigated, and that the minimum lot size and dimensional standards are met. The minimum lot standards are not that easy to meet due to the constraints found in subarea two, and if the PUD mute is taken Planning Commission and ultimately City Council have almost complete discretion over the project anyways C. Discourage Sprawl- It is almost impossible that subarea two will subdivide to a density of 4.5 unitsJacre; the constraints axe top numerous. Subarea one has ended up at 3.33 units/acre. To suggest the next lower density of RS-2.5 would make development in the area quite difficult due to the m;n+n+ur~ lot standard, and promote sprawl. The best way to reduce sprawl, green field development, and farm land conversion is to use incentives and increased density on "in-fi11" projects Development in subarea two` would clearly be in-fill; to decrease the 'allowable density would be contrary to good planning practices. It seems that easy choice is also the right choice. We urge you to recommend a development code amendment consisten with the General Plan, which will promote in- SIl development with adequate enviromnental and developmental oversight. Sincerely, G~ ~C~9V~® Damien Mavis Bradley Vernon Cliff Branch oEC ~ ~ Boas CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT December 4, 2006 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Members Chuck Fellows, Tim Brown, Nanci Pazker, Cazen Ray & Doug Tait My name is Byton Grant. I have lived and worked in Arroyo Grande since 1965. I am concerned with the discussion of "down zoning" of Sub azea 2 of the Cherry Creek Neighborhood. There is a real need for housing in Arroyo Grande. There is no reason to down zone the remainder of the azea adjacent to the Cherry Creek Subdivision. The zoning for the azea according the General Plan from 2001 is for SFR. Property purchases were made based on this zoning and it does not seem fair to take that potential away from that area. It seems the discussion should be the opposite. How can we allow more density on Arroyo Grande's land that is suitable for development? Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Byr Grant BG:md 102 Bridge Street • Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 • (805) 4811297 • FAX: (805) 481-0273 FROM': N. Rice NOCCCD D_ PHONE N0. FAX (805) 473-5489 ~~ ~~~~ 714 526 6559 Dec. 05 2006 05:41Phi F'1 December 6, 2006 Please copy and distribute to members of the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Thank you. Planning Commission Chairman, Chuck Fellows and Planning Commissioners Re: Development Code Amendment Case 06:004-13 Aeres north ofEast Cherry Avenue Extension (Sub-area 2 ofthe East Village Neighborhood Plan). We strongly urge that you not support rezoning this acreage from Rural Residential (one- d.u./acre) to Single Family Medium density (4.5 d.uJacre). We could accept a rezoning to Low-density Single Family Residential and still be in conformance with the General Plan. This lower density would be more in keeping with the adjacent farm land and provide a more logical transition. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. sincerely, Marianna McClanahan and Sara Dickens, Co-Trustees Gordon F. Dixson Trust (769 Branch Mill Road, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420) 1 i ~ i 10.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER BY: MIKE LINN, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ~V SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON RANCHO PARKWAY, VALLEY ROAD AND NORTH HALCYON. ROAD DATE: JULY 10, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council adopt a resolution certifying afive-year radar speed survey establishing speed limits on Rancho Parkway, Valley Road and North Halcyon Road. FUNDING: Any costs associated with speed limit signs or traffic legends will be funded by the Public Works Departmental operating budget for FY 2007/08. DISCUSSION: The California Vehicle Code requires an engineering and traffic speed survey be performed every five years to enable the radar enforcement of any speed limit by a local jurisdiction. Section 8.03.3.8.2 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual details the methodology for conducting engineering and traffic surveys to be used to establish or justify prima facie speed limits on city arterial and collector streets. On November 28, 2006 and March 27, 2007, Council accepted staff's recommendation to establish posted speed limit on arterial and collector streets throughout the City. Two street segments; Valley Road (Sunrise Terrace to Fair Oaks Boulevard) and North Halcyon Road (East Grand Avenue to EI Camino Real), were not included at that time but have since been identified by the Police Department as requiring enforcement. Based on the results of the speed surveys, staff recommends the following: Valley Road (Sunrise Terrace to Fair Oaks Boulevard) Maintain the existing posted speed limit at 40 miles per hour North Halcyon Road (East Grand Avenue to EI Camino Real) Maintain the existing posted speed limit at 35 miles per hour CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON RANCHO PARKWAY, VALLEY ROAD AND NORTH HALCYON ROAD JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 2 Considerable discussion and research has been performed to establish the posted speed limit on Rancho Parkway. The following is a chronology of staff and Council actions to date, followed by staff's recommendation for the posted speed limit: July 11, 2006 Council Meeting An engineering study was performed and indicated that there were two different speed zones; a 35 mile per hour speed limit between West Branch Street and Camino Mercado, and a 45 mile per hour speed limit between Camino Mercado and James Way. Although the engineering study resulted in a 45 mile per hour speed limit, a ten mile per hour increase in speed between the two zones might be excessive and a 40 mile per hour speed was recommended on the second segment. Council reviewed the information and directed staff to proceed with the development of a restriping plan that would narrow the drive lanes, provide bicycle paths in both directions, and provide turn pockets at Via Poca, Palos Secos and Camino Mercado. Council deferred changing the speed limit on Rancho Parkway and requested that staff follow up with a separate engineering study following completion of the striping revisions. November 28, 2006 Council Meeting Staff presented the completed restriping plan to Council. The Council approved the plan and directed staff to proceed with the striping revisions. Striping Revisions, Follow-up Speed Survey The Rancho Parkway Striping Revision Project was completed in April 2007. Staff performed afollow-up speed survey in May 2007. The striping revisions appeared to be effective in lowering vehicle speeds on the roadway. The engineering study indicated the 85th percentile speed following the striping revisions at 40 miles per hour. Staff Recommendation Based on the follow-up speed survey ,results, staff reaffirms its July 11, 2006 recommendation to establish two separate speed limits for Rancho Parkway, but has reduced the proposed speed in the second segment as follows, but has reduced the proposed speed in the second segment, as follows: Rancho Parkway (West Branch Street to Camino Mercado) Maintain the posted speed limit at 35 miles per hour Rancho Parkway (Camino Mercado to James Way) Increase the posted speed limit from 35 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour (previously recommended to be 45 miles per hour) CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON RANCHO PARKWAY, VALLEY ROAD AND NORTH HALCYON ROAD JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 3 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staff's recommendations; • Do not approve staff's recommendations; Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or • Provide direction to staff. S:\PUblic Works\Engineering\Traffic Commission\Major Issues\Vehicle Speed Survey\Council\Council Memo -Vehicle Speed Survey 2007-07-10.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE' FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY AND ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON RANCHO PARKWAY, VALLEY ROAD AND NORTH HALCYON ROAD WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande has conducted engineering and traffic speed surveys (collectively referred to herein as the "surveys") on various City streets in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle; and WHEREAS, the Director Public Works has analyzed the surveys, made appropriate adjustments, and made recommendation for the establishment of speed limits on said streets in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS, radar enforcement of any speed limit other than those expressly established by State law requires that such speed limits be based upon an engineering and traffic speed survey as has been conducted; and WHEREAS, the Police Chief supports the recommendations of the Director of Public Works; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby certifies the surveys and establishes speed limits on various City streets as provided below: Rancho Parkway (West Branch Street to Camino Mercado) 35 mph Rancho Parkway (Camino Mercado to James Way) 40 mph Valley Road (Sunrise Terrace to Fair Oaks Boulevard) 40 mph North Halcyon Road (East Grand Avenue to EI Camino Real) 35 mph On motion by Council Member ,seconded by Council Member ,and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2007. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY 11.