The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2010-05-11'A C ity Council Tony Ferrara, Mayor Jim Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Costello, Council Member Chuck Fellows, Council Member L I Esila Steven Adams, City Manager Timothy Carmel, City Attorney Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2010 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE: 4. INVOCATION: 7:00 P.M. ARROYO GRANDE LIONS CLUB RABBI SCOTT CORNGOLD CONGREGATION BETH DAVID 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5.a. Mayor's Commendation Recognizing Angela Kraetsch, Administrative Services 6. 6a. Move that all ordinances presented for introduction or adoption be read in title only and all further readings be waived. CITY OF' AGENDA SUMMARY — MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 2 7. 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 Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action.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 April 16, 2010 through April 30, 2010. 8.b. Consideration of Cancellation of the July 27, 2010 City Council Meeting (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Cancel the regularly scheduled Council meeting of the July 27, 2010. 8.c. Consideration of Reauest to Caltrans that an Environmental Imaact Resort (EIR be Prepared for the Proposed Los Berros Road to Traffic Way Median Barrier Project (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Approve submittal of a letter to Caltrans formally requesting an EIR be prepared on the proposed Los Berros Road to Traffic Way median barrier project. AGENDA SUMMARY — MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 3 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Develoament Code Amendment Case No. 10 -001 — A Proaosed Ordinance Initiated by the City of Arroyo Grande to Consider Clarifications to the Definition of "Agricultural Land" and Agricultural Mitigation Policies (McCLISH) Recommended Action: Introduce an Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Municipal Code (Development Code) to clarify agricultural conversion and mitigation requirements. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.a. Project Status Update of the Brisco Road - Halcyon Road /Route 101 Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA &ED) (McCLISH) Recommended Action: 1) Approve new Alternative 313 for inclusion as an alternative for the Brisco Road — Halcyon Road /Highway 101 Interchange Improvement Project; 2) Approve contract Amendment No. 5 with Wood Rodgers, Inc. in a form approved by the City Attorney, to revise the Alternatives to be analyzed, update environmental studies and continue preparation of the Environmental Document (PA &ED) for an additional not -to- exceed amount of $175,000; 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment; 4) Allocate an additional appropriation of $175,000 from the Transportation Facility Impact Fund; and 5) Direct staff and the City Council Subcommittee to continue to pursue approval and funding through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and Caltrans. 11. NEW BUSINESS: 11.a. Consideration of Temaorary Use Permit No. 10 -005 to Authorize the Use of Cit Property and to Close City Streets for the Annual Arroyo Valley People's Choice Cruise Night on July 30, 2010 and Car Show on July 31, 2010 (McCLISH) Recommended Action: Consider the request from the Arroyo Valley Car Club and adopt a Resolution authorizing the use of City property and the closure of City streets for the Annual Arroyo Valley People's Choice Car Cruise and Car Show on July 30 and 31, 2010. 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. a) Request to consider on future agenda proposal for Historical Railroad Kiosk at City property at intersection of Crown Hill and East Branch Street (FELLOWS) AGENDA SUMMARY — MAY 11, 2010 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) Update on process of filling City Council vacancy: schedule of related events; deadline for applications; public forum for verified applicants on May 19, 2010; and intent to appoint replacement Council Member at May 25, 2010 Regular City Council meeting. 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, including any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on the agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk's office, 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. 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 Legislative and Information 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.arroyogrande.orq * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 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- span.orgq. PAR 0 � �A. > INCORPORATED 7. r� JULY 1 0, 1 , /F MEMORANDUM T: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANGELA K AETSCH, DIRECTOR F F ADMINISTIR E SERVICE Olt- BY: FIANCES R. HEAD ACCOUNTING SUPE VIS � SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATI CATION DATE: MAY 11, 201 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period April 16 through April 30, 201 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is a $615,393.19 fiscal impact that includes the following items: 0 Accounts Payable Checks 144987- 145187 $ 209,354.12 0 Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 406 BACKGROUND: Cash disbursements are made weekly based o the submission of all required documents supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prier to payment, Administrative Services staff' reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that they meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City's Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual of February 2000. ANALYSIS L SIS F ISSUES: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during the period. The disbursements are accounted for in the FY 2009-1 budget. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Approve staffs recommendation; 0 De not approve staff's recommendation; 0 Pr vide direction to staff. Agenda Item 8.a. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION N MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 2 ADVANTAGES: 0 The Administrative Services Department monitors payment o f invoices for accountability, accuracy and completeness using standards approved by the Council. 0 Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill ith merchants. 0 Discounts are taken where applicable. DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages have been identified as long as City Council confirms all expenditures are appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: IE W: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 6, 2010. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 7, 2010. No public comments were received. Attachments 1 . April 16- April 30, 2010 — Accounts Payable Check Register 2. April 23, 2010 — Payroll Check & Benefit Checks Register Agenda Item 8.a. Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1 apCkHist Check History Listin 06183/2010 11 :02AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code; boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Vold [date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 1 44987 04/22/201 00 AGP VIDEO, INC 3866 04/0712010 3 3 144988 04/2212010 004815 All GAS WEST INC 103130270 3/31/2010 31.45 31.45 im t� c� CL 0 t� M 00 w 0 144989 04/2212010 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVGS V 04/22/2019 144990 04122/2010 003817 A fEI IPI IDE UNIFORM SVGS 0.00 1 03/02/2010 128.40 1500025547 03/09/2010 79.50 1 510001554 02/25/2010 46.41 1 510001715 03/0312010 33.71 1500025550 03100/2010 29.00 1 500037140 03123/2010 29.00 1 500037137 03/23/2010 24.60 1500019786 03/021201 20.25 1500031 373 03/16/2010 20.25 1500042880 03/30/2010 29.25 1500031383 03/16/2010 19.30 1500031382 03/1 6/2010 19.62 1 500025544 0310912010 19.50 1500037134 03/23/2910 1 9-50 1 500042895 93/3012910 18.90 1500019795 93/0212910 13.40 150991 9792 93/02/2919 13.90 1599031380 03/16/2010 13.00 1590942892 03139/2019 18.00 1599942894 03/30/2010 1 7.70 1500025539 03/09/2010 17.00 1500037129 03/2312010 17.00 1500037136 03123/2010 1 7.00 1500025540 03109/2010 15.50 1500942896 03/30/2010 15-50 1500019790 03102/2019 15.30 1 500025548 03/09/2010 14.90 1500031384 03/18/2010 14.90 1 500037138 03/2312010 14.90 1500019789 93102/2010 10.50 0 .00 Page: 'I Page: apkH!t 05/03/2010 11:02AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 2 Bank code: boa Check # Data Vendor Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 1500031376 0311612010 10.50 1500042889 0313012010 1 0.50 1 500037139 03/23/2010 7.75 1500025549 0310912010 7.25 1 500019798 0310212010 6.00 1500031 386 0311612010 6.00 1 500042399 0313012010 6.00 1500019787 03/02/2010 6.00 1 500031 374 0811612010 6.00 1500042887 0313012010 6.00 1 500019793 0310212010 6.00 1500025545 03/09/2010 6.00 1500031381 0311612010 6.00 1500037135 03/2312010 6.00 1500019783 9783 0310212010 3.90 500025533 03/09/2010 3.60 1500031370 0311612010 3.60 150001 9797 03/02/2010 3.00 1500031385 03/1612010 3.00 1 500042898 0313012010 3.00 1500019788 0310212010 3.00 1500031375 03/16/2010 3.00 1500042883 0313012010 3.00 1500042893 0313012010 3.00 1500037128 03/23/2010 3.00 1500042897 03/30/2010 3.00 903.39 144991 04122/2010 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POWER 30529 0311112010 34.75 30556 15.17 30544 03/17/2010 10.77 60.69 D 144992 0412212010 006083 ARROYO GRANDE IN BLOOM 410 04/0212010 248.63 243.63 ca _ 144993 04122/2010 000055 B & T SVC STN 1011 03/3112010 145.00 145.00 CL 0 144994 0412212010 000056 BACKYARD IMPROVEMENT 2009 -1005 0312912010 199.88 2009 -1007 0313112010 21.66 221.46 M 00 144995 0412212010 000095 BURKE AND RACE F AG, 2399977 0311312010 103.05 -gh. i Page: a pCkHi t Check History Listing Page: 0510312010 11 :02AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Da Vendor Status Clear/Void Dante Invo Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total im t� c� CL 0 t� M 00 CA 0 144995 04/2212010 007757 C APSLO 144997 0412212010 003163 CELLULAR ONE 144998 04/22/2010 007794 CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION 144999 04/2212010 001990 CHARTER 145000 04/2212010 000163 CHERRY LANE 145001 04/22/2010 000164 CH ISTIANSON CHEVROLET 145002 0412212910 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY O 145003 04122/2010 0001 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 145004 04122/2010 006392 DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 145005 04/2212010 000917 DEI AINE "S CRANE 145006 0412212010 007452 EAGLE ENERGY INC 145007 04122/2010 005735 EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING 145008 04/2212010 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 145009 0412212010 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 2400530 2399870 2400089 2400090 033010 0331 0331 00579 04'1610 032810 27819 27957 72214 907147 411 - 1 7922 411 - 018068 1050545 10943 123682 106 250290 264949 259860 276439 2"4076 254244 30334 03131 12010 0311 612010 03122/2910 03122/2010 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 04120/2010 04/1 6/2010 03128/2010 0311612010 03122/2010 02126/2010 04106!2010 04/01/2010 0410112010 04/0912010 04/06/2010 03/3112010 04/05/2010 03106!2010 03/15/2010 03/0912010 03/26/2010 03124/2010 03102/2010 0410512010 65.41 48.56 28.69 2.15 492.09 366.00 239.00 1 39.70 590.00 221.93 108. 17.36 5"1.'16 571.00 76.40 5.95 186.00 385.00 128.20 50.00 269.68 1 00.41 80.45 54.49 11.93 9.67 104.47 312.77 1,097.00 1 39.70 509.00 221.98 126.12 51.16 571.00 62.35 186.00 365.00 128.20 50.00 526.63 104.47 Page: 3 im t� c� CL 0) M0 M t� c� 00 a P kHist Check History Listing Page: 4 05/0312010 i 1:02AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 145010 04/2212010 002613 GRAINER, INC 9217032334 03130/2010 89.26 89.26 145011 0412212010 001386 H TECHNICAL 201006813 0312912010 82.65 82.65 145012 412212010 000376 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 9061676 03/31/2010 65.31 65.31 145013 0412212010 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE E 163746 0311612010 140.29 163467 03108/2010 70.69 164050 03/2412010 41.33 252.31 145014 0412212010 000466 NOBLE SAW, I NC 76027 0310212010 53.40 53.40 145015 04122/2010 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 3/22 - 353299 03/2212010 12,233.81 4113- 190318 04113/2010 9.17 1 2,242.98 145016 0412212010 005695 PER Y'S ELECTRIC MOTORS 10865 04/0112010 838.0' 838.01 145017 04/22/2010 007793 PI MO BEACH OPTIX 3219 03129/2010 140.29 140.29 145016 0412212010 007453 PLANNING COMPANY ASSOC 748 0318112010 51465.86 51465.68 1 0412212010 007795 RELIABLE PRINTING SOLT. 142395 0312212010 222.43 222.43 1450 20 0412212010 003833 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC 243048 0410612010 3,596.16 3,596.16 145021 0412212010 000598 SNAP- TOOLS CORP 195496 03/31/2010 267.06 19211 1210212009 70.69 337.75 145022 0412212010 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 2891373 04101/2010 212.32 2891156 0410112010 112.16 2891620 0410112010 112.16 2891861 0410112010 5.91 442.55 10 0 4/22/2010 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 0 30533 0410112010 61994.40 6,994.40 145024 04/22/2010 006645 STANLEY CONVERGENT 7183986 0313012010 221.00 224.00 145025 04/22/2010 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY S1 149431.001 03122/2010 80.11 1149496.001 0312212010 63.58 S1 149653.00'1 03125/2010 41.42 S1 151048.001 0410712010 23-54 208.65 Page: apCkHist Check History Listing 068352 0410712010 Page: 05/03/2010 11:02AM CITY OF ARROYO G RANDE 0412212010 000676 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE 18900 0310312010 Bank code: boa 145031 0412212010 000685 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF 29454 C heck # Date Vendor Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Ch Total 145026 0412212010 004476 THE TRAINING NETWORK 24252 0311212010 313.90 313.90 145027 0412212010 007210 TRAK ENGINEERII G IN C 35122 0410712010 34.32 34.32 1 45028 0412212010 000666 UNITED RENTALS 86686276 -001 0312412010 103.31 103.31 145029 0412212010 006551 UNITED STAFFING ASSOC. 068554 0411412010 1 05320 866.25 Page: 6 068352 0410712010 1,053.20 2,1 06.40 14 030 0412212010 000676 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE 18900 0310312010 20.00 20.00 145031 0412212010 000685 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF 29454 03/10/2010 4,072.60 29498 0311012010 3,335.62 29502 0311012010 1,493.63 29505 0311012010 945.00 29470 0310912010 866.25 29503 0311012010 540.00 29504 0311012010 820.63 29507 0311012010 236.25 29501 0311912010 184.50 29506 0311012010 101.28 29499 03/1012010 67.50 20500 03/10/2010 0 33.75 12, 396.68 14 032 0412212010 007599 WATER SYSTEMS 0420 04/2212010 3,114.38 042010 04122/2010 2,160.90 6,275.28 1 45033 0412612010 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, I NC 1 0696 0410212010 372.1 372.1 145034 0412612010 001492 ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, 142828 0313112010 254.32 142333 0410212010 158.67 142826 03/31/2010 73.95 486.94 D 145035 04126/2010 006607 AT &T 000001257052 03125!2010 16.28 16.28 ca 145036 04126!2010 000058 BANK OF AMERI 418 -2050 0410312010 1 CL 418 -7762 0410812010 1 x 329.14 — 418 -2059 04/0612010 666.34 c� 418 - 9444 04103!2010 239.47 M 00 416 -2581 0410612010 135.10 ft-4 0 Page: 6 apC kH!st Check History Listing P a ge: 6 05103/2010 11 :02AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Data Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total im tM cD M0 (D t� cD co 145037 04126/2010 060134 CA ST D OF .JUSTIC 145038 0412612016 006639 CHEVRON & TEXACO CARD 145039 04/26/2010 007726 CYNDI CORNETT 1 45040 0412612010 600208 J B DEWAF , IN 14504 04/2612010 007796 JAM FAIRBAN 148042 04126/2610 060605 THE OAS COMPANY 145043 04/2612016 000928 HIJ ECH EMERGENCY INC 145044 64126/2610 006349 INTOXI ETERS# IN 145045 04/2612016 001334 PAPA - PESTICIDE 145046 04126/2010 000492 PETTY DASH 145047 0412612010 099613 STATEWIDE SAFETY 145048 04126/2610 660614 RANDY STEFFAN 148049 04/2612016 006616 STERLING 145050 04126/2010 006364 UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISES 14505 04/26/201 000822 US POSTMASTER 148082 04/2612610 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 145083 04/26/2010 667797 MARC WEISE MD 145054 04/2612010 007295 WEST GOVERNMENT 4/ -6736 04/08/2616 8.2 3,45,18 784364 04/06/2010 5, 5,444.00 24293821 64/06/2010 376.63 370,63 041216 04/1212016 30,00 30,66 726088 03/31/2010 138.55 138.56 042010 04/2612016 2.79 2.79 4/8 -200 04/68/2010 125.57 418 - 916 04/08/2016 29.75 4/7 - 111 04107/201 14,36 418 -1 500 04/68/2616 13.81 183.43 1 32182 63136/2010 194.87 194.87 299077 03/22/2010 2,966,25 21966.25 042310 64/26/2616 70.66 70,66 942610 04126/2610 238,92 266.92 04/2712610 77262 63/3612016 16, 399.88 V 04127/201 7264 03/36/2610 11818-60 V 64/2712616 77263 03/30/2010 1 1 063.07 19, 2 81, 55 032610 63/26/2010 306,13 366.13 25435 63131/2616 75,64 75.04 642316 04123/2010 50,66 56.66 641410 04/14/2010 1 85.00 185.60 0858186918 04/0412010 568.37 0856300153 03/26/2010 11.16 579,53 640510 04105/201 360.00 360,00 A 000 071865 03/31/2010 1 50,06 150,00 000 Page: 6 im t� c� CL 0) M0 M t� c� 00 ap Hist Check History Listing P 7 06/0312010 11: 2AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor status Clean oid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 145055 04/2712010 001925 CLEARWATER COLOR 54700 03/1912010 178.55 173.55 145056 04/27/2010 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 77262 03130/2010 16,399.88 77264 03130/2010 1,81 8.60 77263 03130/2010 1,063.07 19,281.56 145057 04/28/2010 000033 AG CHAMBER OF 042810 04/28/2010 36.00 36.00 145058 0412312010 007800 RICHARD LISLE 042310 04128/2010 360.00 350.00 145073 0412912010 007804 CLAIRE ADAMS 042810 0412812010 30.00 30.00 145074 0412912010 007704 AEC OM USA INC 7061328 08/1912009 864.00 864.00 1 45075 0412912010 000038 AG CHAMBER F 042810 04129/2010 1 1 350-00 1 , 350.00 145076 0412912010 000038 AG CHAMBER OF 2210 04123/2010 1 1 5 000.00 145077 04/2912010 000012 A RI -TURF SUPPLIES, INC 33737 04101/2010 1,087.07 1 145078 04129/2010 007810 LA ALLEN 042810 04128/2010 30.00 30.00 145079 0412912010 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC 10916 0410612010 392.75 392.75 145080 0412912010 005709 AMERICAN MESSAG L5 24571 04/15/2010 11.43 11.43 145031 04/29/2010 006463 ANDERSON & COMPANY 0013 -10 02/17/2010 4,500.00 4 145082 04/29/2010 005507 AT & T 4/7 -0163 04107/2010 188.79 417 04107/2010 65.68 4173959 04/07/2010 32.34 4/7 -3956 0410712010 32.34 417 -3953 04107/2010 32.34 351.46 145083 0412912010 001055 AVCO FIRE EXTINGUISHER 002446 0410812010 100.31 2449 0410912010 88.00 2437 0410812010 76.00 2438 0410812010 72.00 2441 04108/2010 20.00 2439 04/08/2010 20.00 2433 04/0812010 10.00 Page: 7 Page: apCkHlst 051031201 11 :02AM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE P a ge: Bank de: boa Check # Date Vendor status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 2445 04/0812010 12.00 2444 0410812010 3.00 2443 0410812010 4. 00 2442 04103/2010 4.00 420.31 145034 0412912010 000056 BACKYARD IMPROVEMENT EMENT 2009 -636 01/2512010 112.99 2000 -1018 0410712010 2.35 1 5.34 145085 0412912010 001 BASIC CHEMICAL 615721601 0411912010 611.59 611.59 145036 0412912010 000060 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC 120909 04114/2010 810.00 810.00 145087 04129/2010 004150 BIG BROTHERS BIG SI STERS 042610 0412612010 478.00 476.00 145088 0412912010 000078 BLUEPRINT EXPRESS ESS 9431 04126/2010 112.23 112.23 145060 0412912010 00191 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH 033110 03/31/2010 57.00 57.00 145090 0412912010 003453 BIND TREE MEDI LLC 60402006 0410212010 915.59 016.60 145091 0412912010 000000 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 144485 0412212010 19.88 144151 0311612010 11.95 144154 03116!2010 7.38 39.21 145092 04/2912010 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 16661 0411912010 859.09 16 336.07 21 169 + 0411012010 1212912010 - 652.50 542.66 145093 0412912010 007304 BURS E, WI LLIAMS & 136358 0410812010 1 A83.80 1,683.80 145094 0412912010 007802 CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS 011610 01/16/2010 633.16 533.15 145095 04129/2010 007085 CALP 90975122 0410712010 1,196.77 90971606 0312912010 462.66 90930035 0410812010 414.01 2,073.44 145096 04/29/2010 005890 CANNON 48468 0318112010 830.00 4847 03/31/2010 220.00 CL 4846" 03/31/2010 110.00 48470 03/31/2010 110.00 770.00 145097 0412912010 005601 MARY CANNON 042710 0412912010 30.00 80.00 �F o� Page: D c� c� CL 0) M app kHi t Check History Listing Page: 05103/2010 11:02AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Banc code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 145098 04/2912010 007757 C APSLO 042910 04/29/2010 493.00 0429 04/2912010 366.00 TEEN PARENTING 04/29/2010 239.00 1 145099 0412912010 000603 CAR U EST AUTO PARTS 731 40079 04/09/2010 1 13.73 731 40 04/11/2010 1 03.30 401825 04114/2010 102.43 401 884 0411 512010 94.69 7314 400631 0410912010 25.58 7314-402364 04116/2010 19.01 401 885 04115/2010 -13.06 445.69 145190 04/2912010 007803 ERITTNAY CLARK 042810 0412812010 30.00 30.00 1451 0412912010 007728 SCOTT CRAIG 042610 0412912010 60.00 50.00 1451 0412912010 007201 CRIME PREVENTION 2010- 0081 -CPC 0411412010 599.00 599.00 145103 0412912010 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 3131 -4651 03131 12010 1 7.86 17.65 145104 04129/2010 000577 LEONARD B DE LOS SANT 32265 0411912010 169.00 189.00 145105 04/2912010 007521 NICOLE LE E MATTE 042910 04128/2010 224.00 224.00 145106 04/2912010 002673 DOCTORS ME PL S MED 13880460 04114/2010 80.00 60.00 145107 0412912010 007452 EAGLE ENERGY INC 196 04106/2010 200.00 200.00 145108 0412912010 007129 TERRY ENDER 042310 04128/2010 269.00 269.00 145109 0412912010 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 283400 04/16/2010 35.66 65.66 145110 04/29/2010 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 5968283 03/3112010 583.72 6007628 0410112010 390.96 6045473 0412012010 321.60 6037802 0411312010 262.30 5977153-1 0313012010 243.60 5923667 -2 0313012010 228.38 5977153- 0410812010 152.26 6029005 0411412010 92.20 6004129 0313112010 2 6.65 Page: 9 Page: 1 ap kH r t 061031201 11 :02AM C heck H istory Lists g CITY OF ARROYO ANDE Page: 1 Bank code. boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 6001 863 04/02/2010 ' 0 21.75 6001363 -1 04/07/2010 9,25 2,324.56 145111 04/29/2010 000813 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 713- 713102769 04/19/2010 395.00 396.00 145112 04/29/2010 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 4/13 - 1375 04113/2010 213.96 4113 -350 04/13/2010 1 22.71 341.67 14 511 04/2912010 001 GOLDSTAR PRODUCTS, I N C 001 5964 - 0041603 04/06/2010 905.64 905.64 1 04/2912010 002813 G RAING ER, INC 923591 3523 04/22/2010 99.14 99.14 145115 04129/2010 000499 GLAND AWARDS, INC 2552 04/0112010 23,66 23.65 14511 04129/2010 006058 1DNEY GRAY 042010 04/2812010 60.00 60.00 14511 04/29/2010 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 02810 04/2012010 334,16 33416 145118 04129/2010 000330 GSA- INFORMATION TECH 201 04/0612010 687.73 537.73 145119 04/29/2010 002405 CHUCK HARE 04281 0412812010 63.09 86,00 145120 04129/2010 994133 EDDIE HARRIS 042810 9412312019 40.00 40,00 145121 0412912010 007811 1 HAf A HARRIS 042810 0412312010 30.09 30.00 145122 0412912010 007799 STEVEN HAYES 942219 0412212910 150.00 150.00 145123 04/2912010 006060 MICHAEL HU EFT 042810 04/28/2010 73.20 73.20 145124 04/29/2010 001 793 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES, 008309592 04/1 512010 169.27 1 69.27 145125 04129/2010 007299 GAT N KETTING OLIVIER 042810 04/2312010 319,00 810.00 1451 0412912010 004845 JOHN LARS N 042310 04/2912010 129.09 120.00 145127 04129/2010 005511 CHRISTOPHER LII TNEF 042310 04/2912010 130.00 130.00 t� 145128 04129/2010 007808 MEGGAfi LOPEZ 942319 041261010 30,00 30.00 � 145129 04/2912010 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 100725 04101/2010 775,00 775.00 145130 04129/2010 006039 MARCH OF DIMES 042310 04/26/2010 30.00 30.00 �F 145131 04129/2010 007520 STEPHANIE 11 AST 042010 0412912010 66.00 66.00 N� Page: 1 ap kH1 t Check History Listing K30090 04108!2010 Page: 11 05103!2010 11:02A 1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 30504 0411212010 Bank code: boa K2375 Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv, Date Amount Paid Check Total 145132 04/2912010 007812 EMILIA MENDOZA 042810 04/2312010 25.00 25.00 145133 0412912010 004292 CATHY MENDOZA 042710 04/2712010 1 1 145134 04129/2010 002651 BECKY MILTON 042910 04/2912010 39.71 39.71 145135 0412912010 000429 DINER'S ACE HARDWARE, K31342 0412012010 333.69 19.01 Page: 11 K30090 04108!2010 1 50.02 30504 0411212010 92.42 K2375 0410612010 42,83 K23252 03122/2010 38.00 K28295 03122/2010 36.98 K3316 0411512010 22.80 10724 04/19/2010 19.01 L1090 04/21/2010 13-04 L0958 0410912010 5.02 K30511 0411212010 4. 88 L091 8 0410812010 0.85 K31 552 041231201 0 -35.04 724.55 145136 04129/2010 000437 CITY OF MORRO BAY 033110 04/2812010 962.72 962.72 145137 04129/2010 003023 M U N I C I PAL M GT A SS N OF 041310 04/1312010 139.99 130.00 1 45138 04129/2010 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE 157 04/1512010 450.00 450.00 145 139 0412912010 007202 N SSAMAN LLP 309701 04/14/2010 1,391.39 1 ,391. 145140 04/2912010 000408 OFFICE DEPOT 515431134001 04105/2010 124.11 514022050001 0410512010 25.1 51 5431288001 0410912010 9.12 158.39 145141 04129/2010 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELE 4113 - 620338 0411312010 232.46 D 4120 - 154503 0412012010 56.81 c� 4113 - 781298 0411312010 9.46 298.73 CL 145142 0412912010 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 7147128 - AP10 0411312010 56.00 56.00 0 145143 0412912010 000503 POOR ICHA D'S PRESS, 210040 0410612010 445.78 210733 0410812010 114.84 560.62 �F w� Page: 11 D t� c� CL 0) c� �F apkHlst Check History Listing Page: 12 06/03/2010 11 :02AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 145144 04/2912010 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 36469 0410812010 14.90 36517 04/1 9/2010 6.70 21.60 145145 0412912010 002751 RANGE MASTER 4020 04116!2010 106.74 106.74 145 04/2912010 000531 RICHETTI COMPLETE WATER 61023 0410212010 15.00 15.00 145147 0412912010 007665 WILLIAM I INEHART 042910 0412912010 70.53 70.53 1 45148 0412912019 004333 STEVE ROMO ROM 042610 041291201 11 0.00 11 0.00 1 0412912010 000536 GREG ROSE 042810 0412912010 140.00 140.00 145150 0412912010 006021 BLAKE RKELLEY 042810 04/2912010 220.00 220.00 145151 0412912010 006594 LA WRENCE RU KER 042810 0412912010 132.00 132.00 145152 0412912010 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 042810 0412912010 122.00 122.00 145153 04129/2010 002932 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 580462 0412312010 1,033.50 580476 0412312010 468.00 580472 04 #2312010 78.00 580465 0412312010 58.60 580463 0412312010 19.50 1,657-50 1 4515 4 0412912010 005493 JOSE SAHAGUN 04281 04129/2010 31 6.50 316.50 145155 0412912010 007805 ASHLEY SANDERS ON 042610 04126!2010 30.06 30.00 145156 0412912010 006080 MART1 NA SARMIENTO 042610 0412612010 160.66 160.00 145157 0412912010 003024 MARK SCHAFFER 042310 0412912010 160.66 160.00 145158 0412912010 007653 SECURITY BLANKET 10716 0411612010 1 1,236. 145159 0412912010 007792 TIM SHERIDAN 042810 0412912010 40.00 40.00 145160 04129/2010 007809 CLIFF SHOCK 042610 0412812010 100.00 100.00 145161 04/2912010 004360 TAMMY SMITH 042610 04/2912010 60.00 80.00 145162 0412912010 007753 THOMAS SMITH 042910 04129/2010 1 11250.00 Page: 12 D t� c� CL 0) c� �F a pkHi st Che History Listing P 13 0510312010 11 :02AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Vold Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 14 163 04/29/2018 007229 DONALD SNYDER 042310 9412912010 160.88 168.80 145164 04129/2010 007749 SALVADOR SOT SOTO 042310 04/2912010 28.00 20.00 145165 0412912818 000609 BOB SPEAR 042810 0412912010 66.00 66.00 145 0412912010 007801 SPECIALTY LAMPS 1 008649 8312412010 235.81 235.81 145167- 0412912810 007761 SPIESS CONSTRUCTION CO PW 2009 -10 0412812010 23,770.06 23,770.06 145168 04/2912810 001888 SPORT T SUPPLY GROUP, INC 93482849 0410712010 607.12 807.12 14 169 04/29/2010 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 777 0411 312010 422.13 77687 0411 312010 46.28 468.46 145170 04/29/2010 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 51149720.001 04/24/2010 4.44 4.44 145171 04/29/2010 094690 TABITHA TABAREZ 042610 04/2912010 30.08 30.08 145172 0412912010 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL IAL 1040356 04/0712010 560.33 1040401 04/0912010 140.99 1 040458 04/1412010 41.26 759.60 1451 04/29/2O1 004609 TROESH RECYCLING, INC 13638 04112/2O1O 161.12 161.12 145174 0412912810 000666 UNITED RENTALS 86862882 -001 04105/2010 79.77 79.77 145175 0412912810 006651 UNITED STAFFING ASSOC. 068645 04/2112010 1 1 145176 04/2912818 000673 U POSTAL SERVICE 042710 8412712010 3 3 1451 04/29/2018 000660 LISA BLUE BOOK 130353 0411512010 1 1 1451 04/29/2010 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS ELESS 0859012108 04/0712010 49.03 49.03 145179 04129120'10 000685 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF 29636 04/0712018 7753.29 2 9723 8411312818 3 29727 04/13/2010 17635.75 29702 94112/2010 1 29726 0411312010 1,870.37 29729 04/1312010 438.75 29724 8411312010 337.50 Page: 13 a p kHl t Check History Listing I Page: 14 06/03/2010 11 :0 AM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Statue ClearNoid Date Invoice Irv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 29730 04/13/2010 303.75 29731 04/13/2010 168.75 29725 04113/2010 67.50 29723 04/13/2010 67.50 17,012.44 145130 04/29/2010 007101 1/EEDEN'S PARCEL SERVICE E 040110 04/0112010 5.45 5 14518 04/2912010 007 WET DOG DESIGNS DA 1 2266 04/27/2010 325.71 12242 04/01/2010 100.49 426.20 145182 04129/2010 007307 ANDREW WILLIAMS 042810 04/2812010 60.00 60 145133 04/29/2010 000090 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC 1003 04/06/2010 1 1,693.75 145184 04/2012010 000704 IT1 EF -TYSON IMPORTS T736 04/0112010 50.31 50.61 1 4518 5 04129/2010 007806 CAT YONKER 04281 04/26/2010 30.00 30.00 1 04/29/2010 007786 SUZANNE YORK 0405 04/08/2010 45.00 45.00 1451 04/2012010 000716 ZO LL MEDICAL CORP 041210 04112/2010 435.37 485.37 boa Total: 209,364.12 187 che in this report Total Checks: 209 D t� c� c� �F 0 Page: 1 ATTACHMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL TAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD F. 41212010 - 4/15/2010 411' FUND 616 361 5101 Salaries Full time 1902349.66 FUND 220 16 1 132.23 5192 Salaries Part- Time - PPT 17,214.83 FUND 226 1,885.2 5163 Salaries Part -Time - TPT 13,812.06 FUND 284 1,496.04 5105 Salaries OverTime 12 FUND 285 1 5107 Salaries Standby 352.59 FUND 612 3 6166 Holiday Pay 1,074.46 FIND 649 19 .43 5199 Sick Pay 2 466 5110 Annual Leave Buyback - 111 Vacation Buyback - 112 sick Leave Buyback - 1 13 Vacation Pay 15,917.56 5114 Comp Pay 3,911.68 5115 Annual Leave Pay 8,936.54 6121 PERS Retirement 76 5122 Social Security 18,963.25 5123 PADS Retirement nt 437.39 5126 State Disability Ins. 1 5127 Deferred Compensation 736.59 5131 Health Insurance 38 5132 Dental Insurance 4 5133 Vision Insurance 996.66 5134 Life Insurance 545.51 5135 Long Terra Disability 906.58 5143 Uniform Allowance - 144 Car Allowance 675-00 5146 Council Expense - 147 Employee Assistance 292.54 5148 Boot Allowance - 5149 Motor Pay 166.99 5150 1- Lingual Pay 125.69 5151 Cell Phone Allowance 327.56 406,639.07 Agenda Item 8.a. Page 17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 8.a. Page 18 A. MIoRPpr Q P" imy 10. loll MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FRONT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER BY: KELLY WETM RE, DIRECTOR of LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICES /CITY CLERK{ 4� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CANCELLATION of JULY 27, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETIN DATE: MAY 'Il 2010 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council cancel the regularly scheduled Council meeting of July 27, 2010. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. B ACKGROUND: O n August 14, 2007, the City Council considered the concept of establishing a policy of designating a summer month for cancellation of Council meetings. The purpose was to designate a month "dark" from Council meetings in the summer so the City Council and staff could coordinate their vacations during this period. staff recommended the month of July because it was the only full month in which school is not in session and it includes the July holiday. ANALYSIS of ISSUES: The City Council meets twice a month on the second and fourth Tuesdays. When the Council established the policy of designating a summer month for cancellation, concerns were expressed regarding the impact on other meeting agendas and potential delays to important items. Therefore, it was suggested that one meeting be cancelled in July as a compromise. The City Council concurred and a policy was established to cancel the first meeting in July of each year. A t the March 23, 2010 meeting, Council Member Fellows requested, and the Council concurred, to place o the agenda a request to consider cancellation of the second meeting in July this year instead of the first meeting. staff also noted that this year the Agenda Item 8.b. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION of CANCELLATION of JULY 27, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11,2 1 PAGE 2 City has a Consolidated Special Municipal Election on June 8, 2010 to consider approval of a bond measure for a new police facility. The County Clerk is required to canvass and certify the election results within 28 days of the election and the Council must declare the results at its net regularly scheduled meeting thereafter. Based on this timeline, it is expected staff will present election results to the Council for acceptance at its ,July 13 meeting. Therefore, staff recommends the Council approve Council Member Fellow's request to meet the first meeting in July and cancel the July 27 meeting. ALTERNATIVES: ES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1. Cancel the July 27, 2010 City Council Meeting; 2. Cancel the July 13, 2010 City Council Meeting as established by Council policy and schedule a special meeting to accept the election results; 3. Direct staff to rake changes to the current policy; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: By cancelling the July 27, 2010 meeting,, the Council will be able to meet on July 13, 2010 to accept the results of the J une 8 7 2010 Special Municipal Election. Additionally, it provides the City Council and staff an opportunity to plan a vacation during the summer months without being absent from a meeting or being concerned about missing an item that is important for their vote or input. DISADVANTAGES: Cancellation of a regular meeting may result in heavier agendas at the prig and following meetings. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 6, 2010 and on the City's website on Friday, May 7, 2010. Agenda Item 8.b. Page 2 INCORPORATED imy ,o, 11D11 MEMORANDUM M To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of REQUEST To CALTI AI S. THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BE PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED Los BERROS ROAD To TRAFFIC WAY MEDIAN BARRIER PROJECT DATE: MAY 11 2010 RECOMMENDATION: DATION: It is recommended the City Council approve submittal of a letter to Caltrans formally requesting an Environmental Impact Report be prepared on the proposed Los Berros load to Traffic Way median barrier project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There would be no financial impact to the City from the proposed action. BACKGROUND: Caltrans has proposed a project providing gap closures between existing segments of median barrier, resulting in the median closure of existing at -grade intersection and crossover locations, including El Campo Road and Laetitia Winery. With the construction of this project, median barrier will be present from the Santa Maria Way under crossing to the Cuesta Forest crossover. The purpose is to minimize the potential for cross - median collisions. public w orkshop was held by Caltrans on February 16, 2010. At the February 23, 2010 meeting, the City Council directed staff to submit a letter to Caltrans requesting a test closure of the proposed project. Based on staff's last discussion with representatives from Caltrans, it appears their intent is to first install warning signs to determine if accidents are reduced prior to making additional changes. At the April 27, 2010 meeting, Mayor Ferrara requested the Council also consider submitting a formal request for preparation of an EII. Attached is a sample letter for consideration, as well as other background information he requested to share with the Council. Agenda Item 8.c. Page 1 crnr COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO CALTRANS THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BE PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED LOS BERROS READ TO TRAFFIC WAY MEDIAN BARRIER PROJECT MAY 11 2010 PAGE 2 ANALYSIS of ISSUES: In 2004, staff submitted to the County concerns identified by the City regarding increased safety and circulation issues at El Campo Road that would have been created by the original Busick Tract project proposal. However, this was addressed with the Castillo Del Near agreement, which would provide road improvements and access to the Busick Tract project through the City. Current concerns exist regarding the potential impact on the Traffic Way and risco Halcyon interchanges in the City of Arroyo Grande from the proposed median barrier project. This issue is outlined in the attached letter from attorneys of Laetitia Winery, which also recommends an EIF . The letter also identifies issues of the impact of the closure o n traffic to the City of Arroyo from diverting Laetitia's commercial vehicles, to Laetitia's business, and to its agricultural operations. An additional issue relative to the deliberation regarding the project is the impact on compliance with provisions of SB 375 since it would increase vehicle travel by creating a barrier to the shortest route to locations adjacent to E1 Campo Toad. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Approve the draft letter; Modify and approve the letter; - Do not approve sending the letter to Caltrans; Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: An EIR would better determine traffic impacts to the City of Arroyo Grande prior to consideration of the project. DISADVANTAGES: The disadvantage of an EIR would be the cost to Caltrans of preparing the EI I . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Caltrans will serve as the lead agency for environmental revie w. No environmental review is required for this action by the City. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 6, 2010 and on the City's website on Friday, May 7, 2010. No public comments were received. Agenda Item 8.c. Page 2 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO CALTRANS THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BE PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED LOS BERROS ROAD TO TRAFFIC WAY MEDIAN BARRIER PROJECT MAY 11 2010 PAGE 3 Attached: 1 . Proposed Letter to CItrn 2. Letter from Ad mski Moroski Madden & Green 3. Information submitted by Anthony Det eller Agenda Item 8.c. Page 3 P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Phone: (805) 473 -5404 FAX: (805) 473 -0386 E-Mail: ageity@arroyogrande.org ATTACHMENT 1 May 12, 2010 Richard Krurnhol Caltrans District 5 Deputy Director o Higuera Street Baru Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Krurnhor: On behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande, I would like to communicate our request that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared in consideration of the proposed Los B erros Road to Traffic Way Median Barrier Project. It is the City's position that the potential impacts of the project on the Traffic Way and Eris o /Halcyon interchanges in the City of Arroyo Grande have not been adequately analyzed. The City has not been provided any analysis on the level of increased traffic that would result from eliminated or reduced access to Highway 101 at El Campo Road. The impact to Laetitiars business, its agricultural operations and the impact on traffic in Arroyo Grande from diverting Laetitia's commercial vehicles has not been determined. Furthermore, the project ap inconsistent with provisions of S 375 since it would increase vehicle travel by pp creating a barrier to the shortest route to locations adjacent to El Campo load. Please feel free to contact us if you have questions or would like additional information. Thank you for your consideration of our recommendation. Sincerely, Tong Ferrara Mayor . City Council Agenda Item 8.c. Page 4 ATTACHMENT P OST OFFIcF, Box 3835 S AN L UIS Owspo, CA 93 403 - 3335 ADAMSKI MOR05KI MADDEN &GREEN AT'T RNEYS AT L AW www. info @arnzaw.om April 6 Julie McGuigan Associate Environmen Coordinator Wildlife and Conservation Biologist Caltrans -05 San Luis Obispo 50 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -5415 R e: Highway 101 Gap Closures Dear Ms. McGuigan: eo �k tAl 0,J) Ci�. j F This letter is written on behalf of Laetitia Winery ith regard to the Caltrans proposal to close the two Highway 101 gaps adjacent to the Laetitia property. As we have previously advised Caltrans, closure of these gap would literally destroy aetiti ! wine - tasting business by reducing its customer base by some 0 %. Moreover, because Laetitia (and its predecessors) operate a single farming operation on both sides of the Highway, closure might well male it impossible to continue operations in their current form. This letter, however, is specifically addressed to the concept that the gap closures are categorically exempt under CQA. The basis underlying that concept, at least as we understand it, is that the "project," which includes closing the E Campo crossing and all "gaps" south to Los erro, appears to be the existing streets and highways exception found in Section 15301(c) of the C QA Guidelines. This exemption, however, is subject to the overriding authority found in Section 15300.2 a ) which provides that no categorical exemption is appropriate "where them is a reasonable possibility that the activity w ill have a significant effect on the enviromment due to unusual circumstances." It is apparent that the proposed project will have significant environmental impacts which dictates that a categorical exemption would be inappropriate. Those significant envirornmental impacts are discussed below: Local Traffic Impacts It appears that current traffic studies undertaken by Caltrans, at least as available to the public do not adequately address the potentially significant impact of the project on local tr These local concerns fall into at least three broad categories. The first reasonably possible impact is the redistribution of traffic that would normally use the E Campo Crossing. Traffic that currently uses E Campo to access 101 North will h ave to find an alternative route. The analysis within the current study as to redistribution routes and the potential volume of tra that each will be required to support does not include several of the local streets that will b e affected. For example, it is impossible to determine what percentage of the current El Campo traffic will reroute on local streets to access the Los lerros r LLB `}' „ FL EPn r4;.i; �> ( 1 3 -0990 A" N ILE: &Y 1`43 PA so R OBLES oFFI : 1945 S PRING TREET❖ P ASO ]ROBLES, C 93446-1620 -:• TELEPHONE (805) 238 - 23 0 * g n &a ieF- ;0 C3 -2322 Page 5 Julie McGuigan April 6,2010 Page o 1. nterchange and what percentage will reroute through Arroyo Grande via the already impacted valley view -Fair Oaks-Traffic way system. Given existing problems, any redistributing Will certainly have significant impacts that need to be identified and vll have to be addressed through street improvements and traffic control. An additional issue is the fact that Arroyo Grande High School is located on the local diversion route. Common sense and even a cursory review of the situation would seem to indicate that redistributing traffic creates some very real problems on the local street system that must be evaluated and ultimately mitigated. The current studies appear to ignore those local problems and focus instead only on matters that directly impact Caltrans jurisdiction. The local authorities are left to devise their own solutions to those problems that will be created by the proposed project. This is not consistent with the intent or the letter of CQA This failure to adequately analyze the impacts on local traffic is critical to an analysis of the effect of closing the Letitia gaps. These effects will cause a modification of the proposed project to allow necessary access and circulation for local traffic and businesses. Our client has been repeatedly told that the reason for closing the Laetitia gaps is to prevent traffic from entering Highway 101 South at El Campo, traveling to the Laetitia gap, and then making a U -tum, of sorts, onto Highway 101 North. First, as simply a matter of practicality, this concern makes little sense because of the distance and time involved. It also ignores the ability of Caltrans to restrict use of the gaps for left-hand turns which effectively ely alleviates the concern. Of more relevance to an adequate environmental analysis, however, is the question as to how many drivers would actually even consider this maneuver. In order to make this determination, the location and number of homes would need to be considered against probable traffic routes. A cursory review of such patterns would seem to indicate, at least from a common sense perspective, that it would be far easier for almost all potential traffic to use either the Los Berros on ramp or interior streets. In fact, it would seem that those few who might even consider this route would be the residents of Falconridge and, it is our understanding that, many, if not most of those residents, have indicated that they would not use the Letitia gaps to access 101 North. In fact, it is our understanding that no one has given Caltrans any indication that they would entertain the thought of using such a circuitous route. (Again, it would also seem that imposing restrictions on left turns onto Northbound 101 would virtually eliminate any such possibility.) In any event, the information gleaned and evaluated to date adds nothing to the analysis of this concern. Further environmental work is necessary to at least make an informed decision to take the dramatic step of closing the Laetitia gaps. • Caltrans has also not considered the impact of commercial vehicles hauling product from L,aetitia winery. Admittedly, throughout much of the year that impact will be minimal. wring harvest season, however, southbound vehicles Agenda Item 8.c. Page 6 Julie McGuigan April 6, 2010 Page will create havoc on Arroyo Grande's local traffic situation. Because of the size and turning radius of the trucks, southbound traffic will have to begin northbound on 10 1 . take the Grand Avenue exit and, make a left turn over the overpass before being able to proceed on 101 South. This six -mile ground trip raises a host of issues which don't appear to have even been considered. One of those issues is obviously the impact on local traffic. Another are concerns the Air Pollution Control District may have with diverting trucks through heavy business district traffic. There is no indication that Cal trans has considered the impact closure of the gaps will have on Laetitia!s business. In earlier correspondence, we noted the devastating economic impact the proposed project will have. It is almost a certainty that Laetitia will be forced to eliminate or greatly reduce its retail work force. This in turn will impact the image Arroyo Grande has fostered as a destination of many activities including a varied wine tasting experience. Laetitia has been a vital part of that image. It is also an interesting position for a g ovemmental agency, in this economic climate, to be considering an action that will result in the elimination of j ohs.) Finally, at least for purposes of this letter, the impact on L etiti 's direct agricultural operations has not been considered. As noted above, Laetitia owns property and fauns on both sides of Highway 101. That is only feasible because of the ability to cross 101 rather than travel the long distances which would be necessitated if the gaps are closed. This will negatively and significantly increase the cost and efficiency of fanning which, in turn., may very well force Laetitia to reduce its operations and thereby remove land from production and further eliminating job opportunities. It is pp arent that, based on the information created to elate, Caltrans is not in a position to adequately evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project. It is also readily apparent that in the project's current form there is much more than a "possibility" that it will result in significant environmental impacts. A categorical exemption would be both premature and inappropriate. Rather, we urge Caltrans to consider the impacts of this project both on local traffic and, more directly, to Laetitia winery and its employees. Very truly yours, DAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN & GREEN LLP THOMAS D. GREEN cc: Katcho Achad i n Tony Ferrara Agenda Item 8.c. Page 7 ATTACHMENT T LOS BERROS TO TRAFFIC WAY Median Barrier Safety Project Comment Card Addendum Problems with Cal -Trans Proposal: I understand that the proposed barrier wil l prohibit crossing the Highway 10 1 median from Traffic way to Los Berros Road, located south of Arroyo Grande. The length of the barrier would be almost 5 miles and would prohibit the cross traffic and left turns primardy at El Campo Road and in to /out of Laetitia winery, although there are other minor median crossings which would be affected as well. The distance from El Campo Road to Los Berros Rd. (the next interchange to the south) is about miles, requiring traffic wanting to go north on Highway 101 from El Campo to take an 8 mile detour. otherwise, traffic from the Arroyo Grande mesa wanting to go north on Highway 101 (the bulk of traffic on El Campo comes from there) would need to use Los Berros toad 1 south for approx. 4 miles to the Los erros Highway 10 1 interchange or 2 north to valley ltd. and proceed roughly north (passing the west side of Arroyo Grande High School) to Fair oaks Ave. This option would be taken by most people wanting to go to the Village of Arroyo Grande, whereas presently they go north on Highway 10 1 at El Campo and then exit at Traffic way. At that point, traffic desiring to go to the village or north on Highway 101 would have two choices: 1. Turn left on Fair oaks Ave. to Halcyon Ind., turn right (approx. north) to El Canino, then left to the B ri s co underpass at Highway 10 1, then right under the 101 Freeway, and left onto the northbound on -ramp (See orange route # 1 on Map Exhibit A). 2. Turn right on Fair Oaks Ave. (passing the north side of Arroyo 'xrande Nigh School and its main parking lot) to Traffic way, then left approx. north) to Branch St. (which becomes Grand Ave. to the west), and finally right onto the northbound on -ramp at Highway 101. For village traffic, vehicles would turn right at Branch St. (See orange route # 2 on Map Exhibit A). By routing traffic that would normally use Highway 10 1 north to Los Berro r Ind., these potential problems should be pointed out: 1. Los B erros is a two -lane rural road without a divider and without traffic signals. Any closure of that route (either from accident or, as recently happened, a tree blown down across it ) would leave few choices for mesa traffic other than using State Highway 1 to the west, which is significantly off -route for northbound or Village traf fic. 2. At the northeast corner of valley lid. and Fair oaks Ave. sits Arroyo Grande High School. This is a very busy place, especially at the beginning of classes approx. 730 AM to 8:15 AM daily) and at the end of the class day (approx. 2:45 PM to 3:15 PM daily). Both Valley load and Fair oaks Ave. are inadequate even now at those times to handle the school traffic. Forcing added traffic to use those roads would exacerbate an already difficult situation. Agenda Item 8.c. Page 8 Alternatives: Given the cost estimate of the barrier (approx. $ m and the significant inconvernience of the alternate routes (not to mention added safety risks for students at Arroyo Grande High School due to increased traffic on Valley Toad and Fair Oaks Ave. ), I would suggest two concurrent actions that would decrease the safety risk that the El Campo/Highway 101 grade crossing presents until (ultimately) and interchange can be built to accommodate El Campo traffic. First, lower the speed limit on Highway 101 from Traffic way in the north to the Laetitia crossover in the south to 55MPH and post visible signage and flashing yellow lights warning of congestion. CHP should patrol Highway 101 vigorously and cite speed limit violators aggressively. Second, construct an interim project that could be completed in short order, as follows: 1. At the first crossover south of El Campo (see Map Exhibit , where the median 'is wider, construct a southbound leftfU -turn lane with adequate deceleration space that would allow dual axle vehicles (NOT semis and trucks) to complete a U -turn within the space of the median (which may need some widening, and require the north or south dual lanes of Highway 101 to be moved a bit to the outside of present placement). When, build an acceleration lane for merging north on Highway 101 to be used by U -turn traffic proceeding north (see Map Exhibit . 2. At the El Campo/ Highway 101 intersection: . Build a barrier that would prohibit left turns from El Campo to Highway 10 1 north but allow turns from northeast bound El Campo to Highway 101 south (ONLY IF # 1, above, is implemented) . b. Significantly increase the acceleration lane merging on to Highway 101 south (the current lane is miserably inadequate and should be unproved in any event). c. Allow northbound Highway 101 traffic to continue to make left turns on to El Campo, across southbound Highway 101 traffic. I would expect this will significantly decrease the safety risk at this intersection by eliminating the crossing of southbound Highway 101 traffic lanes from El Campo yet providing a reasonably close ad much safer) alternative to El Campo traffic desiring to go north on Highway 101. It would also eliminate the problem that extra traffic would cause on Valley Rd. and Fair oaks Ave. I also would hope it can be accomplished within the $7mm amount Cal - trans has allocated for the project. Agenda Item 8.c. Page 9 CL 2) po O 0 feJr`,� rJ / /Oc�. s/ � 4r, eLl cr 00 f:ofo t� 0�1 c I r, ... . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . .... A Item 8.c. Pa 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 8.c. Page 12 RRO A. INCORPORATED #3 n� LY 10, 19 11 MEMORANDUM To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COM MUNITY UNITY D E E DI RECTO R SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION O DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE O. 10-001 — A PROPOSED ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO CONSIDER CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF ""A GRICULTURAL LAND" AND AGRICULTURAL VITIATION POLICIES DATE: MAY 11 201 RECOMMENDATION DATION The Planning Commission recommends that the city Council introduce an ordinance amending Titre 16 of the Municipal code (Development Code) to clarify agricultural conversion and mitigation requirements. FINANCI IMPACT: No fiscal impact at this time. BACKGROUND: Durin g 2003, the city staff prepared a comprehensive revie w and proposed necessary revisions to the 2001 General Plan and Development code, as well as alternatives outlined in the Rep on the Conservation of riculture in the City of Arro o Grande. Below is a summary of discussions and actions that have involved policies and re gulations related to Agricultural protection and buffers within the City of Arroyo Grande since the General Plan update in 2001 (Attachment 1). On January 14, 2003, the city council adopted Ordinance No. 536 suspending the accep tance of development applications for land containing prime farmland soils. A public workshop was held on May 28 2003 to solicit public input on policies protecting Agriculture. In the summer of 2003, three public hearings were held by the Planning Commi ssion to receive public input on the Conser of Agricuftural Resources for the City of rr Grande and related issues (see Attachment 1) Agenda Item 9.a. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE N0.10 -001 MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 2 On ,,July 22, 2003, the City council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution 3699 to implement specific recommendations from the Agricultural Report, including the initiation of an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map, an amendment to certain policies of the General Plan, the establishment of agricultural conservation easement and support programs, and an amendment to the Municipal Code modifying allowable uses and 'Standards, establishing mitigation measures and a buffer overlay district. * On September 23, 2003, the City council adopted Resolution loo. 3711 that approved General Plan amendment 03 -002 to implement the first of a series of recommendations initiated by resolution 3699, changing the land use designation of four parcels to agriculture, modifying language in the Land Use Element and amending the Agriculture, Conservation and Open space Element to revise implementation policy for mitigation of convrted agricultural lands. At the November 25, 2003 meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment for Planning Commission and City Council consideration eliminating the word "minimize" from Objective Ag'l of the 2001 General Plan Update Agricultural Element. On December g, 2003 the City Council adopted ordinance fro. 550 (Development Code Amendment 03 -005) to implement the second in a series of recommendations initiated by resolution 3599, incorporating regulations and amending the Zoning Map to create an Agricultural Preservation Overlay District buffers of 100 feet around all agriculturally zoned property, requiring adequate findings for subdivision or rezoning of agricultural lands, and implementing mitigation requirements and revising land use regulations for all agricultural districts. In March 2004, the City Council adopted resolution 339 approving General Plan Amendment 03-003 that included alternatives for the third and final actions from the recommendations established by Resolution 3599. These actions included development and support for a formalized Agricultural Enterprise Support Program ( AESP) and an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ACEP for the City. In October 2004, the City council considered an interpretation of the Agricultural Buffer provision from Ordinance No. 550, related to residential uses within the buffer area e.g. backyards, maintenance of new buffers, and the location of the 20 ft. landscape strip within the 100 ft. minimum buffer. The Council made the interpretations 1 that no new residential uses (including backyards and garages associated with new residential uses) are allowed within the loo -ft. minimum buffer, 2 that new buffer areas are to be maintained by either a homeo wners association, a maintenance district, or dedicated to the City for new residential uses as specified in the Ordinance; and 3 that flexibility regarding the location of Agenda Item 9.a. Page 2 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE N0.10 -001 MAY il 2010 PAGE 3 the 20 ft. landscape strip within the 1 00-ft. minimum buffer be allowed with a preference for Keeping the landscape strip as far array from agricultural operations as possible. In May 200 5, the Interpretation of General Plan policies under objective Agl of the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element was brought to the Council for discussion. The purpose of discussion was to clarify the intended purpose and scope of policies aimed at conserving prime farmland soils as they relate to differences between properties zoned agriculture and those that are zoned residential commercial or for other non - agricultural uses. The Council concurred that a "conversion" according to the definition In the Municipal Code indicates that a loss of prime farmland soils shell refer to their unavailability for agricultural use; and concurred that the General Plan policies gave sufficient direction, even though they are not specific, to make determinations on a case by case basis and no action was taken to modify policies. In June 2005, the City Council received a progress report and presentation delivered by the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo county regarding the agricultural preservation program, including the development of a system of land prioritization and conservation information for agricultural property owners and to encourage voluntary agricultural conservation easements. In August 200 7, Mayor Pro Tern Fellows requested and the City Council concurred, to agendie additional review and discussion of the City's buffer policy regarding buffer width. On ,January 22, 200 8, staff presented an updated and expanded summary of buffer policies in other jurisdictions in California. The City council directed staff to have a Cal Poly student examine the landscape design standards of buffers and include as part of the Agriculture /Conservation and open Space Element update to the General Flan. A taster's Thesis was completed by a previous Planning Intern on specific landscape design for agricultural buffers. This study will be presented as part of the Conservation/Open Space Element update along with the creek care guide. On September 1, 2003, the Planning Commission voted not to forward the portion of a proposed clean -up ordinance regarding clarification of conversion of Agricultural land and to have the issue addressed as a separate project. On September 22, 2009, the City council directed staff to present specific alternatives to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for definition of conversion and when mitigation is re quired. On April 20, 2010, the Planning Commission voted 3 -2 vote to recommend to the City Council approval of Development code Amendment Case No. 10-001 to Agenda Item 9.a. Page 3 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT T CODE AMENDMENT CASE Flo. 10-001 MAY 11 , 201 PAGE clarify the definition of "Agricultural Land" for the purposes of conversion and Agricultural mitigation policies. ANALYSIS of ISSUES: The purpose of this proposal is to address two primary issues that have been identified. The first is whether mitigation for loss 'of prime soils should be required for development of property that is not zoned agriculture. The second is whether to modify language in the Development code to provide more discretion to the city Council to determine ghat constitutes appropriate mitigation. In 2005 the City Council made an interpretation that the conversion of agricultural land occurs when it is re -zoned and or re- designated from an Agricultural designation. However, there has been continued discussion and consideration at the Planning Commission regarding what constitutes the conversion of agricultural land. The following code sections are pertinent to the issue: Section 16.04.070 Definitions — "agricultural land or farmland" means those land areas of the county and/or city specifically designated or zoned as agriculture, agriculture preserve or agricultural general. This definition is applicable throughout the Development Code unless superseded by a separate specific definition in a subsequent code section. Section 16,12.170 Fight to Farm provisions = subsection 1 .12.170 B. Applicability. "Agricultural land' means land use categories identified in the land use element, land zoned exclusively for agricultural use as defined in Section 16.04.070), or land in agricultural production. Please note that this definition in a subsequent section of the Code includes "land in agricultural production ". This definition is applicable to the entire `Tight to farm" section, and encompasses land in current agricultural production allowing for notice and good neighbor policy implementation to alleviate conflicts between agricultural activities and residents. code amendments relating agricultural mitigation and buffers were added on to section 1 .1 2.170 beginning with subsection E. during the 2003 -2004 general plan and zoning amendments. Subsection 1 .1 2.1 7g F. Agricultural Land Conversion. 