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER~~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF OF POLICE DATE: JULY 10, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council confirm the appointment of Steven Annibali as the City's new Chief of Police. FUNDING: The position is fully funded in the FY 2007-08 Annual Budget. DISCUSSION: According to Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 2.34.010, the Chief of Police shall be appointed or removed by the City Manager, with the concurrence and confirmation of the City Council. The Chief of Police position became vacant on June 8, 2007 with the retirement of Tony Aeilts. Commander Steve Andrews has been serving as Interim Police Chief since that time. The City Manager's selection for appointment of the new Chief of Police is Steve Annibali, who was selected after an extensive recruitment process conducted by the City. Annibali brings with him more than twenty-nine years of law enforcement experience. For the past seven years, Steve has served as the Chief of Police of Ephrata, Pennsylvania, where he was instrumental in developing a number of model programs and a department with a reputation for providing a high level of service. He previously served as Chief of Police at Breckenridge, Colorado from 1997 to 2000; Lieutenant and Inspector for the Arapahoe County Sheriffs Office in Littleton, Colorado from 1992 to 1997; Lieutenant, Sergeant and Deputy for the San Diego County Sheriffs Office from 1980 to 1992; and as Police Officer for the Los Angeles Police Department from 1978 to 1980. Chief Annibali holds a Bachelor's Degree in Public Administration and is a graduate of Northwestern University School of Police Staff & Command and the University of Colorado Western Police Institute School of Law Enforcement Management & Leadership. Additionally, he holds a Management Certificate from California Peace CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION OF POLICE CHIEF APPOINTMENT JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 2 Officers Standards and Training Commission, and is active in professional associations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Association. If approved, Chief Annibali's employment with the City will become effective on August 27, 2007. Interim Chief Andrews has agreed to extend his acting assignment until that time. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve confirmation of Steven Annibali as the City's new Police Chief; - Do not approve confirmation of Steven Annibali as the City's new Police Chief and direct the City Manager to make a different appointment; - Provide staff direction. Attachments: 1. Resume of Steven Annibali Steven N. Annibali Achievement Highlights . As Chief of Police of Ephrata Pennsylvania, created a customer focused turnaround strategy for an image distressed police department and spearheaded every stage of its implementation. Successfully built a shared leadership team and gave the workforce a renewed sense of purpose. . This multi-year turnaround plan led to the police department being recently recognized as "above the national norm" for cities under 30,000 and also "above the national norm" overall with a 74 percentile rating in a recent National Citizen Survey'" rating the quality of police services. A Pennsylvania State University supervised citizen survey also confirmed the organizational turnaround with 85.1% ranking the police officers as very professional or professional and 83.8% responded that they were treated very fair or fair. . As Chief of Police of Ephrata, successfully negotiated the consolidation of police services for two municipalities through the implementation of contract services. This three year project brought together two elected bodies, three labor unions, two municipal managers and their organizations along with the public and the media. In its third year of a five year contract, the project has been heralded as a model of coalition building. . As Chief of Police of Ephrata, and as a Chamber of Commerce board member, worked closely with the business community and residents to develop and implement the creative "Ephrata Community" community oriented policing concept remapping police services that brought together two municipalities serving a resident population of 24,000, 19.59 square miles and 110 miles of roadway. . As an active recognized authority on police discipline, motivation and ethics, was appointed by the President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police to serve on their Police Image and Ethics Commillee. . As Chief of Police of Breckenridge, Colorado, one of the nation's top ski resort commun~ies, developed a professional, motivated and empowered customer service team achieving more than 30 goals through a 3-year strategic plan with an emphasis on tourism management, traffic, parking control and quality of life issues. Professional Experience Ephrata Police Department - Ephrata, PA October 2000. Present Ephrata, an energetic community located in the heart of central Pennsylvania is a major tourist destination and a recognized model of progressive and creative local government. This culturally and economically diverse community is a regional population hub of Lancaster County and is noted for its quality of life, yet a geographically well suited location near major urban areas. The Police Department provides a full range of public safely and community services, has an operating budget in excess of $4 million and a staff of 31 sworn officers, 5 civilians and 20 part-time employees. The department is now recognized as one of the foremost law enforcement agencies in the region. Chief of Police -Chief Executive Officer! Regional Law Enforcement Leader • Reengineered this traditional agency into a determined and motivated work group. • Developed a participative and creative team approach focusing on top quality services, community collaboration, specific goals and an organizational vision. • Led the effort in obtaining more than $329,000 in grant funding in the past three years. The Ephrata Police Department was one of only fifteen agencies nationwide to receive a U.S. Department of Justice School Resource Officer grant in 2005. Breckenridge Police Department -Breckenridge, CO June 1997 - August 2000 Breckenridge, is a world class resort and one of the nation's number top destination ski area. This culturally diverse and lively community welcomes a seasonal population in excess of 30,000 daily and hosts more than 30 special events and festivals annually, including nationally sponsored programs and visiting dignitaries. The Police Department provides a full range of public safety and community services with a special emphasis on tourism management, traffic and parking. Chief of Police -Chief Executive Officer /Regional Law Enforcement Leader Reengineered a stagnated agency into a progressive, professional and dynamic team. • Energized a diverse group of administrators to address area wide public safety and community issues through the use of regional task forces and coalitions. Arapahoe County Sheriffs Office -Littleton, CO January 1992 -June 1997 Arapahoe County, located in suburban metro Denver area, is a large, progressive and rapidly growing community with a diverse population and economy. I was actively recruited to Arapahoe County and my assignments included: Lieutenant Commanding Officer -Fugitive Warrants-Civil Section /Training and Community Resource Section /Emergency Management Inspector Commanding Officer -Office of Professional Standards • As a Lieutenant, served as the VIP, Coordinator for the World Youth Day Papal Visit of Pope John Paul that brought nearly 500,000 participants to the site. San Diego County Sheriffs Office -San Diego, CA April 1980 -January 1992 Lieutenant Assistant Commanding Officer /Operations -Vista Station Lieutenant Program Audit & Inspections Division /Special Projects Sergeant Public Affairs /Crime Prevention / Deientions Deputy Aide to the Sheriff /Patrol Operations /Protective Services • As a Lieutenant, was awarded the department's Medal of Merit for developing the public affairs video production unit and producing the Academy of Cable Entertainment award winning documentary "The Cycle of Crime° • As a Sergeant, served as the chairman of the California State Sheriffs Association Victim Assistance Task Force which received Letters of Commendation from President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. Bush. Los Angeles Police Department -Los Angeles, CA January 1978 - Apri11980 Police Officer II Served in the Hollenbeck and Southwest area stations Education • Graduate /Northwestern University -School of Police Staff & Command, 1996 • Graduate /University of Colorado -Western Police Institute School of Law Enforcement Management and Leadership, 1993 • Graduate / Bachelor of Public Administration /National University, 1981 Certifications • State of California -Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission -Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Supervisory and Management certifications • State of California -Department of Education -Teacher's Credential (Lifetime) • State of Colorado -Peace Officer Standards and Training Board -Peace Officer Level I • State of Pennsylvania -Municipal Police Officer Training & Education Commission Professional Affiliations -Past and Present International Association of Chiefs of Police Police Executive Research Forum FBI - LEEDA American Society of Industrial Security Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police Harrisburg Area Community College - Criminal Justice Advisory Board, Chair Summit County EMS, Communications & Drug Task Force Boards National Sheriffs Association California Peace Officers Association California State Sheriffs Association PA Association of Chiefs of Police Lancaster Co. Chiefs of Police Association Ephrata Area Chamber of Commerce Board Summit Prevention Alliance Youth Board Awards • Letter of Recognition -World Youth Day Papal Visit -V.I.P. Coordinator, 1993 • Medal of Merit -Outstanding Performance -San Diego County Sheriffs Office, 1989 • A.C:E. Award -Producer - `Cycle of Crime" Public Affairs Television Program, 1988 • Letter of Commendation -President Ronald Reagan - CA State Sheriffs' Association Victim Assistance Task Force -Chairman, 1987 • Letter.of Commendation -Vice Presideht George H. W. Bush - CA State Sheriffs' Association Victim Assistance Task Force -Chairman, 1987 • Governor's Award -State of California -Victim Service Award - CA State Sheriffs' Association Victim Assistance Task Force -Chairman, 1987 • California State Senate Commendation - CA State Sheriffs' Association Victim Assistance Task Force -Chairman, 1987 • Governor's Award -State of California -Crime Prevention Award -Unit Coordinator,1986 • Governor's Award -State of California -Victim Service Award - CA State Sheriffs' Association Victim Assistance Task Force -Chairman, 1985 11.b. ~.:. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL V FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERn~~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A CENTER LEFT TURN LANE ON EAST GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN HALCYON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL DATE: JULY 10, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The Traffic Commission recommends the City Council approve Option A for the proposed striping revisions on East Grand Avenue between Halcyon Road and EI Camino Real for a center left turn lane. FUNDING: The microsurfacing and striping project for East Grand Avenue is included in the Capital Improvement Program budget for the proposed FY 2007-08 budget. The budget includes $86,000 from initial local sales tax revenue in FY 2006-07 and an additional proposed $40,000 in local sales tax funds proposed in FY 2007-08. The proposed striping revisions will not add to the original cost estimates for the project. DISCUSSION: The Capital Improvement Program includes a project to microsurface East Grand Avenue between Halcyon Road and EI Camino Real. The work is being performed in accordance with the schedule listed in the Pavement Management Program. The microsurfacing will cover the existing striping and it provides an opportunity to perform improvements to the striping configuration. Traffic circulation, roadway widths, sight distance, driveway access, provisions for bike lanes and accident history were reviewed to develop the proposed striping improvements. Most of the accidents along this segment of East Grand Avenue have involved rear end collisions. To address accident conditions, the main element of the restriping plan will provide a center turn lane from Rena Street and Oak Street to connect to the existing left turn lane between Oak Street and EI Camino Real. East Grand Avenue between 101 and Halcyon Road has 80' right-of-way and is 62 feet in width from curb to curb except one block between Bell Street and North Alpine Street (adjacent to the gas station) where the width is only 58 feet. The narrower section is the result of a wider driveway and sidewalk on the north side of the street only. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A CENTER TURN LANE ON EAST GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN HALCYON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 2 Two options are being proposed (Attachment No. 1) to accommodate the centerturn lane: Option A. Center left turn lane with parking on north and south sides On the north side, four of the ten existing parking spaces will need to be removed and one of six existing parking spaces on the south side. The proposed lane configuration will be shifted to accommodate the parking spaces that will remain to provide parking in areas that do not have on-site parking. This will match the existing lane configuration, which already shifts between Oak Street and EI Camino Real. The proposed shift will be accomplished in a similar manner. Pros: • Maximizes the number of existing parking spaces maintained (provides 12 on-street parking spaces) Provides for adequate vehicle lane widths Cons: • Does not provide for a striped bike lane, but would be signed as a bike route Travel lanes would be shifted closer to the curb where there is no parking, which may require slower entry speeds for right turns into driveways Option A is recommended in order to increase safety by the addition of the center turn lane, while maintaining adequate lane widths and some parking. Staff is concerned with potential loss of parking given complaints received from neighborhood residents regarding an already deficient number of available parking spaces. Future widening could be proposed to add bike lanes at that time. Bike lanes could be added with restriping of four blocks if the sidewalk and driveways in the block between Bell Street and Alpine Street are reconstructed in the future. Option B. Bike lane with 11-foot travel lanes on both sides except for mid-block This option would eliminate all on-street parking and create 4 footwide shoulder bike lanes on both sides of the street except one block on the north side where the street narrows. Class II bike lanes are separate dedicated bicycle lanes four feet in width and East Grand Avenue is the top priority street segment proposed in the 2006 Bike and Pedestrian Enhancement Plan, which was adopted by the Planning Commission and Council as part of the Circulation Element Update of the General Plan. In order to provide for a separately striped lane, all on-street parking would need to be eliminated, similar to the roadway segment from EI Camino Real to Oak Street. Eliminating all parking would provide room for a striped Class II bike lane on both sides except on the north side of the one constrained block between Bell Street and Alpine Street due to the narrow street width. U:\2007\City Council\July\East Grand Striping Revisions 071007.