1. The city shall require agricultural mitigation by applicants for discretionary entitlements which will change the use of agricultural land to any non - agricultural use. Also pertinent to the issue of agricultural impacts is the City's process for evaluating projects under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act CE A . The basic questions asked during project review (including discretionary project review, re- zoning or general plan amendments) follow. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 4 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE N0.10 -001 MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 5 Will the project: a Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use b Impair agricultural use of other property or result in conversion to other uses? c Conflict. with existing zoning or Williamson Act program? The question of CEA applicability for agricultural conversions was considered in May 20. The CEA checklist asks will a project convert prime agricultural land to a no- agricultural use. Agencies have varying definitions for agricultural land and prime soils. The lead agency conducting the CEA review must apply this question to its own definitions and policies. A potentially significant impact to agriculture resources requiring avoidance or mitigation would occur for the change in use for any land that is zoned for agriculture, whether or not it is used for agriculture. As such, and in accordance with General Plan Policy Agl-.3, approval of a project that includes conversion of agricultural land would, under most circumstances be considered with the benefit of an Environmental Impact Deport. Land used for a Ire but not zoned Actriculture Given the above two definitions, requirement for mitigation, and CE QA language, there is need to clarify at what point land is converted. Specifically, does land in agricultural production, but zoned for development require mitigation to develop. All land and soil classifications citywide were evaluated during the 2003-2005 General Plan and zoning amendments for agricultural conservation. Through these previous actions, all land that is not zoned for agricultural use is intended to be considered land that has already been converted. Given this intent, additional agricultural mitigation is not required for the change in use or division of land that is not zoned for agriculture. The primary example is property at the southeast corner of Traffic Way and E. cherry Avenue that is zoned Traffic Way Mixed Use ( T MU) and currently farmed. After consideration of soil classification, farming history and historical use and zoning, this property was specifically excluded from an action that re- designated the adjacent parcels back to an Agricultural designation in 2003. importantly, if the property was not farmed and a new agricultural use was proposed, it would not be considered an allowed use given the commercial/mixed use zoning designation. However, given the conflicting definitions in the code, it remains unclear if agricultural mitigation would be required should an application be submitted for commercial use of this commercially zoned property because it is in agricultural production. As part of this report, staff did conduct a LESA analysis on the TM property at E. Cherry and Traffic Way and concludes that the change in use of this property does not cause a significant environmental impact accordin g to the model see Attachment 3.)' 1 The current LESA model has been criticized in past discussions in its application to smaller parcel. However, in this analysis staff used very conservative criteria to account for the size and nature of panels in the City. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 5 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE N0. 10 -001 MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 6 It is important to note that there are only five lots in the City that are used for agriculture, and not necessarily commercial agriculture, that are not zoned Agriculture (Attachment 2. Three of these lots are zoned Traffic Way Mined use as previously discussed. The remaining two lots are zoned for residential use and the land includes orchards for private use. Land not used or zoned A riculure but include prime soils There is also land that is not zoned Agriculture but that has soils that are considered to be "prime" farmland (class I or II soils). This includes most of the commercial and residential neighborhoods in the Village. The issue of loss of prime soils, despite zoning designation has come up in previous development proposals, including the recent Cherry Creek project that included land zoned residential with prime soils. Although a mitigation fee was applied to the project for impact to agriculture, it was later removed. In this case a model was applied to the project during environmental review referred to as the Land Evaluation and site Assessment model (LESA) that is a point -based approach for rating the relative importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific measurable features. No significant impact to agricultural resources was identified for the project using this model. This is due to the fact that the model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project's size, grater resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. Remaining land in the City that includes prime soils, but is not zoned agriculture, will score low based on these considerations. Given that the City has considered the conservation of agricultural resources on a Citywide basis and took action to re -zone property based on this analysis, staff continues to maintain that land not zoned for agriculture is not subject to agricultural mitigation even when the land includes prime soils because it is not designated for agricultural use. In order to clarify this intent for future applications, the following proposal is included in the attached Ordinance. 1 .12.1 o B. Applicability. "Agricultural land" means land use categories identified in the land use element, land zoned exclusively for agricultural use as defined in section 16.04.070, or, for the pumoses of subsections C. D. and E land in agricultural production. This change is intended to clarify that land in agricultural production - is considered agricultural land for the purposes of the City's Right to Farm policy C, Public Information of the light to Farm Policy and the application of Agricultural buffers (E Agenda Item 9.a. Page 6 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO, 10 -001 MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 7 Subsection 1 .12.170 F. Agricultural Land conversion. 1. The city shall require agricultural mitigation by applicants for discretionary entitlements which will subdivide or change the use f lend Zoned riculture or Ag riculture Preserve to any non - agricultural use. This change is intended to further clarify that mitigation is required for any impacts to land zoned for agricultural use. In any application of "conversion" _ and resulting mitigation, the City must be r*Indful of the legal principals of "rough proportionality r' as applicable to the amount of mitigation required for converted land. ari ul u al Miti _ a for The 2001 General Plea, including subsequent updates, specifies requirements for agricultural resource protection (Attachment 4. First and foremost is Objective Ag1 that states: "Avoid and or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non- prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands." The first policy under this objective A -1 includes direction to "Designate prime farmland soils that are not predominately committed to non - Agricultural development as Agriculture (Ag) and Agriculture Preserve A P , whether or not in current agricultural production." The city completed this task in 2003. Progress on other policies has also been made, including requirements for agricultural buffers and maintaining overall protection of lands through a mitigation program by obtaining agricultural easements. The original intent of General Plan policies, including Ag1-4, was to provide some fle on determination of adequate mitigation. General Plan Policy Agl -4.2 specifically states that "other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of in -lieu fees or such other mitigation accep table to the City Council.p' However, subsequent Development Code updates include very specific language stipulating what mitigation is required. Recommended language will rake the Development Code more consistent with the General Plan if the city Council determines it should re- establish this flexibility. Required mitigation includes the preservation of other land by a farmland easement or payment of in -lieu fees to be used to acquire a farmland easement either inside or outside the city limits. Staff recommends the following modifications to existing code language for mitigation: 16-12.170.F.2. Agricultural mitigation shall be satisfied y: U41 My a. Granting a fay .m.n. �,-,� agricultural conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction or other =_� a _qricultural conservation mechanism to or for the benefit of 11%.Av V%A the city and a uali in approved the city. Mitigation shall be required for q f g entity pp that portion of the land which no longer will be designated or zoned agricultural land, including any portion of the land used for park and recreation purposes that will p ermanently rotect rmme agricultural and rime soils from development _ ?J or will benefit reservation of agricultural land and operations through other means as determined by the Cit y Council. At least as many acres of prime agricultural land shall Agenda Item 9.a. Page 7 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 10 -001 MAY 11 2410 PAGE 8 be protected as was changed to a non - agricultural use within city limits, or up to two 2 times as many acres of agricultural land shall be protected outside the city but within the city's area of environmental concern, as was changed to a nonagricultural use, in order to mitigate the loss of agricultural land; or b. In lieu of conserving agricultural land as provided above if the city council determines that the payment of in -lieu fees provide a superior opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of the general plan, agricultural mitigation may be satisfied by the payment of a fee, established by the city council by resolution or through an enforceable agreement with the developer, based upon a farmland replacement factor of up to two - to -one 2:1 to be used for acquisition of a farmland conservation easement or farmland deed restriction. The in -lieu fee option must be approved by the city council. The fee shall be t .. based u on current mall1cfincs rztnff tonna fr-- n r, c ne rt% x fm —,111filml %195916r %111bw 1%09 %9M4%%Pffl5%Wffl1 appraisal information for the ac uisition of a conservation easement on rep lacement land plus all related Cit y administrative and le aI costs. The in --lieu fee, paid to the city, shall be used for farmland mitigation purposes, with priority given to leads with prime agricultural soils located within the city. c. other mitigation measures may be determined acceptable by the City council. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives to the proposal could include a requirement that mitigation be required for land that includes prime soils regardless of its zoning and past consideration. The Planning Commission rejected all alternatives outlined below: C r } } Subsection 1 .12.170 F. Agricultural Land Conversion. 1. The city shall ...... require agricultural mitigation b applicants for discretionary entitlements which ill q g g subdivide or change the use of land zoned Agriculture or Agriculture Preserve to any non- agricultural use; or any land with prime soils that is neater than 2- acres and that has been continuously farmed for the previous 10- ears rior to a ro osed p roject and the conversion of which is considered si icant by application of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment MESA model. This Alternative would allow consideration of impacts associated with parcels greater than 2 -acres that have been used as farmland irregardless of the zoning. A LESA model example is provided for the 2.69 -acre commercial property at Traffic Way and E. Cherry Avenue {Attachment 3. The remaining adjacent property is 13-acres and zoned Agriculture. : } t} t s Alteeh'Mi ubsection 1 .12.170 F. Agricultural Land Conversion. 1. The city shall t: require ag ricultural mitigation by applicants for discretionary entitlements which will change the - use of land that is zoned Ag riculture or Ag ricultural Preserve or lard with rime soils that have been farmed continuously for 10 y ears p rior to a ro osed proiect to any non - agricultural use. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 8 CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE N0. 10 -001 MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 9 This alternative however may penalize land owners who have continued to farm their land though it has been previously converted to a non - agricultural land use designation /zoning. Although there is no vested right to a specific zoning category, this alternative may be viewed as contrary to City policy and resulting expectations given the previous actions of the City and the isolated properties to which this would apply. Altemat e is'44eele subsection 16-12.170 F. Agricultural Land Conversion. 1.- The city shall req uire agricultural mitigation by applicants for discretionary entitlements which will change the use of agricultural land that is zoned 6griculture r Agri Preserve or land that has been farmed continuously for 10 ygars prior to a proposed pro'et and i s 1 -acres or over, to any non - agricultural use. This alternative uses a 10-acre criteria that would trigger an EIR and mitigation for land that is not zoned Agriculture but is used as farmland. The City of Stockton uses a 10- acre criteria to differentiate between projects that require a conservation easement or land dedication (over 1 0-acres), and projects that require an in -lieu fee (under 1 0-acres) as agricultural mitigation. As discussed above, the City of Arroyo Grande allows consideration of an in -lieu fee for any amount of land by the City Council if it is determined that it provides a superior opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of the General Plan. The City of Stockton, however, does provide an example of a different standard applied to projects larger than 10- acres. The Planning Commissioners were in agreement that the tenure of farming activities and panel size should not be built into the criteria for conversion. However, the Commission differed on the policy strategy for farmland protection. The majority favored tying conversion to zoning, citing the comprehensive steps taken to zone existing agricultural parcels in the City. The minority favored a system tied directly to prime soils, requesting a tiered approach that would include the application of more reasonable mitigation in -lieu fees to projects that are residentially and/or commercially zoned. such a strategy would require a system such as a modified LESA model to distinguish level of impact. This could be achieved by devising a model that would, for example, increase the number of points given to smaller parcels. However, weighting categories differently would be somewhat arbitrary. The main argument for the need for a different system is that reliance on defining conversions through zoning and general plan land use designation is transitory and can be changed by future Councils (requiring legislative findings and likely a statement of overriding considerations). However, the adoption of a modified LESA model, or other system would be accomplished by City Council Resolution, and as such, could be also be modified by a future City Council (and without the need for legislative findings or Statement of Overriding Considerations). Therefore, while the proposal to amend the Development Code to clarify conversions may not prevent the conversion of non - agriculturally zoned /designated land, it should continue to provide a strong mechanism Agenda Item 9.a. Page 9 TTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO, 10 -001 MAY 11 1 2010 PAGE '10 for the conservation and protection of agricultural resources in the city by maintaining the existing acreage of farmland within or immediately surrounding the city. ADVANTAGES: Advantages to pu modification to City regulation regarding ag conversion and agricultural mitigation include the opportunity to clarify General Plan policies and provide a level of expectation and related planning to applicants and the public. DISADVANTAGES: Disadvantages to the proposal may include continuation Of implementation of General Plan policies that would not apply mitigation to the development Of non -Ag zoned property, and therefore fees o ad ditional easement acquisitions would not be realized for such proposals. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: IE W: In compliance with CE A, the Community Development Department has determined that this project is consistent with the 2001 General Plan for which an EIR was; prepared per Section 15183 of the CE QA Guidelines. If the city council does not feel that this determination is appropriate, project approval will not be considered. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: : The required public hearing notice was published in The Tribune on April 30, 2010. The Agenda was posted in front o f city Hall on Thursday, May 0, 2010. The Agenda and report were posted on the city's website On Friday, May 7, 2010. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. Minutes rented to past actions relating to agricultural conservation. 2. Map of lands used for agriculture but not zoned Agriculture. 3. LESA model and calculation for the property at Traffic Way and E. cherry Ave. 4. General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element 5. Planning Commission minutes, April 20 2010 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 10 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10 -001) TO CLARIFY AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS IIHEFEAS, the City council of Arroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan on which became effective on October g, 2001 which recognizes the historic role of agriculture within the community and outlines goals, objectives and policies regarding the retention of agricultural lands within and adjacent to the city; and WHEREAS, the city has a responsibility to assure adherence to the General Plan in meeting the needs and desires of the residents and the community; and WHEREAS, the city is required to complete a comprehensive review and necessary revisions to the Development Code and zoning map for consistency with the General Plan in accordance with Government Code section 0; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2003 the city council of the city of Arroyo Grande reviewed and considered the information in the Report ort ors the Conservation of Ag culture in the City of Affo o Grande, as well as public testimony presented prior to and at the public hearings and adopted resolution No. 3699 to initiate implementing ordinances and programs; WHEREAS, EAS, Chapter 1 6.28 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal code implements the policies of the General Plan by providing for areas wherein uses are limited to agricultural and compatible pursuits and wherein development regulations restrict the intrusion of urban and rural development; and WHEREAS, the city Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed and considered the information in the proposed ordinance and public testimony presented at the public hearings, Planning Commission recommendations, staff reports and all other information and documents that are part of the public record for this matter; and WHEREAS, the City council finds, after dine study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: A. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map and revisions to Title 16 is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and is desirable in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan based on Resolution No. 3693 and further finds that: Agenda Item 9.a. Page 11 ORDINANCE No. PAGE 2 1. The acreage of prime agricultural land within the City limits is a particularly important resource, has unique qualities and benefits the community through the provision of productive open space, economic activity and employment ent base, wildlife habitat and an important filter to rain runoff, sustaining rural community character, and the provision of locally grown produce. 2. The acreage of agricultural land within the City limits has rapidly decreased over the previous three decades and is particularly threatened due to encroaching urban development, available infrastructure and land costs that are substantially higher than average costs of agricultural lands within the County of San Luis Obispo. 3. The protection of agricultural acreage within the City's Area of Environmental Concern is important to preserving a strong urban edge and preventing urban sprawl. 4. The protection of agricultural lands within the City limits is the City's greatest priority as described in the 2001 General Plan followed by lands adjacent to the City limits, and thirdly, other agricultural lands within the City's Area of Environmental Concern planning area. 5. It is the policy of the City to work cooperatively with San Luis Obispo County to preserve agricultural land within the City's Area of Environmental Concern planning area, beyond that deemed necessary for development; it is further the policy of the City to protect and conserve agricultural land, especially in areas presently farmed or having Class l or II soils or areas that are presently or were historically farmed or are potentially capable of being farmed. 6 Some urban uses when contiguous to farmland can affect hoer an agricultural use can be operated, which can lead to the conversion of agricultural land to urban use. 7. By requiring conservation easements as a condition for land being converted from an agricultural use and by requiring a one hundred foot buffer, the City shall be helping to ensure prime farmland remains in or available for agricultural use. B. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map and revisions to Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map and revisions to Title 16 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 1. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 12 ORDINANCE No, PAGE 3 D. A Program EIR was prepared and certified on October g, 2001 for the 2001 General Plan update which incorporated an analysis of agricultural buffers within the City of Arroyo Grande and the proposed amendments to Title 16 are within the scope of the Program EIR and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are determined by this council to be less than significant. NO W, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN As FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sections set forth hereinbelorr are hereby amended as shorn in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this refere a. Amend Subsections: 1 6.1 2.'170 B., 1 .1 2.1 7o.F.1 and 16.12.170.F.2. SECTION : If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase 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, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrases be declared unlawful. SECTION : A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full tent of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (1 5) 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 City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full tent of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION : This Ordinance shall become effective thirty 3 days after the date of its adoption. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 13 ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 On motion of Council Member following roll call vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: , seconded by Council Member , and on the the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of r 2010. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 14 ORDINANCE N. PAGE 5 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: BELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK[ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARREL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 9.a. Page 15 EXHIBIT "A'y 16-12.170 B. Applicability. "Agricultural land" means land use categories. identified in the land use element, lead zoned exclusively for agricultural use as defined in section 16.04.070), or, for the u r oses of subsections C. D. and E, land in agricultural production. 1 .12.1 o F. 1. Agricultural Land Conversion. The city shall require agricultural mitigation by applicants for discretionary entitlements which will subdivide or change the use of land zoned Agriculture or Agriculture Preserve to any non - agricultural use. 16-12.170.F.2. Agricultural mitigation shall be satisfied by: a. Granting an agricultural conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction or other agricultural . „ conservation mechanism to or for the benefit of the city and/or a qualifying entity approved by the city. Mitigation shall be required for that portion of the land which no longer will be designated or zoned agricultural land, including any portion of the land used for park and recreation purposes that will 1)permanently protect prime agricultural and prime soils from develop or will benefit preservation of agricultural land and operations through other mean as determined by the City Council At least as many acres of prime agricultural land shall be protected as was changed to a non - agricultural use within city limits, or up to two 2 tines as many acres of agricultural lend shall be protected outside the city but within the city "s area of environmental concern, as was changed to a nonagricultural use, in order to mitigate the loss of agricultural land; or b. In lieu of conserving agricultural land as provided above if the city council determines that the payment of in -lieu fees provide a superior opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of the general plan, agricultural mitigation may be satisfied by the payment of a fee, established by the city council by resolution or through an enforceable agreement with the developer, based upon a farmland replacement factor of up to two - to -one 2:1 to be used for acquisition of a farmland conservation easement or farmland deed restriction. The in -lieu fee option must be approved by the city council. The fee shall be . b ased upon curren appraisal information for the ac uisition of a conservation easement on rep lacement land plus all related City administrative and legal costs The in -lieu fee,, paid to the city, shall be used for farmland mitigation purposes, with priority given to lands with prime agricultural soils located within the city. c. other mitigation measures may be determined acceptable the City council. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 16 PLANNING COM MISSION MINUTES A TTACHMENT I TUESDAY, .JUNE '17, 2003 PAGE the City Council need to complete further study, but formula sh Id not be in the Development Code, but should be a separate Council Resoluti • Disturbed by current parking requirements "shall provide site parking. It will be disruptive to pillage Core Downtown CI if we proyldb for onsite parking in VCD. Instead we want ability to say we do not want yRd to provide onsite parking, but should require in lieu fee or shared offsite par rti solution. Less concern is U for on -site lots, but still need off -site in -lieu lte e s. • Lots at 'i 22 12 and �� Iln qtr in VMU should be included. Ms. IllcClish explained the current zoning has a .' through the middle of the lot, and previously it was viewed as a residential u§eand in previous residential land use designation. There is an ambiguity. • Commissioners Arnold, F er, Keen and Chair Guthrie were all in favor of including the Freitas lots as re by the owners. Commissioner Brown n3gd a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, recommending the Public Dearing be ntinued to the meeting of July 15 t ", 2003. The motion was animously approved on the following roll call vote: A YES: r , Commissioners Brown, Keen, Arnold, Fowler and Chair Guthrie N0ES� '` None A NT: None AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. -004; APPLICANT — CITY of ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY of ARROYO GRANDE* staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner, and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern. [Ills. IIllcClish presented the report addressing policy alternatives concerning the conservation of prime agricultural lands in Arroyo Grande. Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public c omment. Otis Pare, 606 Grope Street: • Disagrees that there was not an in depth study with General Plan Update. • suggest another hearing to review study or have more open work sessions • The farmers and landowners had not been surveyed and we are playing with the farmer's money. There should be an in -depth discussion w ith farmers. • Controversial history of Ag Study, suggest that focus should be a lasting work,, not temporary. If document has failures then it will be turned down by the City Council or the net City Council. In its current state, the document will not stand the test of time • Personal issue: Accused of not being a friend to agriculture, but it is not true. Wants to support the farmer in any way, and should also dignify and honor the farmers property rights. • Conservation easements price not defined. • Better to say no conversion than to be hypocritical. Jeffrey Garcia, 2587 Villamont Court, A merican Fa rmland Trust, Camarillo: * Not a problem isolated to Arroyo Grande, but nation -wide. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2003 PAGE 7 Support staff work and the process of involving the public. Clarify conservation easements; voluntary tool 1 option to give fanners relief from pressure of development; offers liquid assets in lieu of development rights, retain property rights. It works and is used nation -wide. Dixson Ranch has done it locally. Because of the flexibility (there are terra easements), it can work anywhere. Support perpetuity and inclusion of agriculture in planning. 0 Applaud research and creative techniques proposed by staff. 0 There are funds available with Coastal Conservancy for preservation. Connie Dunbar, 507 Launa Lane: • Wonderful land in the City that can never go back once it is paved over. • Sense of community, public health, and intangible benefits should be remembered. • CA used to feed the world and that ability is rapidly being lost, even the ability to have locally grown c rops. • Should preserve our Ag -based way of life. Ella Hone YC utt, 550 Oak Hill Road. • Ongoing issue, we have the finest farmland. 0 Land will go quickly because people want to rove here. Look at the farmer who wants to farm. Farmland protection is a priority. • Going through the plan, pages 30, 32, 33 (buffer): Buffers should not be on the farmers back, but on the developer who wants to develop around therm. Page 34 transfer of development rights is a questionable tool. With easements US dept of Agriculture should be mentioned. There are funds available to be used for easements 0 hater development and marketing important. Planned residential clusters involving prime soils are a bad idea in the City. Specialized housing for farm workers is needed. 