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A CENTER TURN LANE ON EAST GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN HALCYON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 3 Pros: • Provides bike lanes consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element Increases traffic safety by reduced parking friction Cons: • Eliminates all on-street parking (loss of 12 spaces versus Option A) • No bike lane for one block on north side between Bell Street and North Alpine Street (adjacent to gas station) until sidewalk /driveway could be reconstructed, which is estimated to cost $60,000 - $80,000 No bike lane on north side between North Rena and Halcyon without modification of raised median island. The Community Development Department has recommended Option B in order to meet bike lane policies of the City's General Plan. Some of the properties impacted by lack of parking are existing nonconforming uses. The six spaces proposed on the south side of East Grand in the block between Rena Street and Alpine Street would primarily serve the commercial building at the corner of Rena Street, with eight on-street spaces on the side street. On the north side of East Grand Avenue in the block between Oak Street and Bell Street where six on-street spaces would be eliminated by Option B, there are two single family dwellings at 516 and 520 East Grand Avenue. Each dwelling has a driveway and single car garage, but would lose on-street guest or supplemental resident parking. The house at the corner, 524 East Grand Avenue, would also lose on-street parking on East Grand Avenue, but has five spaces along the east side of Bell Street to serve the small existing business. No feedback has been received from the property owners regarding either proposal. While several other homes and businesses along other blocks of East Grand Avenue are non-conforming with regard to required off-street parking standards, they generally have side street or some off-street parking for basic resident and/or customer use. Staff could pursue alternatives for increasing off-site parking in the future. On March 26, 2007, proposed striping revisions were presented to the Traffic Commission (see Attachment No. 2). There was consensus among the Commissioners that the new center left turn lane is critical for more efficient left turn movements and in helping to prevent rear end collisions. Parking is recommended by Public Works staff to remain on the north side between Oak Street and Bell Street and on the south side between Alpine Street and Rena Street based on input by the business tenants and property owners. U:\2007\City Council\July~East Grand Striping Revisions 071007.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A CENTER TURN LANE ON EAST GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN HALCYON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 4 The Commission also suggested the placement of "Bike Route" signs as bicyclists may continue to use East Grand Avenue instead of the alternate route on Cornwall Avenue. However, to address the need for bikes in accordance with the General Plan, Public Works recommends that all bike traffic be directed to an alternate route to avoid this section of East Grand Avenue. Bikes traveling from the east could turn north onto EI Camino Real and then east onto Cornwall Avenue, parallel to East Grand Avenue, but would have to cross traffic and detourtwo blocks to travel eastbound. Community Development opposes this rerouting due to the unlikelihood that cyclists would utilize the alternate route. On April 30, 2007, the City hosted a Town Hall Meeting with tenants and property owners on this section of East Grand Avenue to review the revised striping configurations. Input was received from those in attendance (see Attachment No. 3). All the attendees were in favor of the proposed center left turn lane, but there were concerns regarding the loss of parking. Two businesses on the south side of East Grand Avenue at South Rena Street were especially concerned about any loss of parking, while one favored reduction or elimination of parking to facilitate driveway access. Notification of the striping revisions went out to property owners and tenants on East Grand Avenue from Halcyon Road to EI Camino Real. On June 18, 2007 the Traffic Commission reviewed both options and recommended the Council approve Option A. The restriping will be performed as part of the microsurfacing project. The total budget in the Capital Improvement Program is in the amount of $126,000.00. This includes funds for design, construction, construction contingencies, contract administration and testing. A future project could be developed to provide additional roadway width, including the section on the north side between Bell Street and Alpine Street at an estimated cost of $60,000 - $80,000. In order to complete the resurfacing project, iYis recommended that East Grand Avenue be restriped to provide for a center left-turn lane at Rena Street and that input be provided as to the on street parking and bike lanes. The contract time for the microsurtacing and striping project is specified at 30 calendar days. Work is expected to be performed in August and September 2007. U:\2007\City CouncilUuly\East Grand Striping Revisions 071007.