0 SLO has purchased thousands of acres of open sparse at a much less cost than the freeway overpass. if we develop the farmland, we have to build many more things. E d Dorfman, 285 La Creta: • Agree with buffer zones for farming, and that residential development as well as agriculture needs to have the buffer zones. 0 County is currently gaining farmland, and additional housing is necessary. 0 Rules keep changing on property. • Farming is a business and some panels will not make economic sense to continue farming. Housing needs to be infill and also on the fringes. • Take a survey and see what people want to do with their property. • Housing is cheaper in flat land and we need affordable housing. Coreen Saritari, 512 Laona Lane: 0 Has been farming for 25 years. • Issue of people not being compensated for others enjoying the view of the open space and land. Fight to develop taken away when compensated for staging in farming. 0 Can prod uce so much here, and agree with staging in agriculture. Leroy Sariari: Page 3, Disagree w clusters because encroachment will still happen. What is in agriculture should stay in agriculture; other means of compensation can be looked at. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 117, 2003 PAGE Jim Dickers, 769 Branch Mill Road, city Councilman American Farm land Article: "Farming on the Edge." Why we are doing what we are doing; addresses conservation easements. His family tools initiative to try Conservation Easements. 0 Highest quality land under the most pressure development report: food and open space in the path for development. Prime land is converting 30% faster. Although farmland increasing, the highest quality soil here in AG is not expanding. How much land is left's Most fertile land is disappearing fast. CA lost 85,200 prime acres. Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth. • Need to increase funding for conservation easements, target funds to most valuable areas, promote planning that does not encourage conversion of prime soils. • Conservation Easement is a deed restriction landowners voluntarily place on their property to maintain Ag usage of property. Property owners have rights. It's not about selling away rights to public use. Detain rights to farmland, use land as collateral for a loan, and many other property rights. Gives options for the future of their farms. Can be compensated for the speculative value of development planned for their property. Process deals with a fair market value (easements). If at any time unhappy with the agreement, can back out. Believes in property rights and this tool gets us there. Unique because property was under the Williamson act. Stephanie Painter, 541 Mesa View Drip , Ranch Owner: • Not a one -sided decision, need to consider the farmers and the developers. • Farming affects the environment as well. • Inside the city, have already allowed development on Ag land. People have purchased land in hopes of developing it. How can we say no to these people, but not to the previous people? There are unique pieces where farming is difficult where neighborhoods are encroaching. Mang places in the city where this is true, but the decision has to be practical. Development is already there, encroaching on prime Ag land, and we have to live with what we have done. • If impossible to male a living on that land them it should be developed instead of other non - infringed areas. Difficult decision to make but everyone's needs should be addressed. Want more workshops before decision is made. Susan Flores, 529 East ranch Very complicated issue Two important things: 253 acres of class 1 soil in 1 391 and 235 in 2001, health problems around homes built around small Ag land. • More workshops needed to further understand Ag land issues. 0 Need Ag land info, what is the land producing? What are we utilizing? 0 How is a Bed and Breakfast an Ag rand use? Need to find funds for the farmers who want to farm. The Public Hearing was closed. Staff answered questions from Commissioners: Mr. Strong explained that there are findings outlined in the Williamson Act that outline changing conditions before allowing Williamson Act cancellation; there is a Agenda Item 9.a. Page 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17,2003 PAGE 9 need to distinguish between logical expansions and illogical conversions; conservation easements that are mutually agreed to would be better; staff could do conversion findings in addition to subdivision and use permit findings. • The gradation of forayer floodplains are generally Class 1 and 2. As you progress toward edge, slightly sloping or further up slope start getting into Classes 3,4,5,6. They take more water, pesticides, and more management. May have drainage problems, but they can be productive. They are not considered prime. Not necessarily farming an uneconomic piece, but not necessarily more appropriate for conversion. • Ms. McClish answered questions on the Buffer ordinance. 0 Mr. Strong answered questions on easements. Commissioner Brown: 0 Under what circumstances are we going to look at prime soils? Do we believe it is an irreplaceable resource or not? How can we protect it fairly with a lasting document? 0 Farm does not have to be actively farmed to be a valuable resource. Has to be looked at as clan l soil over the long term • What are ramifications of political pressure to make farming a problem on that property and where does that leave the landowner 30 gears down the road with an easement • Have to develop a mechanism to inform Ag landowners and that we will do something about keeping the land that ways. a Should actively develop a road neap for fending sources, a document that would be a resource base for anyone interested in what the resources are and hover to use therm. Commissioner Fowler: Believe in property rights and the right to faun, conservation efforts, and the conservation easements. The person that wants to have the say in the use of land should have financial interest in the land. Commissioner Arnold: 0 Property rights: rezoning should benefit community, r, not the individual. Shouldn't be able to rezone after burring land. If land becomes unusable, it can be rezoned, so no taking, dust because farmland could make more money by building condos,, the community as a whole should want that. Building on Ag lend would not be in the best interest of the community, so should not be rezoned. • Redevelopment districts have the power to break deed restrictions,, but that may be a real risk. Commissioner Keen: All the programs are voluntary, which is important because the farmers should have the right to faun or sell their property. Farmer also has rights to do other things with the property. Hate to take away property rights. Don't create a situation that makes it impossible to farm the land. 0 If in easement could you come out when land is not producing any longer? • City is responsible for promoting property rights not dictating to the farmer what to do with their land. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 PAGE 10 Chair Guthrie commended mended staff on complete document and commented: • With an honest appraisal potential for reasonable discussion to ag land conversion. • Buffers are the key, but need more e input on what reasonable buffers are • Counter has more expertise about buffers and should be used. • Mitigation measures are reasonable, and should include land that is also adjacent to the city, and will need funds for protection of the Ag land • Would lice to know r what staff needs. We do need another meeting. • Need to discuss buffers specifically and conservation easements Mr. Strong said Robert Hopkins, who consulted about the General Plan and ag buffers, passed away prematurely and was a tremendous loss to the Counter. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend continuing the hearing to the meeting of July 15, 2003. The emotion was unanimousl approved on a 5 - 0 Voice Vote. NON HEADING ITEMS: None. DISCUSSION ITEMS: - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: - Wne COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMM TS AND FOLLOW-UP: Mr. Strong gage the Commission an update on a Creel side Center EIF project stating that City Council did not approve the EIf and 'at they had requested more information on the traffic circulation and historic buildings. A DJOURNMENT: The meeting eras a ourned at 10:40 p.m. on a motion by Chair Guthrie seconded by Commissioner E ro �rn,, d unanimously approved ATTEST: KRISTIN K AS IOVE, r JAMES GUTHI IE, CHAIR COMMISSION CLERK. As To CONTENT ROB STRONG, commut4ITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO Agenda Item 9.a. Page 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY '1,2003 PAGE Chair Guthrie commented that In our community in -lieu. -fees have not worked, but incl usionarr housing has worked. i . The Commission stated tW T Id like to return to continue discussion of these Items and the ro raMs-Omn u fig, 2003 when all .Commissioners would be p resent. PUBLIC HEARING ING ITEM II.F - CONTINUED ITEM: STAFF PROJECT CASE ISO. 03- 00 -, AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION; APPLICANT — CITY of ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY of ARROYO GRANDE. staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner, and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern. Ms. McClish gave an overview of the report, addressed the policy alternatives concerning the conservation of prime agricultural lands in A rroyo Grande and stressed that this document is still a draft. The Commission had no questions and the hearing was opened to the public. Bill McCann 575 Crown Hill, congratulated staff' on the report. He stated the goal of the City should be to maintain every bit of the 235 remaining acres of prime soils designated for agricultural use and that the City should be a leader in any efforts to maintain this resource. He mould like to see some simplified programs — not cu mbersome to administer. Dick !Ater, 354 Corbett Canes Road referred to his comment letter regarding the staff report. Ed Dorfrnan, 285 La Crests commented that the rules were being changed in the policies of City of Arroyo Grande, they were in total in opposition of the real world and represent the policies of people who have homes and like open space. He suggested a bond issue to buy conservation easements. He stated that some small parcels are not being farmed and would make excellent housing sites. Chuck Fellows, 202 Canyon W ay, asked ghat other jurisdictions addressed Public Relations concerning agricultural conservation - raise bond Issue. Ella Honeycutt, 561 Hausna Roaid in response to Chuck Fellows stated that the grape growers and greenhouse advocates have done a good job with P.R. and that an Ag Tourism snap is due out soon. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest „Drive commented on the strong language used in the Purpose and Findings handout and said that nothing is permanent if it is unreasonable, asked where were the farmers tonight and stated that a church cannot be precluded on agricultural land according to Federal later. Chair Guthrie closed the public hearing and Ms. McClish answered Commission questions. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 22 PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES ,DULY "I, 2003 PAGE The Commission discussed some of the items under the heading of "Summary of Alternativest', commented on the report and discussed the chart in the Agriculture Conservation Study regarding General Plan and Zoning Inconsistencies. Commission comments: • Given General Plan policies and the recommendations, — class 1 & 2 should remain designated Ag, excluding the Hayes property which is not prime soil. • stated there was no discussion at Planning Commission on any of the properties that the Council later redesignated from Agriculture and no specific findings or mitigation for these changes to the 2001 General Plan. • The changes were inconsistent with policies and goals of General Plan regarding prime Ag lands. Suggest the LESA Program could be modified to fit focal jurisdictions - add language to the Alternatives. Properties listed should be re- designated Agriculture rather than rezoned, until site - specific findings for rezoning and conversion can be demonstrated by private application. Buffers were them discussed by the Commission Commissioner agreed with log -foot mi Fr nimum buffers with provision that when development takes place the minimum buffer could be increased if appropriate. Rob strong said staff would bring hack the Mitigation ordinance on July 15, 2003 and continue discussion of the report at that time. The Commission requested that this item be placed on the agenda no later than 7:00 p.m. to allover more time for discussion. NON=PUBLIC HEARING ITEM III.A, TIME EXTENSION CASE - ..NO,. 3 -002 APPLICANT — BILLY D. SUTTON; LOCATION — 1171 ASH STF E T. staff report prepared and presented by Ryan Foster, Assistant Planner. {{ Jim Bergman, Planning Intern gave an update on this prof :ct:. The commission approved the one -gear Time ExWhsion for Tentative Parcel Map g- 003 and Planned Unit Development 99-003. Commission Fo wler made a motion, .s6 onded by Chair Guthrie to approve the Time E and adopt:: RESOLUTION 03-1881 A RES UTION of THE PLANNING COMMISSION of THE cIT� F ARROYO GRANDE APPRO TIME EXTENSION 3" 002 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99 -003, LOCATED AT 1171 ASH STREET Agenda Item 9.a. Page 23 MINUTES PAGE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 , 2003 AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold, Former; , Xeen and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the f =m=ission was adopted this 15th day of July 2003. The k a 1 o -rn i n ute break. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II. E - CONTINUED TEE - AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION, STAFF PROJECT CASE No. 3 -004; APPLICANT — CITY of ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY of ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish Associate Planner and ,dim Bergman, Planning Intern. 1s. McClish introduced the project and gage an update on the process and the recommendation in the report; clarified that on page 31 and in the table on page 33 re Mr. Dorfman's property, the approx. 2Y acre parcel shown (zoned.Hwy Commercial) on the zoning map, is not part of the inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning map. The Planning Commission continued discussion on recommendations for policy alternatives concerning the conservation of prime agricultural lands in Arroyo Grande. Commission questions: Concern with the TDC program, are there any citywide programs versus countywide program? Ms. McCli h stated that there are examples, but they tend to be problematic and that this program is not included in the recommendations to be forwarded to City Council. Page 29 bullet: There is no information included re Fredericks and Williams property? Mr. Strong answered that this was removed as it was not prime Agricultural soils. • Page 34 last sentence: How does this word Mr. Strong explained that if the City is not supportive of making overriding considerations or does not believe that the General Plan designation is correct then . it should be considered for Ag designation to eliminate inconsistencies — the policy should reflect majority opinion. Page 37 mitigation example: Where is 4/1 ratio referenced? Ms. McCli h stated that it is referenced in Appendix F, example ordinance. Mr. strong stated all draft recommendations still to have to have legal review. He then explained the priorities that staff had considered in arriving at the mitigation ranges for the policy and advised that "up to2 :1 " mitigation was staff recommended action. Commission comments: • They asked for clarification on the "expanded findings" referred to in A6. Ms. Il cClish stated that they were in the report — Page 35 and also in "Agricultural Districts". • Page 35, No. 6, said it was poorly written. Ills. McClish suggested that the wording starting with ...for the arse... up to ... prime farmland be removed. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Ed Dorfman, 285 La Ores , stated that the report does not deal with infill or widowed parcels as the previous General Plan Update reports did and he would like to see it put Agenda Item 9.a. Page 24 MINUTES UTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 , 2003 PACE back. He then read comments from part of Leroy saritori's letter (included in the report) stating why he disagreed with these specific comments. Jerry B unin, Horne Builders Association 0 Not against preservation of agricultural land - smart urban planning will preserve agricultural land. 0 5 & -acre panels will not be farms in the future, but are good sites for affordable housing. • Land is the biggest restraint, net is water. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. In response to Mr. Dorfman's comment Commissioner B rown stated: 0 There is provision to convert whether the A g conservation is adopted or not. There should not be a concern. • TDC big issue. Good document. • Inconsistent to have parcels previously designated Ag other than hillside. • Inconsistent to adopt the General Plan and then recommend changing zoning on properties without conforming to mitigation and other policies. Commissioner Fowler: 0 Her comments from previous meetings were unchanged, no new comments. Commissioner Arnold: • V ery thorough document. • Dorfman — not rezone for affordable housing - market will dictate. Commissioner been: • Farmers have right to farm that ordinance protects farmers. • This document puts undue burden on farmers by dictating what is to be done with land. • Referred to definition for "taking and the explanation — thinks City damaging by not letting the farmer take care of his own property. • He disagreed with City Council instructions given to staff to produce this report. Commissioner Guthrie: 0 In past seen the ability of farmers to farm, damaged by housing; it is an arduous task to protect Ag land. • In favor of document as it is. Commissioner Arn • He did not agree a that it is a "taking if a property owner is told that they cannot rezone to build houses on Ag land. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 25 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSIO J U LY 1 , 2003 PACE Commission Brown made a notion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to male a recommendation to City Council to adopt the draft resolution to implement policies, programs and proposed provisions, and adopt: RESOLUTION 03 RESOLUTION of THE PLANNING G COIIIIMISSION of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING DIN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE PREPARATION of AN ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTATING RECOMMENDATIONS S FROM THE REPORT ON THE CONSERVATION of AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE CITY of ARRO GRANDE The motion was adopted on the following roll call: YES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioners Fo wler and Keen ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 5th day of July 2003. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.F - CONTINUED ITEM — DEVELOPMENT CODE A MENDMENT CASE NO 2 - 006; APPLICANT — CITY of ARROYO GRANDE -- V ILLAGE of ARROYO GRANDE; Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McC lish, Associate Planner. {' Mils. Mcclish explained that this discussion was being continued from the Publ' of ,June 17, and changes had been incorporated into the document as m end d in addition to: An open space requirement of 350 feet per residential un' ertaining to mixed-use projects has been inserted in Section 16.46 Section 16.08 has now been intruded in Exhi "�', 1s. Mcclish answered the Commissioner's gu =,as • Page 62: Language from Section 16.0 een mov ed to Title 2 of the Municipal Code for consistency. 0 Exhibit A, 2 nd page: The map is ' correct and everything south of the creek should be Village Mixed-Use. 0 Exhibit A clarification for n Street zoning: only the bold outlined areas are being reclassified. One pro y (not shoring up on map) on Station Way, south of Fire Station, should sho as Village Mixed Use. • Page 266 numb ng is wrong. Page 264: ' cussion on development density round up — staff is proposing to revise t section on density calculation to be more consistent. Nor. Strong sug ed rounding to nearest 1 /4 number in Multi-Family and Mixed-Use and include d ling unit equivalent. Commissioner Guthrie re building height: Agenda Item 9.a. Page 26 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES NOVEMBER 25, 2003 PAGE 6 Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution, as amended �tions o App roval 6. 15, 17, 114), adopting a Negative Declaration w ith mitigation me s instructin the Di rector rector Administrative Services to file a lNo ice o Determination approving Vesting Tentativ Map Case - Tract No. -�, located on arroli Avon pplied for by Don McH Council Member Costello seconded the moti - on, and follorn roll-call vote: As: Lubin, Costello, Run iclns, Ferrara N OES: None ABSENT: None There being ES and o NOES, the notion is hereby declared to be assed. at WOO p.m. The Council reconvened 9 -c- Continued public Hearing — Development code Amendment Dace N 03-005 and General Plan Amendment Case No. 03a4D01 8 Associate Planner lcClish presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 'l Introduce an Ordinance amending Title 16 of . the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (Development Code Amendment 3--0 to incorporate regulations and amending the Zoning Map, placing a perimeter overlay district of. 100 feet around agriculturally zoned properties for the purposes of agricultural buffers, requiring adequate findings for subdivision or rezoning of agricultural lands, implementing mitigation requirements and revising land use regulations for Agricultural Districts; and 2 Continue General Plan Amendment Case No. 03- 001. Associate Planner McDlish also noted that E B to the ordinance had been modified to add language in section 1 which had been inadvertently omitted. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Reuel Estes,, E. Cherry, spoke in opposition to buffer zones. John Keen, N. Elm street, spoke in opposition to buffer zones. He stated that the proposed Overlay District was not necessary with the existing Right t- l~arrn Ordinance in effect. H suggested the Council continue the item for further public noticing and public comment. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Following Council comments, Council Member Costello moved to introduce an Ordinance, as amended (Exhibit B. Section 16.1 2.170.E), amending Title 1 of the Municipal pal Code (Development Code Amendment 03-0 05) to incorporate regulations and amending the Zoning Map for Overlay District A-1.2, placing a perimeter overlay district of 100 feet around agriculturally zoned properties for the purposes of agricultural buffers, requiring adequate findings for subdivision or rezoning of agricultural lands, implementing mitigation requirements and revising land use regulations for Agricultural Districts. [Mayor Pro Tern Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll -call vote: AYES: Costello, Dickens', Ferrara NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: [None Agenda Item 9.a. Page 27 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 PAGE 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. consideration o Proposed ordinance Repealing, Amending, and ding Provisions to Titles 5, 8, 8, 9, 1 and 12 of the city of Arroyo Grande nIcIpaI Code. Director of Administrative services Wetmore presented the staff report. She lained that the proposal was the result of a comprehensive departmental review process o e City's Municipal Code and the draft ordinance was the second in a series of clean -up inances that repeals provisions determined to be unnecessary, and adds, amends and reor nines various provisions to provide internal consistency with current City policies and ractices. chief TerBorch responded to questions from council relating to solicitors and p ler, overnight camping, and wheeled toys. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, and upon hea ' g no public comments, he closed the public hearing. Following discussion regarding the proposed ping provisions, there was consensus to amend section 9.22.080 a follows: "Limited ernight camping or overnight occupancy of a recreational vehicle may be permitted for des' nated community activities subject to the approval of the chief of police. such limited overni camping and /or recreational vehicle use shall be for maximum of five days." Additionally, in response to /floof n concerning solicitors and peddlers in business areas and the resulting impacts to th traffic, staff ways directed to prepare an ordinance for the council's future consideratiould restrict solicitation activities within a certain distance to the entrance of businesses mercial shopping centers. Council Member Cos o moved to introduce an Ordinance, as amended (section 9.22.030), , repealing amendin and adding provisions to Titles 5, 8 8 9 10, and 12 of the Arroyo Grande Munici/Code ouncil Member Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll call vote: AYESello, Dickens, Lubin, Costello, Ferrara NOES: A Bs E e Them being 8 AYES and 0 DOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9.b. consideration of Interpretation of the Agricultural Buffer Provision Municipal Code section 1 .12.1 elated to Residential krises Within the Buffer Area. Associate Planner McClish and Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider an interpretation of buffer constraints pursuant to Ordinance Flo. 550. Staff responded to questions from council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Anthony Acevedo Arroyo Grande, opposed the establishment of agricultural buffers. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 28 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 PAGE Caren Estes Arroyo Grande, inquired about the legality of the wording in the Public Hearing Notice related to this item and requested an interpretation. City Attorney Carmel explained the intent of the notice and the administrative level review process. Ills. Estes expressed concern regarding the requirement and impact of a buffer on her property. Adam Saruwatari Arroyo Grande, spoke in favor of agricultural buffers. Steve Foss, Arroyo Grande, referred to discussion held at the Planning Commission meeting regarding expansion of existing residential uses into the buffer zone and requested clarification on what is being recommended for expanding existing residential uses within the buffer zone. Associate Planner McClish explained that the proposed ordinance does not preclude the expansion of existing residential uses into the buffer zone. Carol Hoffreer representing the Dixson Ranch, stated that the farmers preferred to keep the minimum 20-foot landscape buffer away from the crops. She also stated that residential uses such as garages and backyards should not be allowed in the buffer area. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Council Member Costello reviewed the intent of the agricultural buffer as defined in Section 16.12.170 of the Municipal Code (Fight to Farm provisions). He stated that for new residential development only, not including remodels, he would prefer that garages, storage sheds, and backyards not be in the buffer zone. He suggested that the 2 -foot landscape buffer be as close to the residential area than to agricultural operations as it would -be a better screen to the residences. In terms of the buffer maintenance issue, for new projects he supported the suggestion that a maintenance district could be formed. He stated he was open to suggestions as to hover the maintenance issue would be affected for existing properties and uses. Council Member Dickens stated he had researched agricultural buffers in a planning guidelines document published by the Department of Natural Resources, Queensland, Australia, and he gage an overview of some principles outlined in the publication regarding agricultural buffers. He referred to the City's existing ordinance that reflects the same principles. He reviewed provisions in the City's existing ordinance which requires a "minimum" 100 foot buffer and that section 16.12.170.E.2. states that a buffer wider than 100 feet is encouraged. He also commented that Section 16.12.170 also refers to development of new residential "units ", not uses. He felt this clarified the confusion between existing residences and uses of property versus new residential units. He suggested that if an applicant came forward proposing less than a 100-foot buffer, that proposed impacts (noise, drift, odor) be measured on a scientific basis. He further referred to a portion of Policy A -2.2 which provides that "No portion of any new residential str ctur .....shall be located closer than 100 feet from the site of agricultural operations.... and greater distances may be required.... ". Council Member Dickens stated that based on this policy, new residential uses are prohibited within the minimum 1 -foot buffer. He defined "storage" as any kind of storage such as community garden storage shed, a water pump shed, a storage shed for maintenance equipment, or a roadside fruit and vegetable stand, as appropriate uses; however, not within the minimum 100 foot buffer. He concluded by stating that flexibility should be used when applying the 2 -foot landscape buffer requirement. Council Member l unels opposed agricultural buffers and commented that he lives, works, and deals with these issues. He stated that 1 -foot buffers can cause problems in certain areas and can impact development of property. He stated that he considered the requirement of buffers as downsizing of property and could not support this issue. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 29 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1 2, 2004 PAGE Mayor Pro Tern Lubin stated that two areas are affected - new and existing development. He stated that interpretation of the buffer zone could result in a financial hardship for both farmers and other property owners developer . He referred to a letter to the council received from the Ikedas on file in the Administrative Services Department concerning the Japanese Welfare Association's property on E. cherry Avenue, which could become useless depending on how the 100 -foot buffer is applied. He stated that if a 100 -foot minimum buffer is required, it needs to e made as compatible as possible for both sides and that means 1 allowing any existing residential structure to be expanded within the 100 foot buffer, 2 that garages and storage sheds are allowed within the 100 -foot buffer, and 3 that the 2 &foot landscape buffer can be placed anywhere within the buffer. He supported allowing as much use within the buffer as possible within the policy. Mayor Ferrara stated that the principle issue is to manage the urban and farming interface. He referred to at least 15 other jurisdictions noted in the staff report with agricultural buffers in place, and highlighted a few of the buffer policies in place throughout the State. He commented that the City of Arroyo Grande's focus on a 100 -foot buffer is liberal and flexible, especially as it relates to existing development. He stated that the approach is reasonable as compared to other regulations statewide. Mayor Ferrara stated that for new residential units, residential uses should be dined based on the degree to which structures will encourage human 'occupation and human activity, and if it is within the buffer zone, those uses should be discouraged. With regard to the 20 -foot landscape strip, he favored placing it adjacent to development as opposed to net to farming Operations to provide an immediate barrier between homes and agricultural use. He concluded by referring to Agricultural Commissions that exist in other jurisdictions to evaluate issues such as buffer zones and suggested that forming an Agricultural Advisory Committee may be appropriate for Arroyo Grande at some point to mediate some of these issues. Council Member Dickens moved to direct staff to allow flexibility regarding the location of the 20- foot landscape strip within the 100 -foot agricultural buffer, with a preference for keeping the landscape strip as far away from agricultural operations as possible. Council Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll call vote: AYES. Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Runls Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 DOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Council Member Dickens moved to direct staff" to not allow any residential uses within the minimum '100 -foot agricultural buffer area and require the buffer area to be maintained by either a a homeowners association, b a maintenance district; or c dedicated to the City, for new residential units as laid out in Section 1 6.12.1 0 including the restriction of backyards and garages within the minimum 100 -foot buffer. Council Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: F unels, Lubin ABSENT: Done There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 30 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTO 12, 2004 PACE Mayor Ferrara called a recess at :bo p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council concurred, to consider Agenda Item '11.a. prior to Agenda Item 9.c. I Ca. consideration of Modification to California Public Employees' Retirement system alPE S contract. Interim Fin Fial Services Director O'Reilly presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1 In kdoe ordinance arnnin the contract with �aIPEF� gadding Pre-Retirement Optional settl Death Benefit for local miscellaneous members); and Approve and authorize the o sign on behalf of the City a resolution of Intention to amend the contract with Ca I P E IRS Mayor Ferrara invited pLliqlic comments on this item. No public comments were received. Mayor Pro Tern Lubin rov to introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande amending the contra between the City and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' retirement Syste Council Member F unels seconded the motion and on the following roll call vote: APES: Lubin, runels, Diclen Costello, Ferrara NOES, None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and o NOES, the motion' hereby declared to be passed. Mayor Pro Tern Lubin moved to adopt a f esol "on of Mention to approve an amendment to contract between the Board of Administration Cali is Public Employees' Retirement system and the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande. Co cil Member Runels seconded the motion. Council Member Dickens asked ed if the motion inclu authorizing the Mayor to sign the Resolution of Intention on behalf of the City. Mayor Pro ern Lubin amended the motion to include authorizing the Mayor to sign the Resolution olution of Inte 'on on behalf of the City; Council Member I unels seconded the amended motion, and on the Poll ing roll call vote: AYES: Lubin, Funels, Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Done There being 5 AYES and o NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be p 9.c. Continued Public Hearing: consideration of Development codeA endment 3- A Proposed ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Portions Title '1 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal code Revising the Commercial, Industrial, nd office Professional Districts; Rezoning ning the Commercial Portions f Planned Dev opment 1.1 and 1.2 Districts; and 2 Proposed Resolution Approving Design Cur elines and standards Pertaining to E. Grand Avenue and a Portion of El Camino e Agenda Item 9.a. Page 31 CITY COUNCIL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 2 , 2005 PAGE 12.16.040.A. The public works director , will � riodi all /ector a list of particular street trees that have created a present and ire m diat danger to pedestrian causing damage to public improvements, sidewalks, or have interfered with drainage ftters, or resulted in traffic hazards in adjacent streets. The list shall b submitted to the f parks, recreation and f acilities for comment or revision. Council and staff concurred with the modifications to the Ordinance. Council Reber Guthrie moved to introduce an Ordinance, as follow . "AN ORDINANCE of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO GRANDE REPE LING, AMENDING, AND DDhI PROVISIONS T TITLES , 9, 'I 'I of THE R G R A NDE MUNI CODE ", a amended (Sections 12.16.040.A. and 1 2-1 .o o .. Council Member Arnold seconded, and the motion carried o n the following roll -call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Costello NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Ferrara requested, and the Council c nore Agenda I tem 11.a. up on the Agenda for consideration prior to Agenda Item 1 o 11. NEW BUSINESS I I.a. consideration of Fiscal Year 2 - 05 Third Quarter Budget Status Report. [COUNCIL/RDA] Financial Services Director Pill presented the staff report and recommended the City Council /RDA: DA: 1 Approve detai d budget adjustments and recommendations a shown In Schedule B; and 2 Approve S edu�les A through E included in the Third Quarter Budget Status Report. Director Pillow respo ed to questions from the Cou n c il / RDA Board. Mayor /Chair Ferrara invi d comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. No public rnents were received and the M ayor /Chair closed the public comment period. Z r C ounci l /Board Y ember Arnold moved to a pprove detailed budget adjustm and recommendati s as shown in schedule B; and to approve Schedules through E included in the Third rter Budget Status Report. Council /Board Member Dickens seconded, and the moti a i on the f roll call vote: AYE . Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara N s; Nome SENT: None 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS 10.a. Consideration of Interpretation o objective Ag1 o the Agriculture, Conservation and open space Element of the General Plan Regarding Conservation o f Prime Farmland soils; Applicant— city o f Arroyo Grande; Location City ide. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 32 CITY COUNCIU E EVEL PMEI T AGENCY MINUTES MAY 24,2005 PAGE Associate Planner Heffern n presented the staff report and recommended the City Council: 1 Consider an interpretation of General Plan policies under Objective Agl of the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element regarding conservation of prime farmland soils and determine if a General Plan Amendment or other action is necessary; and 2 If the Council determines that a General Plan Amendment or other action is necessary, direct staff to return to Council with an appropriate resolution. Associate Planner Heffernn responded to questions and comments from Council regarding the General Plan Amendment process; clarification regarding areas in the pillage Districts that have urban developments on prime farmland soils; and clarification regarding soil definitions as noted in the Soil Survey o f San Luis Obispo County Issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to speak on the matter. Otis Page Arroyo Grande, acknowledged that the issue tonight was confined to a policy interpretation as opposed to any specific project. He stated that in his analysis of the staff report, it did not address specific issues relating to revisions made by the Council to the 2001 General Plan that took place between December 2002 and March 2004. He commented that the issue being considered tonight was not a clarification of the policy; it was whether the policy should be changed. He suggested that the policy should not be charged at this time. He then addressed concerns he had with the staff report including the analysis of existing definitions in the A Conservation and Open space Element. He stated that the staff report did not consider the four principles in the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open space Element. John Knight RRM Design, stated that although he was not here to talk about a specific project, this policy interpretation affects a project he is working on. He commented that City staff is asking for confirmation f the existing policies and objectives, which have been in place and acted upon by the Planning Commission and City Council for the past five years. He suggested that the agricultural policies in the General Plan do not apply to non - agricultural zoned property. He encouraged the Council to confirm than Objective Ag1 does not apply to non- agricultural zoned properties. [ani Parker, Arroyo Grande, stated she had studied this issue and she addressed two main issues: 1 agricultural zoning versus prime soils, and 2 CEQA review. She referred to and read existing General Plan agricultural policies; referred to panels in the City that consist of prime farmland soils, and stated that there can be environmental impacts to the soil on a panel regardless of the zoning. She stated that just because a panel is zoned residential does not give it entitlements that override the environmental constraints. she commented on various classification of soils as it relates to required mitigation. she stated that the primary issue t o consider is the fact that prime soils are considered to be a natural resource by the General Plan and by CE A. She stated that the City must determine the significance of loss of natural resources and determine whether mitigation, if any, is required. Colleen Martin Arroyo Grande, referred back to the 2001 General Plan update, stated that the City should follow the General Plan, and objected to the policies being negotiable. She said that loss of prime farmland soil as a significant adverse environmental impact needs to be avoided, not mitigated. She stated that the City needs to decide not only what the definition of farmland is, but also what the definition of a Neighborhood Plan is. She supported the preservation of prime soils regardless of the zoning designation. No further public comments were received and the Mayor closed the public comment period. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 33 CITY COUNCIU El E ELoP TENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 4, 2005 PAGE 5 Council Member Guthrie stated he had asked for this item to be on the Agenda for clarification because he was not on the Council when the policies were adopted; however, he was on the Planning Commission daring the General Plan update process and the intent seemed clear at that time that the policy issues in the Agriculture Element included only those areas that were zoned Agriculture. He acknowledged concerns expressed about the interpretation of the existing policies and the need to clarify the policies. Council Member Arnold agreed that there was some question about how and when the policies are applied. He also agreed that while serving on the Planning Commission, he believed the intent was to mitigate the properties that were zoned agriculture, not residential. He stated he would have a problem with applying the policies to properties that were zoned residential. He also agreed that there was a need to determine how CEA is applied. He believed that the policy applies to farmlands and that staff had provided an accurate interpretation. Council Member Dickens started that the agricultural objectives and policies are consistent as currently written and a distinction needed to be made between a couple of the definitions. First, he started that the definition of prime farmland soils are those that are naturally occurring nn- renewable resources suited for growing agricultural products. He referred to the classifications in the General Plan and other resources that define prime soils. He spoke about the differences between prime farmland soils as a natural resource) and agricultural lands or farmlands, which are properties that have been zoned agriculture for agricultural purposes or are in agricultural production. He spore about good land use planning which was done through the General Plan update process and that the Council identified those panels that would be best served for agricultural purposes. He said he thought that was the intent when the Land Use Map was created and that the policies were then developed. He then referred to C EQA review, which was about reviewing all of the aspects of a particular proposal as it relates to potential environmental impacts. He said that review includes aesthetics, agricultural resources, air duality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, hazardous materials, noise, population, housing, public services and utilities, recreations, transportation and circulation, wastewater, water, and land use. He said all of the areas are identified through the CEA review process as areas that need to be reviewed for their potential environmental impacts and this was done regardless of zoning. He commented that when the Council is looking at parcels that are not identified in the General Plan as being zoned either agriculture or agriculture- preserve and there is a potential for having prime farmland soils, this is just a pant of the CEA process. He stated, for example, that it would be unreasonable to require mitigation on a 7,200 square foot lot in the pillage and that was not the intent of the General Plan. He suggested it was reasonable to require mitigation on a four -acre panel meeting the prime soils definition as related to Ag l -1.2. He emphasized that development needs to address all potential impacts through the CEA process. He concluded that when reading the General Plan objectives, he did not believe there were any inconsistencies. He said he believed that the current position that these policies do not apply to nor- agricultural is not correct. He said they needed to be applied across the board in a reasonable way. Mayor Pro Tern Costello started he was also on the Planning Commission when this issue carne forward and he recalled dealing specifically with the conversion of agriculture land that was in active production. He referred to policies and objectives in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element and stated that if property is not designated as Agriculture or Agriculture Preserve it does not matter if the soils are prime or not because it is not available for agricultural use. He said to put anything other than agricultural use on the land is not a loss of prime soils. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 34 CITY COUNCIU E E ELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 24 2005 PAGE He commented that the intent was to preserve the use of agricultural resources and he did not think we wanted to convert non - agricultural uses back to agricultural. He stated that the interpretation was clear that any prime soils that exist on non - agricultural uses are not in the City's inventory of agriculture lands; therefore, there is no loss of those soils. Mayor Ferrara referred back to the update of the General Plan and stated there were issues with regard to the approval of the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element. He stated the Ag Element was revisited to tighten up some of the policy language Ag'l. He stated that while the interpretation can be confusing, the City does not have a track record established yet, or substantive evidence that related issues that have come forward are going to be difficult to interpret. He agreed with using the standard of reasonableness when evaluating proposed projects. On the issue of CE QA, A, he commented that the CE QA process includes tools to evaluate individual projects as they come forth relative to the General Plan which includes criteria for determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, environmental impact report, or statement of overriding considerations is required. He stated he was not convinced at this point that there is a problem, and he did not support changing anything in the Agricultural, Open Space and Conservation Element at this time. He said he believed there was enough information in the policies to make the Finds o interpretation that needs to be made based on the test of reasonableness. Council Member Guthrie stated that since the policies have not yet been applied, he was comfortable with moving forward and seeing how it works. He stated, however, that he was uncomfortable with the issues pertaining to CE QA review. Mayor Pro Tern Costello referred to Policy Ag 1- (Establish and apply a significance criterion for CE QA analysis, as provided by CE QA Guidelines, that considers loss o f prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact); referred to the definition which indicates that a loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their unavailability for agricultural use; and stated that if they are not zoned for agricultural, conservation, or open space, they are not available for agricultural use. He commented that there is no loss and that loss only occurs when there is a property that is designated for agricultural use and it is being converted . to something else. He said the conversion constitutes the loss of prime farmland soils. Mayor Ferrara asked the Council if there were any objections to the interpretation of the policies as presented. Council Member Dickens stated he had no objections; however, he suggested it would be appropriate to get additional feedback from other cities on similar policies, arid/or get an interpretation from CEA in regard to the idea of whether or not a panel is considered unavailable if the zoning has been changed. He commented that the City Council has discretion to rezone properties. He believed that the language in the General Plan is adequate; ho wever, he disagreed with some of the comments made because he believed that properties that are currently zoned non - agriculture do apply to the CE QA review process. Mayor Pro Terry Costello requested that the City Attorney research the CEA issue. The City Council concurred and no formal action was taken. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 35 CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES JUNE 28,2005 PAGE 5 Rae Flernin , E D Director of Health Services, spoke of the funding Pe s for the senior health programs. She indicated that the E C receives reimbursement !r wi the state for clinic services; therefore, she requested approval of the request for funding tF ek - senior programs. No further public comments were received and Mayor Pro Tern Costello closed the public hearing. Council Member Dickens moved to adopt Resolution as follows: "`A RESOLUTION OF THE r CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY " of ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING AND RECOMMENDING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS of THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS BISPO REALLOCATE A PORTION OF PROGRAM YEARS 2000 AND 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK VALET ( DB FUNDS' ". Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion carried on the following roll -call vote: AYES: [dickens, Guthrie, Arnold, Costello NOES: Done ABSENT: Ferrara 10. CONTINUED B SIN ESS Cone. 11. NEW B USiN Ess 11.a. Presentation and Progress Report by the Land conservancy of Ban Luis Obispo County Regarding Agricultural Conservation Program. Assistant Planner Bergman introduced Robert Hill, Director of Conservation Programs of the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, who presented a status report on the Agricultural Conservation Program. He gave an overview of the Land conservancy's tasks, including project planning and development of acquisition criteria; landowner outreach efforts; and providing agricultural conservation easement transaction assistance. He displayed aerial maps with views of Arroyo Grande Valley, Upper La cienaga Valley, and Lower La Cienaga Malley; identified priority areas for conservation, identified existing Williamson Act and conservation easement parcels, as well as 11il liamson Act non - renewal parcels; identified soils classifications (Class 1, 2, 3; and identified major streams. M. Tamara Polin reviewed criteria currently under consideration and requested the Council to provide comments on ghat areas should be identified as high priority, should more areas be added, and how should the areas be prioritized. Mr. Hill reviewed the draft letter, which would be sent to agricultural landowners informing them of the conservation program, and requested suggestions /guidance from the City Council. Mr. Hill then responded to questions from council. Council Member Dickens requested that proximity to other conservation easements be added as additional criteria for the agricultural conservation program priority system. He also referred to the draft letter and suggested that more emphasis be given on recognizing farmers as protectors of the land, recognizing difficulty with farming regulations, and identifying their options. He requested that all references to the word "forever" be omitted from the letter. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 36 CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES JUNE 28, 2005 PACE Council Member Arnold acknowledged that the draft letter indicates that there are a variety of other agencies and groups that may be able to assist with conservation efforts and requested that language be added to the letter stating that the City can provide that information. Council Member Guthrie requested that parcels immediately south of La Cienaga V alley be included in Priority Area #1. He agreed with the criteria as presented. Mayor Pro Tern Costello requested including Meadow Creek for reference purposes on the Stream Map. He supported the proposed criteria and priority rankings. He referred to the draft letter and commented d that the partnership aspect should be stressed. tayor Pro Tern C invited comments from those in the audience who wished to speak on the matter, and upon hearing none, he closed the public comment period. Following Council comments, staff was directed to work with the land Conservancy to redraft the proposed letter and redistribute it to City Council for further comment. There was no formal action on this item. 11.b. Consideration f Memorandum o U nderstanding (MOU) Between the`' cit f Arroyo Grande and SLo Green Build (STRONG) Assistant Planner Foster presented the staff report. He explained t SL Green Build's mission is to promote sustainable building techniques; provide Ong professionals with the proper tools o build sustainable projects; and to support and � b p develop public policy which advocates for sustainable building practices. Staff: recomm ded that the Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Understar g OU) between the City and SL Green Build. In response to a question from Council member Arnold, Assistant Planner Foster clarified that SLO Green Build has req uested a one # rune allocation of $2,000 from the City to be q used to develop the Green Build Program. ` Mayor Pro Tern Costello invited corn meat . those in the audience who wished to speak on the matter, and upon hearing none, he closed the public comment period. Following Council comments in support of the Green Build program, Council Member Arnold moved to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign an MOU between the City of Arroyo Grande and SLO Green Build. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion carried o the following roll -call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Dickens, Costello NOES: 'None ABSENT: Ferrara 12. CA COUNCIL R EPORTS a. MAYOR TONY M. FERRAr A: (ABSENT) 1 San Luis Obispo council of Governments /San Luis Obispo Regional nal Transit Authority BLOCOCISLORTA . Done. South Ban Luis Obispo county Sanitation District SSLOCSD . None. 3 other. None. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 37 Minutes: s: City Council Meedng Page Tuesday, August 14, 200 7 Action: Mayor Pro Tern Arnold moved to cancel the first meeting in July Zoo July 8, 2008). Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14, COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tern Arnold reported that the EC was working on a tourism economic study and distributed a packet of information listing community assets and requested that staff distribute the packet to the Tillage Improvement Association, the South County Historical Society, and any others who may want to add to the list. council Member Fellows requested that the council consider placing the agricultural buffer policy on a future agenda for discussion. Some concern was expressed about unwrapping the entire policy, however, the council agreed to a discussion stern on a future agenda and directed staff accordingly. Mayor Ferrara commented on a recent program at the League of California Cities Executive Forum where Jim Bergman and Bob Lund gave a presentation on the America In Bloom program. He said that positive feedback was received from participant evaluation sheets and commended all the people involved in the local Arroyo Grande in Bl program. He said the committee could use more volunteers on Saturday mornings and invited those who are interested to show cep at 8:00 a.m. at the park and ride lot located on El Camino Real. 15, STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None 16. COMMUNITY IT1 COMMENTS TS ND SUGGESTIONS Steve Foss, Garden Street, commented that the City's agricultural buffer policy, as adopted by Ordinance, is 100 feet not 130 feet. He stated the 130 -foot buffer was specific to the cherry Creek subdivision and potentially Subareas 2. He further commented on the proposed Janowic project as it relates to the existing structures on the site and defined living space. 17, AD OU N IE T Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 9@.25 p.m. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 38 M 6 to : City Council Meetin g Page 8 . Tuesday, January 22,, 2008 City of Arroyo Grande, and 2 grant the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors jurisdiction for all the purposes in connection With creation and operation of the proposed San Luis bispd Tourism Business Improvement District, with Input from the affected lodging bu inesse nd participating cities. Staff responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, - a onni Bia ini, representing the San Luis Obispo islt r/de rence Bureau (SLOVCB),, responded to questions from council concerning Business n Districts (BID) and noted that the effort to establish a C BID has been ongoing f s. She.gar a overview f how BID's are formed; explained that the money collected pent on t udsm promotion; listed other counties ho have passed a BID; and ela BID law is set up to b renewed annually, therefore, if the City decides to becon e part of the County BID and during the year the city's hoteliers are not happy with the BID, thetity has an opportunity to withdraw from the BID. She further clarified that the funds would be f n- enhancement, not a replacement, for the funds the SLOUCH currently receives and that the ir�dreased funds would provide greater resources for tourism marketing and promotion. She responded to further questions from Council concerning ho ¢ the fee is assessed on the business o ner plaining that the business owner has to pay the ass essment; hors ever, the owner can choose. + pass the fee on to the hotel guest; and stated that the fee is processed the same as the trap ?ent occupancy tax, therefore Federal employees and guests who stay over days are xrnpttor�n pay'n the assessment. Upon hearing no further public commots, Mayor Ferrara nosed the public hearing. Council comments and discussio ensued regarding the .advantages and the disadvantages of a Business Improvement District; ckno wledgemen that a majority of hoteliers had ,not expressed opposition to the formation of BID; clarification that the BID Advisory Board consists of lodging personnel who determine h the budget is allocated; that the City,of Arroyo Grande would benefit from participating in the ; and that the City can monitor the program to determine continued participation in the future Action: Council Mlle er Arnold moved to adopt a resolution as follows: 1 RESOLUTION O THE CITY COUN F THE CITY O F ARRO sR4NDE GR 4NT IVG CONSEN TO THE COUNTY F N LUIS OBISPO TO FORM THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TOURIS BUSINESS NESS I 1 EME1 T DISTRICT SL T ' : Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion sled on the following roll-call vote: + AYES: Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara NOES: None ABS E None 10./CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS hone. 1 1. N EW BUSINESS ITEMS 11.a. Consideration of Agricultural Buffer Policies including Minimum Buffer Distance, Allowed Lard Uses and Landscape Standar ds of the General Plan and Development Code. _ .. F Agenda Item 9.a. Page 39 Minutes: City Council Meetin Tuesday, January 22, 2008 Fags Community Pevelopment Di rector strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council revie w agricultural buffer policies, including minimum buff 6r distance, allowed land uses and landscape standards of the General Plan and Development code and provide direction to staff. i Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing no public comments, h cloyed the public comment period. Mayor Pro Tem Fellows clarified that he had wanted to specifically Discuss the possible modification of the "make -up" -of the buffer and stated that the City would benefit from a guide can the structure and type of plants that can be included in th buffer in order for it to perform the job that it is intended to do. He referred to the staff report and spoke about the need for updating the LES Model to reflect local conditions. He also referred to Ordinance No. 550 which 'includes a phrase regarding limited cony mer ial uses within the agricultural buffer, and stated 6e wanted some clarification on that issue. He acknowledged staffing constraints and stated he was in favor of the second Alternative in the staff report to instruct staff to include additional agricultural buffer analysis and alternatives as part of the update to the Agriculture, conservation and Open space Element during 2008. He reiterated that this should include information such as hover the buffer should be constructed and landscaped based on its size. Council Member Guthr concurred that better guidance on the make - of the buffers is needed. He suggested that this could be a Cal Poly project. He also said the Council needs to clarify whatever the mitigation measures are for conversion of agricultural land and would like to take a look at the mitigation guidelines before the Council considers a new project., He stated that when reviewing buffers, the Council should also look at alternatives for smaller agricultural buffers and their composition. - Council Member Arnold stated he did not want to unwrap the enure policy, and that the existing policies were working well. He acknowledged the challenges of the cherry c reek project. He was supportive of seeking assistance. from Cal Poly; however, he could not support spending a lot of staff tirne looking at buffers because there are, so many variables and exceptins. 'He supported - the existing agricultural conversion policies that are in place and stated that he was comfortable reviewing projects on a case -by -case basis as they carne for ward. He stated he was not in favor o f a major review; however he would support some review if desired by the a uncil. He agreed that the LESA Model does not work for the City; that it appears to be designed for large parcels, and it should be used only if it is modified to reflect local conditions. Council Member Costello agreed that there should not be a major rev 'iew of .the' buffer policy, and the existing policies are working well. He noted the policies could be improved and assistance from Cal Poly to look at specific needs and re nennerits would be an excellent opportunity. He agreed that looking at buffer composition i s worth reviewing; however, he did not want to c mmit a great deal of additional staff time to this Issue. Mayor Ferrara agreed with Council Members Amold and Costello and stated that the buffer policies the City has in plane seem to be working; h wever, it could be better and enhancements that have been mentioned would be beneficial. He stated that he would prefer to give Cal Poly a defined project to create a menu of potential agricultural � buffer designs, including a. pictorial display with specific mitigation examples'. He said it was important to note that the City should also consider the wishes of the property owner l ving' next to active agriculture who may not support buffer zone. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 40 M inutes: City Co uncil Meeting P 1 Tuesday, January 22,, 2008 n bout agricultural buffers Mayor Ferrara summarized the discussion � Following further di g ► ` by noting that the outcome of the Cherry Creels project was favorable; however, the process needs to be refined .to. provide more guidance and references, which would provide an enhancement to exisfing policies. i Action: Mayor Pro Tern Fellows moved to instruct staff to include additional cep -to - date agricultural buffer analysis and alternatives as part of the update to the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space. Element during 200 8,, and to further explore the idea of involving Cal Poly students, and to include review of the LESA [Model. Based on Mayor Pro Tern Fellows motion, Mayor Ferrara surnmad ed and clarified that the motion included further examples and analyses of specific plant species, trees, and models of buffer zones that could be used and requesting that Cal Poly u ndertake the project. Mayor Pro Tern Fellows. indicated that was correct. Mayor Ferrara seconded the motion and then clarified that if the city is going to give Cal Poly as project, it must be a significant and comprehensive project to satisfy a class requirement. The motion passed on the following roll -call Grote: AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Costello, Fellows, Ferrara NOES# None ABSENT: None I7.b, consideration of city Policy and Regulations ns F egarding Placement of Bagketball Hoops in the Public Fight -o a a # # City Manager' reported that Council Member Arnold had requested a pdntinuance of this item due to the fact that a number of homeowners It in the issu"ere not able to be present tonight. Action: Council Member Arnold moved to continue the item to th ebruary 26, Zoo regular City j Couinoil Meet council Member Guthrie seconded, and the tion passed on the following roll - call Grote: AYES: A mold, Guthrie, Costello, Fellows, Ferr er NOES: None }� ABSENT: lone 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS TS . M AYOR TONY F A A* . ( 1) San Luis Obispo c rich o Governments /San Leis Obispo Regional Transit A t ority SLOC SL ORTA . SL COG Board discussed issues regarding the STIP funding cy e. SL PTA has appointed an interim Transit'. Manager. (2) South San s Obispo county Sanitation District ( SSLOCSD). council Member Guthrie a deg# the last meeting a the alternate. ( 3) otter. ne. i b_ MAYOR o TEM CI-I��C FELLOWS: ( ouith county Youth coalition. Did not meet in December. No report. Meets on Thursday. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 41 PLANNING COMMISSION PACE 4 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 Subarea 3 J _ Chair R ay op ened the continued Public Hearing for new in orrnation comment but hearing none closed it, 1r. Strong reported that since the initial proposal, LFeo has moved ahead of the city and has accommodated preliminary direction to the mobile hone parks r annexation to Oceano Community services District for the purpose of obtaining w9j6r supply. It was the consensus of the commission to support this project. Subarea Commission had no questions. Chair Ray opened the continued Public Hearing for fiew information comments, but hearing none closed it.}r It was the consensus of the Commission to supp this project. f. Subarea Commission has no questions. Chair Ray opened the continued Pu ic Hearing for new information comments, but hearing none closed it. It was the consensus of the corn0issi n to support this project. Subarea Commission has no que n . Chair Ray opened t Ld continued Public Hearing for new information comments, but hearing none close t. It was the cons sus of the commission to support this project. Subarea 7 Comm ssi i has no questions. Chair opened the continued Public Hearing for new information comments, but heariyfg none closed it. It as the consensus of the Commission to support this project. Mr. strong said this project also includes cleanup amendments to the General Plan and Development code to allow various commercial retail and recreational uses (including drive - through in the Regional Commercial district) and to revise the definition of Agenda Item 9.a. Page 42 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 PAGE "Agricultural Land" for code consistency. He referred to the attachments to the staff report with regard to the agricultural land ". He said the basic issue that causes this to be a lamer issue than a clean -up amendment is the difference between the General Plan reference to prime ag soils and the City implementing ordinance to date which deal with land use designation or zoning. M Strong said the Commission can separate this out of the clean -up amendments. Commissioner Brown said he is not clear on how the language for the "ag land" will be e Ills. McClish explained the procedure for removing action on the "ag land" stating that the DCA would proceed for changes to the drive - through restaurants in the Regional Commercial district as shown on the Table in Exhibit A, but the change in the Development Code regarding "ag land" would be excluded from the proposal. Section 2 of the proposed draft ordinance, which is attached to the draft master resolution would be removed as well as the reference to Section 16.12.170.B of Exhibit "All, Commissioner Barneich said she and Tim Brown met with City Attorney Carmel and Ms. Ilcelish regarding the prime soils land at Traffic Way and cherry Avenue and stated if this was to be built on in the future, commercial as zoned now, that CEQA would not be triggered although it is prime soils and is being covered up forever. she said she was told by knowledgeable people that impacts to prime soils should be considered for CEA even though a property is zoned commercial. Commissioner Brown said the issue of the language change was addressed in previous environmental revie w. Mr. Strong agreed. commissioner Brown asked when is the policy going to be implemented. Commissioner Brown said that the General Plan states to come up with a model on which land should be mitigated consistent with language that talks about natural resources in the General Plan. He stated he wants to deal with this head on and not piece meal. commissioner Brown referred to Mr. orfr an's letter attached to the staff re port and stated that if he stopped farming and came forward with the lot line adjustment and commercial project, based on staff's interpretation he would be able to move forward without mitigation. Ms. McClish said if this definition was approved by Cit y Council there would be no agricultural mitigation if the land is not zoned agricultural, farmed or non farmed, except in this example, a buffer would need to be implemented on the commercial side of the property to protect the agricultural land next to it. Chair Flay opened the continued Public Hearing for new information comments. Jim Dickens, Branch Neill Road, stated he objects staff's recommendation to change the definition of "agricultural land as stated in Section 1 .12.1 g B of the Development Code. This change is a significant policy item and a recommendation would impact the intent and policies adopted by the City in the General Plan agricultural element. He Agenda Item 9.a. Page 43 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 PAGE asked is prime land soils a natural resource worth conserving and stated he feels it is worth conserving. He stated the City's General Plan states specifically that we are to avoid, and/or mitigate loss of prime farm land soils and conserve non prune agricultural use in natural resource lands and referred to AG1- , which states that we are to establish and apply for specific criteria for CEA analysis as provided by CEA guidelines...; change In language proposed by staff widens the disconnect between adopted policies and Development Code; as one of the five council Members who voted on the 2001 General Plan, it was his Intent that the policies adopted in the Agriculture Element would apply to all lands containing prime farmland soils regardless of their zoning; zoning Is not the best tool when one desires to increase the protection of valuable resources; not here tonight to suggest that all lands within the City containing prime soils should be protected at all costs recommending that valuable resources are appropriately and reasonably protected and/or mitigated, recommended the Commission recommend a public hearing to specifically review staff s concerns regarding agricultural policies objectively look on hoer to clarify these inconsistencies, recommend the public hearing revie w a policy of implementing an agricultural land evaluation and site assessment model LESA Model and exclude staff s recommendation to make changes to the definition of the agricultural land ". Ella Honeycutt, said she has been studying agricultural since 1979 and the LESA model is an excellent document to use as reference. Commission comments included having a workshop; look at document in packet that has striking; Commission and city Council has failed under policy issues in how to mitigate those lands that are zoned agricultural in case there is a conversion; remove the " ag land" out of the draft ordinance, prepare a LESA Model, prioritize mitigation and thanked Mr. Dickens for attending the meeting. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruth, to adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande recommending to the City Council approval of pre - zoning for annexation, Sphere of Influence adjustments, General Plan amendments and Development Code amendments, Case No. 9-001 and preliminary Tentative Tract Maps Nos. . 3018 and 3019 regarding seven project subareas within and adjoining the city and certain clean up amendments to table 16.36.030 A for Regional Commercial and Section 16.12.1 70 B regarding "agricultural land ", with the following modifications: Delete Section 16.12.179 E in the title of the Resolution; Delete Section 2. of the proposed draft ordinance regarding #`agricultural land Remove strike out in Exhibit "A" regarding "ag land "; Recommend denial o Subarea 2 TTY 301 and defer TTM 3017 until after annexation. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 44 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 RESOLUTION No. 094088 A RESOLUTION of THE PLANNING COMMISSION of THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING To THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of PIEZONING FOR ANNEXATION, SPHERE of INFLUENCE ADJUSTMENTS, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT ENT CODE AMENDMENTS, CASE No. 09-001 AND PRELIMINARY TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS Nos, 3918 AND 3019 REGARDING AI DING SEVEN PROJECT SUBAREAS WITHIN AND ADJOINING THE CITY AND CERTAIN CLEAN UP AMENDMENTS To TABLE 16.36.030A FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL. The motion was approved by the following roll call Grote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Ruth, Barnei h and Brown NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner been the foregoing Resolution ution a ras adopted this 1s day of September 200 9. PAGE Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bro wn, to adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande recommending that the City Council deny GPA/DCA Case Igo. 09 -001 and Tentative Tract Map Igo. 301 regarding subarea 2, located adjoining Hillcrest Reservoir #2, near Hillcrest and Stonecret Drives, initiated by the City and applied for by Hillcrest Land Company. RESOLUTION No. 9 -2089 A RESOLUTION of THE PLANNING COMMISSION of THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENIM GPA/DDA CASE No. 094DO1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 3015 REGARDING DING SUBA1 EA 2, LOCATED ADJOINING HILLC EST RESERVOIR OII 2, NEAR HILLC EST AND STONECIEST DRIVES, INITIATED BY THE CITY AND APPLIED FOR BY H1LLC EST LAND COMPANY. The motion was approved by the following roll call Vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray, Brown, Barneich and Ruth NOES: Done ABSENT: Commissioner Keen the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 'I st day of September 2009. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 45 Minutes C19y CounclYRedevelopment Agency Mesting Page Tuesday, September 22, 2009 Action. council Member Fellows moved to adopt a l esoWion as follows. "A RESOLLMON of THE cf TY COUNCIL of THE c1TY of ARROYO GRAkL B A PPRO VING TEN TA TIVE TRACT MAP X10. 3015 LOCATED AT THE NORTH EA CORNER OF WEST BRANCH STREET AND OLD RANCH ROAD COMPOSED OF LOTS, APPLIED FOR BY THE CITY L ARROYO GRANDE ". Council Member A id seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Fellows, Arn old, G uth , Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT. Costello Action. Council Member rnold moved to adopt a Resolution, as amended to include the modifications to Condo * ns 8, g, 40 and 42,, as follows: A RESOLUTION THE CITY COUNCIL CAP THE OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING T NTAT1VE TRACT MAP NO, 3019 LOCATED ORTHEAST of WEST BRANCH STREET ADD RODEO DRIVE, VE, COMPOSED L EIGHT LOTS, APPL.IBD FOR BY THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO' Council Mlle r Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara NOE . None AB T: Costello Staff requested the Council provide direction concerning potential revision of the definition of conversion of agricultural land as provided in the Development Code for consistency with policy regarding mitigation. Council discussion ensued regarding the current language which can be confusing, and the various alternatives for clarifying when mitigation for loss of prime soils is triggered. Following discussion, the council directed staff to present the following alternatives to the Planning Commission for recommendation: Identify conversion of agricultural land as when it is rezoned. Therefore, mitigation of loss of prime soils would be required only for rezoning of land previously zoned agriculture; - Require mitigation for loss of prime soils for parcels of a- specified size when either rezoned from a n agricultural zone or when developed and previously farmed within the past 10-years or other specific tern) period. This would address loss of prime soils consistent with the current General Plan language and would prevent the incentive of ceasing active farming to avoid mitigation. With regard to Subarea 1, council directed staff to schedule a site visit to the Pear good area with the engineer in order to review the site and associated drainage issues. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: None. 11. NEW BUSINESS: Done. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 46 Non,wAl Zonled Properties, Used f or A NOTTO SCALE A Item 9.a. Pa 47 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 48 ATTACHMENT LE SA Model Explanation and Results ult Land Evaluation Factors The site is 2.69 acres in size, and consists entirely o f one 'soil map unit% Mocho silty clay loam. This soil's Land Capability Classification (L is II , which carries a point ranking of 80. The soil's S torie Index is 81, which carries a point rating of 81. Priet Size The site does not meet the minimum threshold of ten (10) acres and therefore does not warrant any points for project size. Water Resources Availability.-Rating The site is seared entirely by ground water during both drought and non-drought years, and as such, is awarded a point score o f 100. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The site has a zone of influence (ZOI) totaling approximately 288 acres (all properties within 0.25 miles of the site). Of these 288 acres, approximately 134 acres are designated o currently used for agricultural production. This constitutes 47% of the site's Z01, which carries a point rating of 20. * For the purpose of dais exercise, are 86.4.E acre property located at the southeast border of the City was counted as 'agriculture' dire to grozing activ ties, although this property is neither designated nor zoned for agriculture. Without this property, the site would not receive any points for surrounding agricultural laird. S urrounding Protected Resource Land Ratin There are no protected resource lands within the site's Z01 and therefore does not warrant any points for surrounding protected resource land rating. Conclusion The site scores a total of 20 points (weighted) for its Lard Capability Classification {LLB and 20.25 points (weighted) for its S torie index, resulting in a total weighted score of 40.25 points in the Land Evaluation sub - category. The site does not score any points for project size or protected resource lands. It does score a total of 15 points (weighted) for water resource availability and 3 points (weighted) for surrounding agricultural land, resulting in a total weighted score of 18 points in the Site Assessment sub - category. Using the most liberal application of the LESA Model (which includes the 86,45 -acre `agricultural' property), the site scores a total of 58.25 points (out of a possible 100) The site is not considered significant per the LEA Model, as it does not meet the minimum threshold of 20 points in the Site Assessment sub - category. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 49 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 9.a. Page 50 00" � � \ / \\ � � < / © �)\ �2% « > � va� � :»< �\\ � � > � a \ (� 1�\ »� ) \ \ \ © «»? Agenda Item 9.a. Page 51 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item 9.a. Page 52 ATTACHMENT Principals Agriculture Objectives and Policies Conservation and Open Space Objectives and Policies AC Implementation Measures AGRICULTURE and CONSERVATION /OPEN SPACE ELEMENT An Integral Part of the Land Use Element) Adopted by City Council, October 9, 2001 Amended September 23, 2003 Amended March 23, 2004 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 53 AGRICULTURE, o SE ATIO and OPEN SPACE ELEMENT I"in6pa . That resources such as prime capability soils are highly productive whether for agricultural purposes, watershed or natural habitat. Resources that are irretrievable ardor irreplaceable need to be protected and preserved. Individuals and the community have a responsibility to future generations as well as to wildlife to preserve and protect finite natural resources. 0 Resources ources lands contribute to overall public health, safety and welfare beyond provision of basic necessities such as food, fiber and livelihood. • Land Use and urban development shall be managed and limited to that which can be sustained by the available resources and serviced by the circulation and other infrastructure systems. GRICUL T RE OLUECUVES and POUCrES.ff Agl Avoid and or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non- prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Ag1-1 Designate prime farmland soils that are not predominately committed to non - Agricultural development as Agriculture (Ag) and/or Agriculture Preserve AgP , whether or not in current agricultural productive user Agl -1.1 Prime Farmland Soils shall include all land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification whether or not the land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. (This definition is derived from the Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 as reorganized and amended in 2000. Section 56064(a)). Prime farmland soils shall also include farmland of Statewide importance as identified in the USDA,, Natural Resources Conservation Services, outlined in the Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM)Project Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, September 1984. Agl-1.2 Public facilities are permitted on agricultural and natural resource land when required by health, safety, or welfare of the public. Agl-1.3 Either Agriculture or Agriculture Preserve zoning are consistent with the Agriculture classification of the plan. Agl-2 Designate as Conservation /Open Space CS or County Rural Lands all non - prime Ag lands with important natural resource or open space values that the community intends to conserve. AMENDED DED MAf CH 23, 2004 Ag /oS - 1 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 54 Agl -,1 Areas with a C/OS designation shall be subject to special measures and/or programs designed to conserve natural resources and protect the community from their loss, including measures or programs that may be developed subsequent to adoption of this General Plan Update. Agl-3 Support existing programs and develop strategies to retain areas of farmland soils for agricultural use, and other Conservation /Open Space 5 areas in a natural,, undeveloped state. Agl- .1 Encourage Williamson Act participation and acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements by agricultural landowners. An inventory of parcels under Williamson Act contract and those with easements within the City shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and the status of those contracts /easements reported to the Planning Commission and City Council. The City's objective shall be l00% of either Williamson n Act enrollment of qualified parcels or agricultural conservation easement acquisition. The City's aim shall be to maintain contiguity of Ag and parcels and avoid fragmentation of areas having prime farmland soils or non -prime Conservation /open Space designation. Agl-3.2 Encourage dedication of conservation easements over parcels having Conservation /open Space 5 designation. An inventory of conservation easements and similar restrictions within the City shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and reported annually to the Planning Commission and City Council. The City's objective shall be to maintain 100% of the Conservation /Open Space designation under interim or permanent open space or conservation easements. Agl-4 Establish and apply a significance criterion threshold of significance) for CEQA analysis, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, that considers loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact. Agl -.1 Loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their unavailability for agricultural use. Loss may occur through natural causes or development such as coverage e.g., pawing, construction of buildings, etc.), or conversion to urban /suburban use (including residential yards /gardens and recreational areas. Cessation of agricultural use shall not constitute loss so long as the parcel remains fallo w or is allowed to revert to a natural undeveloped state. Site improvements that are intended to support agricultural operations - such as grading, irrigation or drainage facilities,, unpaged roads, or farm buildings and structures -- shall not constitute loss so long as the improvements do not substantially diminish the capability of agricultural operations on the parcel or within the area and the improvements are directly related to agricultural production on the site. Agl-4.2 Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils ma include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1 and up to :1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use. Permanent protection may involve,, AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 AgC /EIS - Agenda Item 9.a. Page 55 but is not limited to, dedication of a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement or other effective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen as mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime farmland soils. Suitability of location shall be determined by the City Council. The aim shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and contiguous to City boundaries, secondly within the Urban Land Use Element area, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La ienega Malley within the Area of Environmental Concern. other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of in -lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council. Agl-4.3 Since prime farmland soils occur naturally and are geographically specific, the only means for mitigation to less than significant is preservation. The City's airy shall be to maintain contiguity of Ag and C parcels and avoid fragmentation of areas having prune farmland soils. The City shall avoid development of prime farmland soil areas by directing growth potential -to more suitable urban locations. Only after the imposition. of available mitigation and consideration of alternatives to avoid the proposed action, may the City Council approve development on prune farmland soils subject to overriding considerations as permitted b California Government Code Section 15033. Ag1 -5 Conserve topsoil by encouraging cooperation between property owners, agriculture operators and growers, agencies and organizations that will result in effective soil conservation practices. Agl- .1 Assure that city streets, drainage systems and other infrastructure do not adversely impact agricultural lands and that the roads, drainage and utility systems are properly maintained. Agl-5.2 Actively encourage conservation of soil resources. Agl -5.2.1 Male available to area farmers, in conjunction with Natural Resource Conservation Service, voluntary guidelines for farming operations on erodible soils. r Agl-5.3 Minimize flood damage potential to farmland. Agl- . .1 Assure that urban developments incorporate adequate runoff and drainage detention and flood control. Ag2 Allocate and conserve ground and surface water resources for agricultural use and minimize Potential Fringe Area and urban development that would divert such resources from agriculture. Ag -1 Maintain water resources for production agriculture, both in quality and in quantity, so as to prevent the loss of agriculture due to competition for water with urban development. AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 AgC/ - Agenda Item 9.a. Page 56 Ag -1.1 Minimize County Fringe Area and urban development that would adversely affect: 1 grater supplies and quality or groundwater recharge capability needed for agricultural use. Ag2-1.2 Support efforts to provide needed surface and ground water resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very Low Density and Low Density. Ag2-2 Identify groundwater recharge areas that are pertinent to agricultural water usage. Ag -.1 For purposes of this policy, { groundwater recharge area' refers to all areas with sufficient soil permeability or appropriate geologic structure such that surface water penetrates to one or more subterranean aquifers that are currently used or could reasonably be used in the future for agricultural irrigation. Ag2-2.2 The location and suitability of groundwater recharge areas shall be identified in CE analyses and considered with regard to impacts on agricultural lard uses. Ag2-3 Ensure that urban land use and Residential Rural or Suburban development projects result in no net decrease in groundwater recharge and no adverse effect on agricultural crater supplies. Ag -.1 Require mitigation measures that result in no net decrease in groundwater recharge. Ag -4 Detention, retention and recharge basins shall be designed as open space and habitat resources in addition to flood control and other functions associated with a development. Their extent and engineering shall permit establishment of vegetative growth and utilization for passive recreation or compatible agricultural uses. The design of such Facilities shall include specific operation and maintenance programs that ensure that the capacity is not reduced. Ag2-5 Encourage water conservation by both agricultural and urban water users. Ag - .1 Require water - conserving design in urban development proposals. Ag2-5.2 Distribute irrigation standards for urban area agricultural uses. Aga Current acreage of agricultural uses within Arroyo Grande's Area of Environmental Concern shall be maintained. Ag3-1 Designate all lands currently in agricultural use, and vacant lands having been in agricultural use for at least six 6 months within the past ten 10 gears, as Agriculture (Ag) unless otherwise classified and partially developed for non - Agricultural uses. Ag3-1.1 Agricultural use shall include grazing by domesticated animals e.g. horses, cattle, sheep, goats, etc) or other animals e.g. buffalo, ostrich, deer, etc.) managed for commercial or conservation purposes; tending AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 AS - Agenda Item 9.a. Page 57 of animals e.g. chickens, rabbits, etc.) for commercial products e.g., eggs, meat, fur) or for conservation purposes e.g., wildlife refuge); cultivation of food crops intended for human or animal consumption, including products requiring substantial processing after harvest; cultivation of flowers, trees or ornamental flora, including landscaping materials; active management of orchards or vineyards; or any other activity where the soil and climate provide an essential component of commercial productivity. Ag3 -1. 