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A CENTER TURN LANE ON EAST GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN HALCYON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL JULY 10, 2007 PAGE 5 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Commission's consideration: • Recommend approval of the restriping plan identified in Option A; • Recommend approval of the restriping plan identified in Option B; • Modify as appropriate and advise staff accordingly; or • Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Proposed East Grand Avenue Striping Plan 2. Excerpt from Traffic Commission Draft Meeting Minutes June 18, 2007 3. Town Hall Meeting Minutes U:\2007\City CouncilWuly~East Grand Striping Revisions 071007.doc INS REAL TD HALLS ~, . GRp,ND tEL CAM D STR~P~NG pN E PROPpSE OPTION A~ ON BOTH SIDES PARKI LANES gHIFT _ - ,a "~ 1,• ,~'~~ t~' ~ cENLL0. ; ~ UrF+~ .;::::': ao ~av:.~ ww .. _..._ ,N (ALPINE STT ~ RENA 5T.) _ ~~,~ ,~ '~ ,~_-~- ,6' G~~ wu iM•M E _.. .~. ,a 13' 71, CSxiE~ •uvtE ~u++ wa ~WM w+p peg *~ ~^'~ --..__...__. ~ _. _-~ ~O SPINE ST •1 (BELL ST. ~l i`M~~ W ,MRt W . .,_;{. SEC"f0 BELL ST.1 IOAK ST. OTH SIDES ST AND AI-PINE ST tGAS STp,T10N1 NB OPTION B. S TWEEN gEL~ _ _ ._. _ 10 BARK NG - BI N N~REI,Bi ~DE A AND t,.lp,LCYpN __ -~ - _- ~~ „' ^~ NO LANE O EEN REN ,o' „' _-~„--r~. ,,. . NO BIKE ES BETw ,. „' ~ ~E,,~ ,;UMw, ~,~. LAN ~,~ ~ ~~ ,~ .~;~. 11' ,,w _ ;., ..- NO BIKE ~~. ~ ,~ _ _._--~-- 1°+ ,~ ,M~ ~ __ _ _- TiON G cMttA Jt ,,• 4 t,' ~ e~ ,~,~ ,M~ \T ''~ ~w [i E~ 5ECTION A ST ~ (ALPINE ST. TO RENA "'. „ ,~ ruw ~w~E M ,~ _ ~. f f~ ,__ ~-`'`~ SE TO ALPINE ST.) (BELL ST. _ _ - SECTO BBLL ST .l (OAK ST. ~~ ACItM~;,N`T Attachment 2 TRAFFIC COMMISSION -DRAFT (EXCERPT) JUNE 18, 2007 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 7:00 PM REVIEW OF THE EAST GRAND AVENUE STRIPING REVISION OPTIONS Mr. Spagnolo presented the proposed striping revision on East Grand Avenue between Halcyon Road and EI Camino Real for a center turn lane. He indicated that this item came before the Commission on March 26, 2007. He said two options are being proposed to accommodate the center turn lane: Option A creates a center turn lane with parking on north and south sides. He said the advantages of this option are that it maximizes the number of existing parking spaces (12 on-street parking spaces). Provides for adequate vehicle lane widths. He said the disadvantage is it does not provide for a striped bike lane, but would be signed as a bike route. Travel lanes would be shifted closer to the curb where there is no parking, which may require slower entry speeds for right turns into driveways. Mr. Spagnolo presented Option B. Bike lane with 11-foot travel lanes on both sides except for mid-block. The advantage is that it provides bike lanes consistent with the City's General Plan. He said the disadvantage is that it eliminates all on-street parking (loss of 12 spaces versus Option A). No bike lane for one block on north side between Bell Street and North Alpine Street until sidewalk/driveway could be reconstructed, which is estimated to cost $60,000 - $80,000. No bike lane on north side between North Rena Street and Halcyon Road. Commissioner Ross asked if the curb was moved back was this against City policy. Mr. Spagnolo indicated no. Community Development Director Strong said there are no defined bike lanes. He said between Elm Street and Halcyon it would be easy to add a bike lane. The advantage of having a bike lane is there is a shoulder, and creates better visibility. He indicated most of the businesses have on site parking. Mr. Strong suggested that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the restriping plan identified in Option B. The meeting was opened to the public for comment: The following business owners/tenants were against removal of parking on East Grand Avenue and are in favor of Option A: Ronald Gould, owner of the building at East Grand Avenue and Rena Street, Tom Girard, 723 East Grand Avenue, Tom Kornmaier, hotel owner, 617 East Grand Avenue, Vic Buccola, owner of the building at East Grand Avenue and Rena Street, Jessica Balseiro. 721 East Grand Avenue.. The following business owners/tenants spoke in favor of Option B: Fred Pope, 715 and 717 East Grand Avenue. He said it is difficult for vehicles to turn in and out of the driveway adjacent to his building and he would be in favor of elimination parking. The following comments were provided by the Commission: Commissioner Carson -The City needs the center turn lane -Parking is the big difference TRAFFIC COMMISSION -DRAFT (EXCERPT) JUNE 18, 2007 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 7:00 PM Commissioner Borda and Brownlee -Does not feel that the General Plan has to be followed to the letter. -Does not feel this area will be safe for bicyclist -If we went with Option B we would put a lot of people out of business -In favor of Option A -Commissioner Couser -Asked if the concern for the parking space at 617 East Grand Avenue will go away with both Plan A and B. -The center turn lanes are critical for the roadway -Excessive speed is an enforcement problem -Like Class III bike lane -In favor of Option A -Commissioner Ross -Appreciates the amount of work done by the City for the General Plan -In favor of Option A