2 Commercial value and significance with regard to agricultural use shall refer to the purpose of the activity rather than to any particular economic threshold. The criterion is whether the activity is pursued with the intent to sell agricultural products, directly or indirectly and whether profitable or not. Activity pursued for personal consumption or pleasure e.g., Peeping a horse for family riding, a goat for household milk, or a small vineyard for home vinting does not qualify as an agricultural use. Ag3-1.3 Agricultural land shall encompass parcels with agricultural uses and one or more residential structures and/or outbuildings designed to shelter or contain animals or store agricultural products or equipment and supplies. Ag3 -1.4 Parcels with no agricultural uses, of a primarily residential nature, shall be considered residential. Parcels with no agricultural uses, which contain uses related to and supportive of agricultural operations, shall be considered agricultural. Ag3-1.5 Vacant or undeveloped agricultural land shall refer to fallow cropland, grazing land or land supporting other agricultural uses as identified in A3 #1.1, that is not in productive use at the time of any designation action or re- designation request. Ag3 -2 Outside the city limits and within Arroyo Grande's Area of Environmental Concern, designate those lands identified in San Luis Obispo County's General Plan as Agriculture, which are currently in agricultural use or have been in agricultural use for at least sic months within the past ten 10 gears, as Agriculture Ag. Ag3#2.1 County designation shall be as determined as of December 15, 1336, the date of adoption by the Board of Supervisors, of the County`s Agriculture Open Space Elemen A3 -2.2 Should landowners of parcels in this area request consideration for inclusion within the City's Sphere of Influence and/or annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande, the request shall be evaluated based on the City's criteria for Agriculture designation and zoning, and be subject to all policies and regulations pertaining to that use. Ag3-3 Agricultural land shall be considered as two sub - types: Prime and non - prime. Because of soil and slope conditions, and non - expandable nature of these areas, prime Agriculture areas shall have the highest priority for protection from conversion to urban uses. AMENDED DED I AF CH 23, 2004 AgC /OS - 5 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 58 Aga - .1 Prime Agriculture shall comprise what are commonly referred to as "bottom lards" within the Arroyo Grande valley, Huasna Malley, Cienega Valley and Los Berros valley. These are typically flat, irrigated, and in intensive crop production. Aga - .2 Ikon- prime areas shall comprise what are commonly referred to as "grass lands" on hillsides and sloped areas generally southeast, east and north of the urban area. These are typically noon- irrigated and support grazing or dry -land crops. Ag3-4 Encourage the expansion of agricultural land uses, Ag3-.1 Encourage requests for re- classification of lands in Residential Rural and Residential Suburban and/or Urban land use districts to the Agriculture district. Ag3-5 All Ag- designated lands shall be considered 'Agricultural Preserve' for Lard Conservation Act 1lilliamson Act) purposes and eligible to enter into Williamson Act contracts to the extent that statutory qualifications are satisfied. The City shall encourage agricultural conservation easements for lands that are not eligible for Williamson Act contracts. Aga - .1 Promote Williamson Act contracts, or agricultural conservation easements, on Ag- designated properties within the City limits and in the City's Area of Environmental Concern. The City's aim shall be 100% participation of qualified A properties that are otherwise not protected in perpetuity. Aga - .2 Encourage the County to support participation in the Williamson Act program by Ag- designated properties within the Area of Environmental Concern under jurisdiction of the County. The City's aim shall be 100% participation of qualified Ag- designated properties that are otherwise not protected in perpetuity. Ag3-6 Encourage lot mergers and consolidations, within the Ag district, and among properties seeking inclusion into the Ag district, or meet minimum parcel size requirements for Williamson Act participation and City standards for Agriculture uses, and encourage joint participation in linked agricultural conservation easements. Aga - .1 Establish incentives for lot mergers and consolidations. The City's aim shall be l00% of Ag- designated properties to be qualified for Williamson Act participation and compliant Frith City standards, or subject to agricultural conservation easements. Ag3-7 Where lot mergers and consolidations are impractical, encourage the establishment and maintenance of small-scale agricultural uses,, specialty crops, and specialized animal facilities . Ag3-7.1 Discourage rural residences as the primary use on existing small Ag designated parcels. AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 Ag l S - B Agenda Item 9.a. Page 59 Ag3-7. Advise owners of legally non - conforming Ag parcels that City policy promotes continued agricultural use including specialty crops and right - to- farm adjoining Ag properties. Ag3-8 Encourage the establishment and succession of agricultural usage. Ag3-.1 Cooperate with the County Agricultural Commissioner and Farm Advisors to distribute information encouraging establishment of agricultural uses and conversion to higher value crops to preserve Agriculture and conserve Conservation /Open Space lands. Ag3-9 Discourage subdivision of Ag designated property. Ag3-9.1 The minimum parcel size for new land division of Ag designated parcels that are irrigated shall be 20 acres. Ag3-9. The minimum parcel size for new land division of Ag designated parcels that are non - irrigated shall be 40 acres. Ag3-1 0 Where land division of an Ag designated property is proposed, the resulting parcels shall be designed to ensure the long - terra protection of agricultural resources. Ag3-10.1 Refer proposed divisions of Agriculture lands to the County Agricultural Commissioner for review and advisory comment as to whether the proposed parcels would be sustainable as agricultural parcels. Ag3-10.2 Require that Ag parcels meet Williamson Act eligibility standards and enter into Williamson Act contracts if not otherwise protected in perpetuity. Ag3-10. Require that divisions of Ag designated parcels include covenants, conditions and restrictions Rs notifying subsequent owners that land is an Agricultural reserve and that the City supports its `Might -to- Farm' Ordinance, Ag3-10.4 Restrict the building sites of a subdivided Ag parcel to no more than 1 acre. Ag3-10. Accessory buildings or structures shall be sited to minimize disruption of agricultural operations, avoid conversions of productive farmland, and tale maximum advantage of existing infrastructure. tv Ag3-10.6 Maintain existing irrigation infrastructure. Ag3-11 Allow residential density of no more than two primary dwelling units on each legal parcel of 20 acres or larger within the Ag category. Accessory units for farmworker housing at a higher density may be allowed on parcels greater than 20 acres subject to obtaining a conditional use permit. Allover no more than one primary dwelling unit on each parcel of less than 2 acres; exceptions may be allowed for farmworl er housing located on non - prime Agriculture designated lands subject to obtaining a conditional use permit. AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 Ag / S - Agenda Item 9.a. Page 60 Ag3-12 Except as provided below, permit only Ag- related uses in areas designated Agriculture Ag. Ag3-12.1 Ag- related shall mean activities and structures associated with the growing and/or production of agricultural products for income. Ag3-12.2 Incidental activities (such as roadside stands or bed - and - breakfast farm stay accommodations) may be permitted, so long as those activities are related to the primary use, are clearly secondary to agricultural use, and that all building sites in the aggregate compose less than 1 acre of conforming or less than 10% of the non-conforming) parcel size and are situated such that they do net impinge upon the agricultural activities of the parcel and/or the Ag district. Ag3-1 Discourage conversion of land within Ag designated areas to non - Agriculture uses. Ag3-13,1 Cooperate with the County, special districts, and agricultural organizations /agencies to establish urban service and urban reserve lines that will protect agricultural land and stabilize agricultural uses within the Area of Environmental Concern. Ag3-1 Consider re- classification of an Ag parcel or contiguous set of parcels), only if and when the parcel or set of such panels is less than minimum size e.g. legally non- conforming as to area) and is isolated from other agricultural uses. Ag3-14.1 'Isolated" shall refer to a parcel or set of parcels being predominately separated from other nearby Agriculture areas, or predominately surrounded by existing nor- agricultural uses, such that it lacks contiguity with or connection to other areas of existing or potential agricultural use. Ag3-14.2 In cases considered for conversion, the parcel(s) shall be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure and any development application shall be subject to environmental analysis as referenced in ACE Policy Ag 1- . Ag3-1 Re-designation requests shall avoid leapfrogging of parcels in agricultural use that would result in other Ag parcels being widowed, including uses within County jurisdiction as well as uses within City. Ag4 Support continued economic viability of agriculture as a specialized site - specific industry. Ag4-1 Support increased productivity and enhancement of markets and/or Ag uses, such as vineyards, in appropriate areas, especially in locations that would retain Ag. Lands and/or improve or reestablish agricultural productivity. Ag4-1.1 Continue support of the Farmers Market in Arroyo Grande on a regular basis in one or more appropriate locations. Ag4-2 Support the development of new techniques and new practices in agricultural production. AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 Ag / S - Agenda Item 9.a. Page 61 Ag4-2.1 Favorably consider proposals for agricultural uses and practices that are compatible with surrounding uses. Ag4-2.2 Minimize a the burden to agricultural operators of any review and permitting requirements by the city. Ag4-2.3 Affirm the city's Fight to Farm Ordinance and its extension to new techniques and practices. Ag4-3 Provide incentives for landowners to maintain land in productive agricultural uses. Ago - .1 Encourage the establishment of small -scale agricultural uses, specialty crops, and specialized livestock facilities ether than processing on existing small land parcels in the Ag category. Ag4-4 Allow incidental visitor - serving and incidental retail use and facilities in Ag designated areas that are beneficial to the agricultural industry and are compatible with long -tern agricultural use of the land. Such uses shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the primary agricultural uses of the site, and meet the criteria of Aga -12.2. Ago - .1 Visitor - serving uses may include tourism facilities such as bed-and- breakfast/farm stay lodging or food- serving establishments. Such uses shall be of a small -scale nature with discrete signage. Ag4-4.2 Incidental retail uses may involve on -site, area - specific or product - specific promotion and marketing of agricultural products, such as wine tasting at a vineyard. Such uses shall be of a small -scale nature with discrete signage. Ag4-4.3 Locate visitor - serving and incidental retail uses on the least productive agricultural lands unless there are no other feasible locations g4-5 Promote the establishment of service commercial type uses related to the support of local agricultural production outside Ag areas. Ago - .1 Locate Ag related service commercial uses in commercial or industrial districts with convenient access to areas of agricultural production. Service commercial type uses may include, but are not limited to, farm equipment rental and repair services, veterinary services, and bulls supplies. Ag4-6 Promote the establishment of compatible industrial facilities that support local agricultural production, processing, packing, and related Industries. Ag4-.1 compatible industrial facilities include facilities that are Bally enclosed and do not generate dust, odors or other emissions that may adversely affect residents or workers. Such facilities may include small -scale wineries, breweries, ice manufacturing, and other facilities as evaluated on a case -by -case basis. AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 AgC oS - 9 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 62 Ago - .2 Incompatible agricultural facilities of an industrial mature may include poultry operations, hog farms, feed lots, feed and grain rills, meat- packing plants, food processing plants, produce packing sheds, and certain types of transportation facilities for agricultural products and supplies, as evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Ago - .3 locate agriculturally related industrial facility uses in commercial or industrial districts with convenient access to areas of agricultural production. AgS Promote coexistence o agricultural and urban land uses. Ag -1 Affirm the Might -to -Farm Ordinance. Ag -1.1 Extend Fight -to -Farm provisions to new areas that are adjoining lands approved for addition to the Agriculture district. Ag -2 Establish criteria for buffers between Agriculture land use designations and non- A land use designations. Ag - .1 Buffers shall be established on all parcels proposed for non- agricultural development adjacent to agricultural uses, when the property is exposed to agricultural operations. Ag5-2.2 No portion of any new residential structure within a non - Agricultural land use designation shall be located closer than 100 feet from the site of agricultural operations within an Agricultural land designation. Greater distances may be required based upon site - specific circumstances, to include consideration of established or existing farming operations or practices. Ag -2.3 The buffer area shall be noticed and/or fenced and landscaped in such manner to discourage human and domestic animal movement between the urban and agricultural areas and to screen urban uses from dust and grind -borne materials. Ag5-2.4 The buffer area shall contain a minimum 20 feet depth of landscaping. Plantings shall be sufficiently dense and mature to provide aerosol protection within the first year of establishment. Greater landscaping depth may be required based upon site - specific circumstances, to include consideration of established or existing farming operations or practices. Ag5-2-5 Buffer standards associated with non - residential structures and roadways shall account for the type of use, building orientation and building and roadways design. Ags -3 land use conversions shall not adversely affect existing or potential agriculture production on adjacent lands designated Ag. Ag -4 Design special assessments that are equitable with regard to benefits,, such that agricultural landowners are not disproportionately assessed for services that accrue AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 AgC/OS - 10 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 63 to urban residents more than farmers or ranchers. Examples of such urban services include fire protection, park and recreation services and neighborhood street lighting. Ag S-5 i nimi a trespassing into agricultural areas, through signage, access restrictions, fines and other available means Ag -6 Establish a grievance or arbitration committee to mediate land use disputes between farmers and adjoining non -farm residents. Ag 6 Agriculture classification shall include minimum development standards: Ag6 -1 Ag zoning classifications shall prescribe minimum parcel sizes of 20 -acres for cultivated, irrigated and/or prime agricultural land, and 40 acres for non - cultivated, non - irrigated and/or non -prime agricultural lands. Ag6-2 Ag Zoning classifications shall allow 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres and accessory structures provided all buildings comply with Ag 3 -10.4, Ag 3 -10.5 and Ag 3 -11. CONSERVATION and OPEN SPACE OBJECTIVES and POLICIES COI Protect visually accessible scenic resources. C /OSl -1 Identify and protect scenic resources and view sheds associated with them C/OS1-1.1 For purposes of this policy, a 'scenic resource' may refer to agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgeline , canyons, galleys, landmark trees, woodlands, wetlands, streambeds and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment that are of a historic nature, of unique to the City, or contribute to the rural, small tern character of the City. o1-1. For purposes of this policy, a 'view shed' refers to locations from which a scenic resource is visible. Such locations may be privately owned but generally accessible to the public. Public vantage points, such as travel paths (roadways,, trails) or public facilities (schools, parks, etc) are especially important view sheds to maintain. C/O S1-1.3 Establish designated scenic corridors along public roads and highways that have unique or outstanding scenic attributes, such as viers of prominent hills, mountains or canyons; views of stands. of trees or wildflowers; views of the Pacific Ocean or streams. 091 -1.4 Locate st roads and grading on portions of a site so as to minimize visual impact. Locate developments below prominent ridgelines and hilltops such that they are not silhouetted against the sky. C/O S1-1.5 Use natural landforms and vegetation to screen development. C S1-1.6 Minimize signs, especially freestanding signs. Secure removal of non- conforming signs within scenic corridors as part of discretionary development projects. AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 AS - 11 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 64 C 1-1.7 Prohibit off - premise advertising signs in all Agriculture, Conservation /Open Space, and Residential designated areas of the City and planning area. C/OSI-2 Identify unique landforms and designate them as Conservation/Open Space (C/0S) to require or encourage their protection, conservation and/or preservation. Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystem. C /052 -1 Designate all streams and riparian corridors as Conservation /open Space (C /OS). C -1.1 'Streams' and 'riparian corridors' shall include buffer area corresponding at least to natural vegetation and/or creek bank. C Preserve stream and riparian corridors in their natural Mate except that periodic flood control maintenance consistent with Mate and Federal permits shall be allowed. CS -1. 3 where feasible, maintain a grading and building setback of 25 feet from the top of stream bank. Locate buildings and structures outside the setback. Except in urban areas where existing development exists to the contrary, prevent removal of riparian vegetation within 25 feet of the top of stream bank. C/OS2-1.4 Creel side trails may be designed within stream and riparian corridors and building setback providing design and grading are consistent with Mate and Federal permits and are sensitive to natural vegetation and include landscape mitigation. COS- Identify unique or sensitive habitat areas and designate them Conservation /open Space C overl Co -.1 Designate wetlands as Conservation /open Space. C/ -3 C/OS2-3 Identify and designate Conservation/Open Space other public or private properties containing scenic resources or public vistas of scenic importance. C /OS2 -4 identify and protect wildlife corridors that fink habitat areas as Conservation /open Space (C /OS). C S - .1 Encourage agricultural landowners and managers of Conservation /open Space to adopt range and farmland management practices that will not interfere with the movement of wildlife through their properties. C/OS2-4.2 Public or private developments that require discretionary permit or propose a land division, shall avoid disturbance of significant wildlife corridors, and/or wetlands identified by City or County environmental studies. AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 AgC S - 1 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 65 QOS21-4.3 When evaluating discretionary proposals as part of the CEQA process, require mitigation measures that would re- establish damaged or disturbed corridors and provide for long-term viability. C/OS3 Plan for a well - maintained system of footpaths and non - vehicular trails that provide access to areas of non -urban environment. c C -1 In Residential Rural and Suburban county areas and developments in the unincorporated portions of the planning area, and in all urban land use developments adjoining possible trail alignments within the City, provide for equestrian, hiking and biking trails, particularly those providing access to schools, pa and community facility activity areas. C /OS -2 Access trails shall not conflict with Agriculture use or significantly disturb environmentally sensitive resources. cS4 Preserve historic and cultural resources of Public interest that reflect the legacy of earlier human settlement. C /OS4 -1 Identify historic and cultural resources that should be protected as C/OS combining designations. C / S4-2 Avoid disturbance of archaeological and culturally sensitive sites. C/OS4-3 Encourage acquisition of significant designated C /CAS sites by public agencies, historical or conservation organizations for preservation and restoration where feasible, or require private conservation by adaptive reuse if not. C / S4-4 C/OS4-4 Protect the character of significant historical features and settings by C /OS designation. Maintain a listing of historic and cultural resources. C/OSS Conservation/ Open Space classification shall include minimum development standards: C / S -1 C /OS zoning classifications shall prescribe minimum parcel sizes of 5 acres, 10 acres or 20 acres e. +g. C /OS as determined appropriate by the City based on existing parcel size or sensitivity to development. Q -2 C /OS zoning classifications shall allow 1 dwelling unit per parcel provided all buildings and related grading and infrastructure complies with Ag3-10.4 and Ag3-10. related to conservation of natural resources. The City of Arroyo Grande shall manage land use and limit its urban development potential to that which can be sustained by the available water resources and serviced by circulation and other infrastructure. c oS -1 water resources currently available include 1200 acre -feet annually of groundwater extraction from Arroyo Grande Basin, 2290 -acre feet annual entitlement from Lopez Lake and 100 acre feet per year from the Pismo formation. The 3590 ac. ft year minimum supply during drought conditions is AMENDED MARCH C H 2 , 2004 A C / - Agenda Item 9.a. Page 66 estimated as capable of supporting a City of 20,000 residents at 160 gpd per capita average consumption). C OS6 -1.1 The City shall consider more efficient water utilization and conservation measures in subsequent Water Management ent Master Plan amendments to reduce average annual per capita consumption including the Best Management Practices already identified. The City will monitor water use by type and density of land use including agriculture, residential, office and commercial. The City will reflect any changes to regional water resources available to the City by periodic amendment to the City's Water Master Plan. C/OS6-2 Residential Rural and Residential Suburban uses in the unincorporated Arroyo Grande Fringe Area utilize individual wells and septic systems located in the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed which cumulatively impact water quantity and quality available for agriculture and urban uses. Implementation Measures AgS.1 Designate all deed - restricted open space, identified as part of a Planned Development entitlement or Specific Plan, as Permanent Open Space P o . Ag Re-designate all open space, which becomes deed - restricted through voluntary dedication or in conjunction with development activities, as Permanent Open Space. Ag/C/OS.3 Maintain an inventory of P/OS and C S designated open space, along with specific restrictions. AgCoS.4 Encourage private landowners to voluntarily protect and maintain open space resources on their properties. Ag Encourage and support efforts to protect lands containing open space resources by state and federal agencies, the County, special districts, and nonprofit and conservation organizations. Ag C OS.6 Encourage application of Williamson Act programs and Conservation /open Space easements to all eligible private properties. Ag Coordinate efforts to acquire significant conservation and Permanent Open Space lands with other public agencies and conservation organizations. Ag/C/OS.8 Actively seek available grants and aid programs from state and federal agencies and private foundations to fund acquisition and maintenance of Open Space and Agriculture lands. Ag/C/OS.9 Actively seek contributions of land, development rights, easements, and money from individuals and corporations, both for preservation of open space and recreation land In general and for acquisition of specific priority properties. Consider using San Luis Obispo Parks, open Space and Trails Foundation as a vehicle for donations and gift. AMENDED MARCH 23, 2004 AgC/ S - 1 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 67 Ag .10 Encourage the use of cluster land divisions and cluster development that will locate development on the least environmentally sensitive portions of properties where the valance of land is preserved in Permanent Open Space. Ag.11 Where a landowner proposes a land division, the proposed parcels shall maintain or enhance the long - terra protection of Open Space. Ag/C/OS.12 Park sites and recreation areas shall protect scenic and environmentally sensitive resources, and shall not conflict with Agriculture uses. Ag/C/OS.13 Develop a Strategic Action Plan for Agriculture and Open Space preservation (prioritize locations, identify actions, responsible entities, funding, timing, and performance monitoring). Ag/C/OS.14 Consider an impact mitigation fee program as adjunct to, or in lieu of, direct dedication of off site Agriculture or conservation easement. Ag/C/OS.15 Establish a fund for the purchase of Permanent or Conservation /Open Space easements and investigate all available revenue sources for funding, including: a. grants /loans from Mate or Federal agencies; b, grants /loans from private foundations /organizations; c. citywide tax or participation in countywide tax; and, e. mitigation fees Ag/C/OS.16 Assist in developing a public education and outreach program relative to conservation easements (personal advantages) and permitted uses and activities on easement areas. Ag/C/OS.17 Collaborate with the county, SLOCOG and/or adjacent jurisdictions e.g., Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach and Oceano C9D) to develop a mmodel agricultural conservation easement" document to be used as the basis for negotiation with individual property owners. AgS.18 Establish a program that provides the City with a low cost option or contractual arrangements with agricultural lando wners to acquire "right of fiat refusal" with regard to acquisition when the owner becorries. interested in selling a property. Ag/C/OS.19 Establish or contract with an existing Land Trust to administer ownership of Ag parcels and manage agricultural activities. AgCS.g The City should initiate a program for riparian corridor acquisition, wetland, restoration and storm Water Pollution Prevention programs. Ag , . 1 Support the establishment of a local funding mechanism, as identified by City Council, which allocates funds toward the voluntary purchase of agricultural, conservation, and open space easements. AMENDED 1ARCH 23, 2004 AgC S - 1 Agenda Item 9.a. Page 68 DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACH A PRIL , 2016 6:00 P.IIA. CALL To ORDER - The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Ray presiding; also present were Commissioners, Barnei h, Brown, been and Ruth. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director Teresa 1Clish. - ANNOUNCEMENTS: None AGENDA REVIEW: IE1 : Chair Ray requested that I. V. Referral items for Commission action /notices be reviewed before item II.A. to accommodate the applicants in the audience. The motion was approved by a 510 voice vote. APPROVAL AL of MINUTES: Chair Flay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously carried to app rove the minutes of March 2, 2010 as presented. Chair Flay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously carried to approve the March h 1 , 2010, with the following modification: Pg. 1, NOMINATION O CHAIN AND VICE CHAIR: correct spelling wren Ray. I. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AFTER AGENDA PREPARATION: ATION: None IV, REFERRAL L ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION /NOTICES of A DMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE MARCH 16 2016: aka° xsSSa ° a a #; ¢ ¢;; fig. >8 xa ¢v`s= g" ' Re «¢x<;nx¢:a;¢nv:¢nvn¢ vx x<a;:¢<vv¢vh °x;¢x¢; ¢x ¢.n, v ii; ------- :s # °¢«x;<, a¢%« #s¢:n.�. ,.a.,nv ¢ #<a x x x a,.an¢x¢,. v ;nx ¢. ?¢> sus vx .¢¢ >: � ", ¢ ¢,ate a ' ;xy ;. �`g, x na y ¢'- .¢ ax¢ a ¢ a >¢ a n -4- ¢:t v 1. TUP 10 -004 ,lose I nigue 11 East Grand 250 Project allows for seasonal A. J. Traffic Way sales of strawberries. Bergman . MEX 10 -001 V A Animal Hospital 205 El Camino Real Building height exception of A R. Foster 17", allowing a maximum building height of 1'- "for po rtion of the roof In answer to Commissioner Barnei hI s questions, Community Development Director McClish indicated that the applicant for TUP 10-004 has permission from the property owner in both locations to sell strawberries and there is no change in the elevation that gill be noticeable for the M EX 10-00 1 project. II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: A. CONSIDERATION of DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE No. 10-001 MITIGATION POLICIES FOR Loss of AG RICULTURAL LAND; LOCATION �- CIT Community Development Director McCli h presented the staff report for consideration of Development Code Amendment Case Igo. 10-001 -Mitigati n Policies for Ions of agricultural land Citywide. Last year the City Council directed staff to present to the. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 69 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 20, 2010 PAGE 2 Commission alternatives: definition of ag land conversion and when mitigation is required. Staff is proposing this due to all the actions taken since 2002/03 when the Comprehensive effort was started to preserve ag lend. At the present time, there are three parcels on Traffic flay /Cherry Lane, land in the vicinity of Fail Road Place and lend at the northern edge of the City that are being farmed and not zoned ag. In answer to Commissioners questions, Community Development Director McClish indicated that the definition used for conversion would be land that was zoned agriculture; any development or subdivision of land that is currently zoned ag as defined would be a conversion of ag land despite its use; the City has not adopted a LESA Model; many of the ag zoned parcels would be impacted if converted using the LESA !Model because they have water and prime soils; there are approximately well over 300 acres zoned ag at the present time; current interpretation for the property that is commercially or residentially zoned but farmed at this time total approximately eight acres. Chair Flay opened the meeting for public comments: Torn i unel # Valley Road, owner of faun land opposed restrictions on conversion on Agricultural land; Ag land varies greatly in terms of soil classification, the City converted land associated with Vista Del Mar; and suggested talking to people that are directly involved. Dennis Allen, Huasna Road, listing broker of the commercial lots on the corner of Cherry and Traffic lea, opposes the mitigation fees; the City has arrays had the intention of said property to be developed as commercial; the property has been taxed as commercial property; the farming was done in order to allow a holding pattern on the property; and mitigation fees would make commercial project unfeasible. Ed Dorfman, Platino Lane, property has been zoned highway commercial for 50 — years; City staff based on City Council decisions has said for years that there are no mitigation of commercial land; Mr. Strong former Com munity Development pment Director said no mitigation was required; and opposes the mitigation. Jim Dickens, Branch Mill Road, the City has an obligation to create clarity to those doing business in the City; due to being on Council takes responsibility for ambiguity; the Commission needs to figure out ghat is appropriate and reasonable; it's unreasonable to not allow owners of commercial property to move on; should not base policies on how long land has been farmed or the size of the panel, as the City does not have an adopted LESA Model and it wouldn't make sense; only two Ag properties would be significant if converted using the LESA model; believes this is not a zoning issue it is a resource issue for actual Ag protection; it is unreasonable to apply salve mitigation to a parcel zoned ag, is less than two acres and not currently farmed and suggested there be two different mitigations: one for property zoned ag and one for property not zoned ag, which needs to be at a reasonable level. Agenda Item 9.a. Page 70 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 2010 PAGE 3 Commissioner B rown agreed with Jim Dickens' definitions of what could happen with this language change as zoning is transitory and changes and is net protective of Ag land over the long term; this is a resource issue; need to develop a modified LESA Model that is not subjective, as the process can be and have a tiered approach to the soil being a non- renewable natural resource. Commissioner Barneieh stated if prime soils and are lost forever it should have some sort of mitigation agreed with Commissioner Brown's on zoning; this is a policy issue. Commissioner been believes the right to farm is also the right not to farm; opposes Ag mitigation on commercially zoned land; does net believe the class I soils zoned commercial should be mitigated; and corrected that the draft ordinance Exhibit "B" should be labeled Exhibit ",,. Chair Fear opposes tiered mitigation; the land has been already taxed in a different manner; the City needs a modified LESA Model; and property o wners that have land that is not zoned ag, future property owners can do their diligence if mitigation is tied to zoning; it's clear if mitigation is tied to zoning Ag; and that City Council can change zoning and that is Oki, since the Council is at the will of the people. Commissioner Ruth opposes having people who own commercial zoned or residential property have to pair a mitigation fee. Commissioner Ruth, made a motion, seconded by Commissioner been, to approve a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande recommending that the City Council amend Title 16 of the Municipal Code (Development Code Amendment '10 -001 to cla rif r Agricultural Conversion and M itigation F e uirements. RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND TITLE 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 10 -001) TO CLARIFY AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Ruth, Keen and Chair Ray NOES: Commissioner B arneich and B rown ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this loth day of April, 2010. 