After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Borda, seconded by Commissioner Brownlee to recommend the City Council approve the restriping plan identified in Option A. Upon roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Borda, Brownlee, Ross and Couser. NOES: Commissioner Carson. Attachment 3 TOWN HALL MEETING Subject: East Grand Avenue Restriping Revisions Location: City Council Chambers Date: April 30, 2007, 6:00 PM ~~eis~c Present: City of Arroyo Grande City Engineer -Don Spagnolo Assistant City Engineer -Mike Linn Community Development Director- Rob Strong Residents/Businesses (see attached sign-in sheet) Written by: Mike Linn Meeting Objective The Public Works Department has developed preliminary plans and specifications to resurface and stripe East Grand Avenue between Halcyon Road and EI Camino Real. The revisions were prompted by citizen concerns and the accident history for this roadway segment, which includes a number of rear-end collisions stemming from the lack of protected turning lanes. The Town Hall Meeting allows citizens to review the concepts and provide input to the project design. The revisions are being proposed at this time as the Public Works Department will resurface this segment of East Grand Avenue later this summer. Staff will present the striping revisions to the City Council at their meeting on May 22"d Meeting Summary Mr. Spagnolo explained the restriping configurations as follows: • The restriping will provide for two lanes in each direction and a center left turn lane. • The majority of the on-street parking will remain but adding the center left turn lane does cause three parking places on the north side and one space on the south side to be eliminated. • A continuous center left turn lane will provide easier access to business on both the north and south sides of East Grand Avenue. • A turn pocket will be added for eastbound East Grand Avenue to access North Rena Street. "Keep Clear" pavement markings will be placed in the intersection North Rena / East Grand Avenue intersection. Ivtr. Strong stated that his preferred striping configuration would have the parking remain on the north side of the street to avoid having to perform the "gradual shift" of traffic. He also believed that residences on the north side of the street require the parking and many businesses have no other parking available. Mr Strong stated that his real preference would be to eliminate ALL parking to facilitate the placement of bike lanes on each side of the roadway. The citizens/business owners provided the following comments: ALL in attendance were in favor of providing the center turn lane, as it would help avoid accidents and help the businesses. Tom Kornmaier, Hotel Owner, 617 East Grand Avenue • Removing parking on the south side of the roadway will shift the traffic closer to his building. This will create more noise and awaken his guests. • Vehicles routinely travel more than 50 MPH at night. Believes the roadway will become more dangerous. Tom Girard, 723 Grand Avenue: • The lack of attendance at the meeting stems partly from the number of vacant businesses on the north side of the roadway. Fred and Linda Pope, 715 East Grand Avenue: • Believes vehicles will travel faster if you remove the parking as the parked cars help to visually narrow the lanes. Believes more businesses will close their doors as a result. • The 35 MPH speed limit is too fast and should be downwardly adjusted to match the 25 MPH speed limit through the Village. • Vehicles in the parking space directly west of his driveway obscures his vision when he tries to enter traffic and the parking should be prohibited with red curb. Jessica Balsiero, 721 East Grand Avenue: • Disagreed with her neighbor Tom Girard and requested that the parking spaces remain on the south side of the roadway adjacent to her business. • Suggested the placement of stop signs at Rena Street and South Alpine to slow traffic and protect the crosswalk at South Alpine. Mr. Spagnolo provided the following in response to the comments: • He explained the procedure that the City follows to determine and establish the posted speed limits. Mr. Strong added that any effects of striping revisions on the speed limit would not be known until after the striping is placed. • The placement of stop signs for speed control is discouraged by major traffic engineering organizations based on numerous studies. The City has researched the placement of in-pavement lights for the crosswalks on East Grand Avenue. The number of pedestrians appears to be minimal and the City may consider removal of the crosswalk. Conclusion Mr. Strong emphasized that no alternative will please everyone and that the Council will need to hear all the concerns to make an informed decision. h~1r. Strong encouraged all to write their concerns to the City Council prior to the May 22"d meeting. Mr. Strong will also present the restriping revisions to the East Grand Business Association for their input. Mr. Spagnolo stated that staff would compile the citizen and business owner comments and incorporate them into a staff report for presentation to the City Council on May 22, 2007. The meeting concluded at 7:15 PM.