111111 NON-PUBLIC LIC HEARING ITEM None Agenda Item 9.a. Page 71 PLANNING COMMISSION PACE MINUTES APRIL 2, 201 V . DISCUSSION ITEMS: Done Vl. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: Commissioner sioner F uth said the minutes from previous meetings were helpful as they were complete. Community Development Director McClish said the minutes are now action Commission Secretary 1leichinger indicated that the meetings are recorded on a DVD and kept on file in the Community Development Department for review by interested parties. Commissioner Barneich said there should be a red curb at the curare on Tally Ho Load; this went before the Traffic Commission at a previous meeting. Community Develop Director McClish indicated this was discussed as part of Tally Ho project and will painted red in the near future. Chair a Y said the Arroyo Grande Liquor on East Grand Avenue, signs are still visible though now placed array from the window. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FoLLOWMUP: Community Development Director McClish asked for direction for procedures /protocol for nomination of Chair and V ice Chair and if changes need to be made to the Bylaws. Ms. McClish presented three alternatives: 1 call for open nominations, then close nominations, take particular nomination in order for a vote; 2 have staff investigate some rotation; and 3 do not change. Commissioner Barneich said she was approached by a member of the public regarding the Chair position; has a problem with not giving other Commissioners an opportunity to serge as Chair. Commissioner Keen said that the procedure should follow the Roberts Rule of order. chair Ray would like this item brought forward n the next agenda for discussion. Community Development Director McClish reported that the final map for In-1 -Out is now being checked; there has been precon traction meetings and should open in November rember 201 o; May is Bike month; May 15 Bicycle Coalition is putting on a bicycle confidence course; there is a annual Water Fest scheduled for May 22nd; Stra wberry Festival is scheduled end of May; and Car Shover is scheduled for the end of July. hill. ADJOURNMENT: MENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. ATTEST: DEBBIE WEICHINGER SECRETARY YToTHE COMMISSION CAREN RAY, CHAIR As To CONTENT: TE ESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Approved at the meeting) Agenda Item 9.a. Page 72 p,11R 0 0 0 C1 A . INCORPORATE D AK I_ , ,soil MEMORANDUM TO: CITY CODICIL FROM: TER ESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: PROJECT STATUS UPDATE OF THE B ISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT APPROVAL AL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ONII ENTAL DOCUMENT PA ED DATE: MAY 11 2010 RECOMMENDATION: EI DATION: It is recommended the City Cou n it 1. Approve new Alternative 313 for inclusion as an alternative for the Brisco load — Halcyon Road/Highway 101 Interchange Improvement Project; 2. Approve contract Amendment No. 5 with Wood Rodgers, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, to revise the Alternatives to be analyzed, update environmental studies and continue preparation of the Environmental Document PA CED for an additional not-to-exceed amount of $175,000; 3. Authorize the City [Manager to execute the amendment; 4. Allocate an additional appropriation of $175,000 from the Transportation Facility Impact Fund; and 5. Direct staff and the City Council Subcommittee to continue to pursue approval and funding through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and Caltrans. FINANCIAL IMPACT; The City's Capital Improvement Program budget included a total $560,025 for W ood Rodgers to prepare the Brisco Road - Halcyon Road/Route 101 PA ED and $17,000 to prepare the necessary Design Exception Fact sheets. It is estimated an additional $175,000 may be needed to revise the alternatives, update necessary environmental studies and complete the PACED for the project. It is estimated that Plans, specifications and Estimates PS &E will cost approximately $600,000. BACKGROUND: In 2001, a Project Study Report-Project Development support PS -PDS was completed to develop alternatives to improve Operation of the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road interchange on Route 101. The Ps -PDS identified five potential alternatives (including a "no-build" alternative), and recommended four of these, including the "no- build" alternative, for further evaluation. The four alternatives were brought forward to the current phase of project development, Project Approval and Environmental Determination PACED. During PED development, additional alternatives have been identified and analyzed. Agenda Item 10.a. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL STATUS UPDATE OF THE BRISCO ROAD - HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED) MAY 71, 2010 PAGE 2 Alternatives were presented to the City Council at the August 12, 2008 meeting. The City Council selected a preferred alternative and directed staff and the city Council Subcommittee to pursue approval and funding through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SL e G and Caltrans. The 2008 preferred alternative (Alt 3A ) included: 1 closure of the northbound n- and off ramps at Brisco Road; 2 closure o f the northbound on -ramp at East Grand Avenue; realignment of West Branch street to intersect East Grand Avenue at the current location of the northbound on-ramp; 4) construction o f a new northbound hook on- and off - ramps at Old Ranch Fad; and 5) construction of "pork cho p" islands o n East Grand Avenue to prevent wrong way traffic onto the north bound off - ramp at East Grand Avenue. In May of 2003, the City Council approved contract Amendment no. 4 with Wood d Rodgers, Inc. for preparation of the design exception fact sheets for the Brisco Road-Halcyon Ro ad Ro ute 10 1 Project Appr vaI and E nvi ron me nta I Docu rnent PA &E in the amount of $17,500. Additionally, the Council authorized the Mayor to send a letter to Caltrans regarding opposition to requests for further analysis and urging support for the city's preferred alternative. In August 2003, the Planning Company was contracted to assist in determining a design solution to the Brisco impasse and develop strategies to achieve Caltrans approval. A variation of Alternative 3A, Alternative 3B was developed and preliminarily vetted through Caltrans as a feasible alternative. Alternative 3B is the same as Alterative 3A except that the northbound offramp at Old Ranch Road would also be used for vehicles traveling rest on East Grand Ave. to wards the beach. Those traveling east towards the pillage would continue to exit at the current location. It should be noted that closing the Brisco on and offramps allows the restriping of the Brisco underpass allowing an additional westbound lane. An additional eastbound right -turn lane is also included between the underpass and W. Branch street that alleviates stacking at that location. n March 2 5, 2010, staff met with consultants and representatives from both the regional and local Cal Trans District offices. Next steps were outlined for acceptanc and review of the never r osed alternative. The City has p a new purpose and need section that p p p p has been reviewed by Caltrans, a Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis has been p and submitted to Caltrans for review, as well as a project charter. According to an initial response from Caltrans, the inclusion of the new alterative does not require a new or revised Project study Report. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Caltrans' concerns w ith Alternative 3A included the potential for wrong-way turn movements from West Branch street onto the [Northbound E Grand Avenue ofFramp despite design components to deter such movements including the A'pork chop islands. Since then, additional analysts and data has been presented to Caltrans. However, Agenda Item 10.a. Page 2 CITY COUNCIL STATUS UPDATE O THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT P &ED MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 3 Caltrans District 5 representatives have continued to oppose the preferred alternative and instead favor simply closing the n- and off�ramps at B risco Road. City concerns regarding closure of the on- and off - ramps without relocation include: 1 future impact on traffic at the Oak Park (Camino Mercado ) on- and off - ramps; 2 reduction in access p o i nts to the business d and 3 i nab i l i ty to resolve traff defic at the intersection of Vilest Branch Street and East Grand Avenue. The primary area of contention appears to be that while closure may result in future stacking distances on local streets unacceptable to the City, the operation of the n- and off -ramp at the highway w continue to function within Caltrans' acceptable standards. The inclusion of Alternative 3B presents an Opportunity for the B risco /Halcyon Interchange project to move forward. PreIiminarydiscussionswith Caltrans rega rd i ng the concept h ave been positive and a timeline has been established that could result in completion of construction as early as July, 2014. However, the alternative does present some challenges, primarily the removal of the left turn movement from the E. Grand Avenue offrarnp. Travelers that wish to drive toward the beach will exit at Old Punch Road and make a right turn on W. Branch St. and E. Grand Ave. signage will have to be carefully designed so that these drivers are directed to Old launch Road instead of exciting at E. Grand Ave where a right turn only is the only movement. West Branch Street will be realigned eliminating the problem left hand turn at E. Grand Avenue. It should be noted that the approved regional recreational center at W. Branch St. and Old Punch Rd. included the re- alignment of W. Branch into their proposal. Caltrans technical staff has expressed concerns regarding the traffic study results. Therefore, the net step will be for the consultants to update the traffic study data and analysis in response to Caltrans comments. Staff is not requesting the Council to identify a preferred alternative at this time, which would not occur until after environmental revie w is co mplete. Project consultants will review Alternative 313 in detail at the City Council Meeting. The primary purpose o f the presentation is to update the City Council on the Brisco Interchange efforts and ensure Council is supportive of the new alternative before more work is prepared. In addition, staff has included information regarding the new option in the Critical Deeds Action Plan public education effort. Therefore, it is important to solicit Council feedback prig to continuing with presentations and the proposed government channel video. ALTERNATIVES: ES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Agenda Item 10.a. Page 3 CITY COUNCIL STATUS UPDATE OF THE BRISCO ROAD- HALCYON ROAD/ROUTE 141 PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA &ED) MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 4 Approve the inclusion of Alternative 3E in the PA ED and approve an amendment to the Agreement with Wood Rodge in the not to exceed amount of $175,000 to complete the PA/ED; Do not approve an amendment to the Agreement with Wood Rodgers and instead continue to wait for a Caltrans formal decision on Alternative 3A and proceed with an appeal if necessary. 0 Provide staff direction. ADVANTAGES: Proceeding will provide the City the best opportunity to obtain Caltrans approval of an alternative that will address the Brisco Road Interchange deficiencies without creating future deficiencies at the Camino M ercado (nark Park Boulevard) interchange. Approving the contract amendment will allow the consultant to perform the analysis necessary to complete the PA ED process and obtain a final decision on the preferred alternative. Completing PAED will allow the City to move forward in the Caltrans project development process and re - apply for Federal -aid funding for the design and construction phases of the project. DISADVANTAGES: Approval of the recommendation will increase costs to the city for analysis and will result in further delays to project construction if the alternative is not approved. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A detailed environmental review is required during the Project Approval and Environmental Determination PAED phase of project development. A draft Project Deport (PFD, an engineering report that describes the work and possible alternatives, is prepared in parallel with the environmental studies. Following circulation of the Draft environmental document (the public review period), a public hearing is held. After analyzing the public hearing comments, a preferred alternative is normally selected, which allows the preparation and approval of the final environmental document which is attached to the PFD. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City lull on Thursday, May 6, 2010. The Agenda and staff report were posted on the city's website on Friday, May 7 , 2010. N o public comments were received. Attachments: 1. Alternative Design Plan 313 that would be brought forward in the PANED. 2. Draft Charter Agenda Item 10.a. Page 4 F s Do 0 a n s 8 ITU F� F a 0 mml Z s I= Z o k ]w 0 D *"*,N cc L -A V J oc Z "**N In C 0 v o� m wsnhi wdoo ot/co/r 6mp' j*ll *T IIV - MK3 XiIQ 3 1lAl:) Sdt0tuaDPHO361 o .Aj -vsm sqw ATTACHMENT .. . :' :"�.."'-:'--...: ::, ..' " I- 1 . 1 11.1 ' ;. .. . " , '. :... .. %. % -::-"I. - .. % .� : .':-'. - - .. - - - :"., . " %.% , .. ::; � - , . 1. . : : I ._%. : �' :- - ' '' % , %, : ' .. , , ...'..'�.. .,:,- - .i� . %; %.: I ": ,'.::-','%':' . . '%. .,..:.:%% sw 4L .. .' . - '. I �. .' .Y., , %. . . . " : ... . : : %' .: .. .' , ;' .' � : - % : 1- I ..I.. :. %. , , �: : _�- '.' , I .%. .. % . . - � "- '. '_� � :� : %. . I : % 1. . . , .: I .. % : ' .� %.� , % ". %: :$x ;¢ '' :I av . I M1k: - , , , - -, ' . I ' ��'�' %: % ...: 1 ,: - i%, % ':-'-� . 9 "I . : : %' . �- :1 . - . . , -, .1 . .: ' .. �" v .;: . . s' ,a't - � 4 - : : . ' ' - " . , ... ,. - I : � V .. v '. A .�. % mot: : : .% -� . % .: <. '�i s:x;¢ .-, . '� . .1 .1 % . ' .. :f; <# •, ` ` ; 14 #° x . a ; � ry% ?:.} try:. a :'.,..x,. ..: % .1 . 1. ' : - " . , % n ,n,., j%v' �: �. - �_ �%. ' . . _. :%%: �':: . % I �: . . . : % . . "k t ty :- :y<„' .(° o;.. ?i #33 };,'x:.' M :. % . . % . . % .' .. . . . , . , �% % . %, ': I . %' . . :" /. . . :; I :. .. . . . : : % %. '. I . I *} :fix x" n. ,-. , ' A'��'�- % : , , - , , . . . % . , , % V, % ' % , :%, ` A £S: %�- ' % %_ ; �� I ' " .. .dy +- o� ��: -A. % xskx oi'k x. .�'...j�:. o*. C��.... oL"", 3 1 . - % ' I I. . , V% % , . , , . % . : , . . . % . . : I . . % M1 . 2 x. { # #i: '' :.{o:h.' i.... .. %, 1. 1. % . . % - ' 11 y} :'r ¢o x >% I - . ,, ¢ k .�% . I <. > I. '... 1% , . : :. %. - I - % . . . x' •' t "" . . I % . . . 1;' ' ' . . . ... ° " - %, : I . .. � . - ...... �; .. o t ..: >> 'fi ' ^tr:i:" . } i . - : . % #$ r• .. . V�'%"-' % - - .%� ># % �� : .IV, :% , , - . %. . }'xi' iVM. %, , :% I . . . :" ' % , , '3 % " -% :�' :. . - .� " � �. , ' ' ' . -' :�: v . my: b ;" .' �-% :z . ' �' -� ' ' I . " % ' .' : % ' ;� - - ' I % -:' I : : " : , . - %i : �. ., , : - : .' � % -, , - - .. - . : :%",%: I � . . . : , - '% .: , %I A Y.. ' - , , .: . . : . . %�' :.. : ' . . . , : :: % : '. % : ; Z� . . � : %, :", , �'- :' " � . 1: � A �. '. - % . % ll'� %, '� '? � , : % % .:. . . " . . . . - : %'.' '. "1%1% : .1. . % i '% . %%. . . ' . ' : . . . . . I , , , I I % . . . . . % I . % "": j , % . , : . : � ;� I _: - : , , .- I � %' . � . , - . . % I . 1 % . . - I %:: . : �' : - - '% . . . . %% .� 7. ) ... .. . : - . . . . - % . ': I - '� �% _% :% � � I % � ' I . . . % ' : - , , I I 1% , . , : .' ..I , : : � " % : -, % % � , . - - , A�l . I ' ' %- : V, I %. % % . � - I .. .%4-%. N �'% ' " ' " ' ' % " ' " ' " , % ". . '�' - - . . . .. - ' % ' ' 11 ' . . , � 1% % - I - .. I - , . % I . % - .. � ' .1 .. % . . % . . � , . . . .... 4 - , . , '% - % �--'% '. . .1 : % , '. - . .. - - � ?. , ..'...' . .�. � , .. � ,. ... % % % , . . .%.'� : -"% ' I . �' , .. - . .. �. . . . - , , , I :'. '% . % . . I. . , � . % - % . .. I - % . I . ; . . % . . . ., °.' ., . . . . . . % :. .. . : �� " . . . ' . I . . � : ' . - . . � . %, %. I - .1 - I I - I - ..' :: " , . I I :,% - . .' : � . . % . % % - I . 1, . . . % , I I : ; . " . . . . .. % . ' : ; , . . . : � . %. '.'.'j�' . ' ':' ": , % . , . ' : % ' ; % - I , . , k : :J� - .. .1 . . : . , : . , . .. I .1 . . . . I ; - - - . .. %'l . . �.' :� ' I . . . . . . % . . I - - I % - I . . ? I I : - - . ! . : I % , ': : , .. v - - � , . , . - - - . - : : I : , !."'�I. : � : %, : :: : : I :1 % e % , : .. , - , :' . . . : . - , % .. . v, % , . . - I % , % ' ' I , % , . % " - v : . : .. . , : % % , % , , ' I %. . I . " . % %. % % . � %V : . . . . : :: . . I I . '. . .% . . % % , % .: , : % ... ' % .. ' ' . , . % % , - - -, , � , , , , �' �' . - " , . .. , . : . . . I %. , .. . .. . . % . . . . , . % % .. , I . . .' . V% '_�' , . . . '. . " .% : : �� : .% , . . " " : - " .. . , . , .� - . , - % , . , . % . . . '� : I. . . : . % %? : , - v :� . . , . - , , � . I : . - . .. % : . . . . . . ' , - , ' , ': " : ' , , I , : : ' ; � 1 . -, � . � , ' " ' ' ' % ' ' : : . . . . . . : % % , -, n' , % : . . % . . . . . N. - : % - % ..� � , . �' . . . % % I I �: :: " " - - . .. ::. : � % ' - - I , I ") ' " ' % - . . ' . . % . . : . . . .. %, V �% , , %, , % V., I ' '% : : - . ': , �% . . � : v . . . I , :� ' % . I % - %. w - .. % ' . - I - - . . . % '% . � ,.,.% I . . . - - .. .,% I , % . : !. I _- . V. : '. - - % , . , % " } , % . ,' , - % ". '. % . . % % . . . . : . . .. % % % % .. . % ... . Q . '% . ' , '% . . '%. , . ','L:I . -, , : , ,. .. - �� : : - ' - ' % ' , t . -1.1 % I : . .%�:li' IV:: '..' . .. - v, - .: " . : , % . ' .. k ° S 1 :' I % : >z M1 _ ; k k'.. ' t } .t t tax l ..k . , . : ql� ' �� . . . t. - . : - %'. : . ...> I : . . t:: % - .. .. + 4,. %. ' 1 'tin:.: :. .: :. %. % , Q9 M1 .# , . % . ..,. %' : % 11 .,.: ., .... . - ..' ." : %� ' :. :x % % �.....¢ - - . . % .,;" .:,. . . •• : gc: M "2 ,� xf % ., ;} , :: , : I % .. .- .. : ; . , . . :. >. %. - . '% , {,:8" k : '.. ;t 1, : %, ca� . .% %..%, tC ' C.. . .'.: ti. . _: k2 {o ,. ox }. :: . .,.�4 "" > ... " :% . . % . % . . % � 51�i�'- I �: - ,.- .. . I . % I'll % .,;% % , : % % � . % . % v� .. _.' '� " %,% - I %. � % % :' .% . % . :.' . . - . .% '? . I % c) l '% 1% : ' %A . . O , %% , : % , % % t, , � - 1: .... I % , . % , . %, v . I - .. . kM1+ : " !I { } k k . ", %. , � , I . .%: % � - ': - �'%'% - ': - % ,. - '% % -% , .1 - I . . . �� " � - ... .. . I% - "% '%, � - I ".1 .. 11 �04 >,a. .. . y :. .. '%�V' - -� . - % : % . , t't. - - ��' R .1 . " C) . :lw" : %. . ." ., . "t ` g , . .'. :. ' '. "' V � - %' I - "' , .. - ' I - % , . . I V. % - . „ .. t. , - ' �b; 1% , � `� I % % '%'. % � I .., .,, . . , j - I ds #' I , . '% '�%' - . ¢3:' :i M17a:'' C9 '� I., - .,..% . ¢, � .% %,ivv . , . � ' 1�4' ' ' ' " . ,. .... .1. % . I " . . : %? . - ... .. I - - - - %v % . . '�% 1% :' %'� , .% .1%. -� " . .. . . ,V }, N �: N ,s'' 1: . ': .1 , . . 1. . - I -"" . - , "' , : - %, �::- Q� ql� .%v , .. - �+r ?;•. . . % . ' • ' % , '., %%, . . .�' , 1% % . % '% % , : : : . , % I % .' 111% , - % -'� - I _' V� ' iv 1%, , % , % " : %: �% v - . Z_' , . . . %, , t' % % , . . :' . . . ; 4 �!4 , % � ; �' ::- : ... '% . , , . t,' . . ' "' . %". - - : % I ' , . . 1. - , . b % '. .' %�% 4, -- % I % I %' : .: .: I .. % % . - : � %%,. , I � �' : 'j . - I . %�' I .1 % . ,V% - I 1% " I .' - � %, . ?: % ", . ' ' I ' ' ' ' . : � : .. ,-In ' ' : I % , % . " %' :%�.. .. I - % .� .. . -, ;,- � V '% . '� ' - - I I - - : : : - V, - .4 % % % -'. : I , .1 ' %, , %�'.' I - -4"�� - - , �% ; .. : . . . . . . % - %I , � : .' - , , r - . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . 44 . 11 .% . . ;� % . ."'� . ' ' O . .1% . . . : -%% mfr :x . " x. x °ti,tr; ;' ;, # ;:. %, : . � % %%. ..� , 1, ': � " ' V� . , . - :: I I . .. % ': % % I % % � %. :" :�% - : � . . .4 , - , :% , - , % "'. , s ; k #, - : . . - - % - % .. � ' I - , I% I , I .% ' , % " % % , , �.% : - , , :'. ." : : ' � '_ - '. ' , : % . - '% . : . ' , ': " -, : : . % :1 � v,:: , . %; , .' , .: . : . . ' : . . ' . %, . I % , - . . % . . % - . % . . . % .. . . I . : I % . . % k � I � : : - �n ; ,,, . , . .. . . . . ' . . -1. I %A . : ; %'l " ' "' , : .'. . .'. - - : -'� " , , : , .' - , :% . I . �' _ %. %. %' - '- " , 11 %% : . , � ...:: - %. .1 .,:% - %.% I , . % 7 . , . v - : % - '�. . %. : �&4 0 , . : ' ' .' I %' ,, '% - .� ..%, : %-:� %, :.: : - ... I. � i1if ' i ¢. ' - . . . , . . . . � . - ' :' : " , I . % �� , , . . 1, - % % % . _. . : 'K - % % , � � . ' ' - % ' -� ' I % " % -'�% I ' . 1. : . . . .1% - . .:v . ' %, " '. %. %, ��V'%% :., - : %. . % : , '% % " , % , , : - . , . , % I � % I - , . . '. .' % . % . . ' - % I % I . . , . % . . . . ' % I - E"4 - % - - % , . .1 I . . : : . - % , V %% I - I : : : . A . : . I . ".. : . , %. - .. . . - .' . . I . .. .. % " � . %. . � : � . I %'��'% %� - %�:.. :: %.:. .. , r . ." . I '. I % .. % . '. : :: : % V% . �' -'�%- - :: , , %, , '�: � I : - k -'� . '. : :-:: : . % - ."% ��- : ': '%. % % -% %'. . '... , , , :' . ; '? . . .. 1: % I . % . V% . '%. : K. I bnftq I 11 .' .' . . A, . % : �. ' I I - . % . % . % . u . t 'a °# i %, " #, tax } '... f' f ,ry,+ .., .Y < �" " : ' � 1' }f .jx } t : '. � S , . . :`a . I % .1 % : % : '. : .%� . % , . .. `... . - , , . . ... ., y % I " . " '�- ,: :.. : . ` < ?' ' : . ' :3}: . " ' . . ?s' "'�:%. '. . . . . ' , ' ' I % , , . .., . .. . ... xt I - . . I I . . . % . %� � . .. . : :. n % .- - - .' . I . . . : . ' . ... .,. .t:. % fk .> ...... , .. 'b - :", " , %, " .-,%, - ::% n�. - I I : c x" . .4 I .' % v - F' - . . � %. ..: % 11 - >b ' - £; .. - I- I '% n:E ,. ; . , : S . . - '% ' ' , - x�. # } ' " %� % $k - I n t '. %, �% % - ..... :' ?. . , , . . . . . ..� ? , k ci ¢ < }. i Y I }$' ,i M1xo }. 1.-. t.. .# .%.. Ck . ;, ti s:. F : 1 A , I . , : .' . I .1 : - I ". % : �. . . . tiE; . . ' ' .' r '. '%, 1 I % , I , , k , : % - % %, : �' - - .. - % r -ft - - . . i '. r� � % , . % " - - xL '%� - % ov xx x,o-x o' :' ' 'k, .' % % '.' � -% o`. ?a }h} > ¢,,, ".8.t .ry :ki } @ >• v - < ?i' •},,.%:? ' :� . % % . , % . %': .o t c.' '$o %L c• o- % V" Y.x kti. k {°"M1. . - . % . . :'kg�Z £ '�tif „b t- .>' .t .^c a .k ..t _. ' % ' .. ..^at Vix % , I ��' M1 %g, >F }; t . i �. . ' M1 : ',. .', }. " , % . .: . %, �) �� % ?% ' : . �' '% , a>;$ } } I , .. .' jt'f' � .� , . I. -� :% % 'M. '% , �� - - - - . %� %% ., '� - %-.: I% . . I ..' � I 1: . : .. �' - ' '� -, ' �%. %': % "%'��%% '.'%'�- �%i� ' " ' ' , : . % . � I 1% % 1 ' %'�-'- � �- , I% % : % : I -Z% .% :11 % , %?.,. - :�: ' % . . - I �' .' ." . . . , �% I -. ': " :: ' '. � , ' % I % % " - % x% I , . - , %, , % - . % '. % '. I� . - . -, :: . . .. I ' , % !�::' , .'�% � - %. I. . '. % ,�% % % . . . , . : % . . . % 'L% : I : % . .� % . % : % . % % 7., . �% ' } %° % ... v¢a , . } ;.e " .. .. 'gt �$.',3"' + x t .k,. o.,I #x, x . w % . F.. { x x . Z . . I . . % ' " ': . #.t �%% e - I': -' {'" . %. tit ,x: + % ry'ga M1 "+x} k t x x. M1 t'# kni8.> '•`: #? ize :'.. ' ¢ :,t 2°' > -x .. 11. :1::: .. %% # .,:.fit+:'. :�''k. ,, . 4A' .. I. % } . > `¢ 'x ..}�: "¢' . ;,: ^°.;:: ..'..x I. M1. . ". `} # kx.;# � #> o:k ' . '�. ['• �i - �x °:' .#P'" - .. C `: % % ,:s a# # <3ga<',''.�)%`¢ . % r.. :: r , '. ,r '. .. t: fit; ^` % .. 3 .kt..... - x t > .. �'. % t .'k. 'z. > `' % E f s. " t .i :a:` . x.. % :so >eM1 ok x¢x 'o. : .11 'i.o i '�%�: x'.,:. M1 ' ? 2. f :: % ,> % tkt , <x "s t. M1 " .... .t .... . . , . .. ^# t }> .st n Agenda Item 10.a. Page 5 AEGEND Z 72 Pavement Removal ^ ^`' ice/ W •tom J ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT CHARTER US l01/Brisco/Halcyon /Grand Ave I/C Modifications 05-SLO-101, PM 13.1/14.6 CALTRANS 05-OA370 PA PHASE Date Prepared: April 12, 20 1 PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Prepared and Submitted By: Project Manager CHARTER PURPOSE This Project Charter will document mutual understandings between the State of California (State) Department of Transportation Caltrans and the City of Arroyo Grande (City) on the essential elements of the US 10 1 Brisco Hal yon Grand Ave Interchange. This specifically relates to project schedule, communication and conflict resolution. The Project Charter will provide guidance for the successful completion of the Project Report and Environmental Document PA& D and Plans, Specifications and Estimates PSG.. PROTECT DESCRIPTION The project involves the following features. 1. closure of US 101 northbound ramps at Brisco Road and removal of existing traffic signal equipment 2. restriping at the Brisco Road /El Camino Real intersection to provide for One exclusive left -turn lame and one shared through -right lane for the southbound Brisco Road approach to El Camino Real 3. restriping the existing Brisco Road three -lane undercrossing to accommodate two southbound lanes and one northbound lame 4. construction of one left -turn lane and one shared left -right turn pocket (approximately 80 feet long) on the northbound Brisco Road approach to the Brisco Rd/West Branch St intersection 5. relocation of US 10 1 southbound on -ramp at East Grand Avenue to opposite the existing southbound off - ramp, and associated traffic signal modifications Project Charter Page 1 of Agenda Item 10.a. Page 7 6 . removal of the US 101 northbound on -ramp from East Grand Avenue 7. construction of new US 10 1 northbound hook on- and off-ramps to intersect with west Branch St at Old Ranch Rd. and installation of traffic signal control at the West Branch St /Old Ranch F d US 10 1 northbound ramps intersection. This will also include realigning west Branch St at both approaches to the ramp intersection to the north to provide space for the ramps. 8. realignment of West Branch St east of Vernon St to intersect with East Grand Ave at the current location of the US 10 1 northbound ramp intersection. The existing portion of West Branch St that is bypassed will be terminated as a cul-de-sac at its wrest end so that access to the adjacent properties is maintained. 9. restricting turns at the terminal of the US 10 1 Northbound off -ramp to Bast Grand Avenue to northbound right -turn movements to eastbound Grand Avenue only. The existing left -turn movement at the off-ramp te ninal will be eliminated, and access to westbound Grand Avenue will be provided via the adjacent (downstream) northbound off-ramp to west Branch Street /Old Ranch Road intersection as a right -turn movement to wrest Branch Street, followed by a southbound right -turn movement at the Grand Avenue /West Branch Street intersection. The traffic signal at East. Grand Ave and the northbound ofd'- ramp intersection will be modified. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the project is to provide congestion relief and alleviate queuing at the Bn*sco Road Undercrossing by improving the efficiency of the City of Arroyo Grande's local street system in the vicinity of LAS 101. The purpose is also to provide mobility and operational efficiency between the local roadways on either side of the US 10 1 facility and also between the local roads and the US 101 facility. The project should continue to provide access to existing and planned local development, including accessibility to the Five Cities Commercial Center and Five Cities Recreation Center along west Branch Street. The project purposes shall be accomplished without negatively impacting operations on US 101 through the project vicinity, including at adjacent interchanges. DELIVERY SUCCESS CRITERIA The criteria for project success are the development and approval of a NPA CQA environmental document. The environmental document will be prepared with an analysis of viable alternatives and will choose the preferred alternative for this project. The environmental document will effectively address the forecast traffic demands of the year Project Charter Page 2 of Agenda Item 10.a. Page 8 2033 2 0 year beyond the completion of the construction) and provide an acceptable level of Service or the traffic operations within the project area. The PS&E documents will provide information needed to provide a solid basis for construction and all related tasks, including a reasonable engineers estimate and minimization of change orders generated due to inadequate or incorrect plans or specifications. The PS&E package will result in a. "biddable and buildable" set of plans and specifications. PROTECT SUCCESS RESPONSIBILITY I. All team members shall agree upon and use generally accepted principles of project management and task ma'nagement, in order to deliver the project on time, on budget, and in a duality form. 2. The City and its consultants are responsiblc for the delivery of their outputs in a timely, thorough, and quality manner. If inputs required to complete required outputs are delayed, the City's project manager shall coordinate with the provider of the inputs and take active steps to get that information in a timely manner. If the inputs are not forthcoming, the City's project manager will inform the Caltrns' Project Manager, and undertake a course of action to correct the situation. This may cause a schedule amendment, and appropriate documentation. CONSTRAINTS, RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS The key Constraints and Assumptions for this project are as follows: 1. It is recognized by Caltrans and the City that conditions can change that will affect the original schedule. Team members will work together to minimize the impacts of such changes. 2. All comments will be addressed during the review, comment, and resolution process. 3. The City will complete and submit outputs upon a jointly agreed upon, schedule. Caltrans will complete the review of all PA&ED and PS&E documents within jointly agreed upon review periods. 4. Documented decisions will hold as final unless conditions have changed. Decisions shall be documented, including those identifying any changed assumptions, issues and conditions leading to the changes. 5. The recommended alternative will be evaluated to ensure compatibility with the following: Project Charter Page 3 of Agenda Item 10.a. Page 9 a. Projects Purpose and Need . Project Performance Measures as agreed upon by the City and Caltrans PHASE DELIVERABLES PA/ED PS &E RW Cert. RT'L Start Cnst. End Coast. 11118/10 2/17/12 2/17/12 4/14/12 7/1 3/13 07108114 DELIVERABLE MANAGEMENT Management of the phase deliverables will be conducted by the Project Development Team through regular progress and coordination meetings, as well as through constant monitoring of the project schedule, which identifies key deliverable milestones and actions. The City and its consultants shall follow Caltrans procedures and policies when completed products required for the PA&ED and PS&E phases. Quality Control QC is the responsibility of the City, while Quality Assurance QA is the responsibility of Caltrans. All team members shall strive for the timely submittal, review and approval of the duality products which is essential for the successful completion of the project. A steering committee consisting of represent .ti es from Caltrans District 5 management and City management will periodically meet to review the Overall project status and to discuss and resolve any potential issues. The meeting will be convened and conducted by the Caltrans' project manager. It is Caltrans' and the City's intent to resolve all issues at the team level, but it is critical to maintain regular joint communication with the management of both organizations for the successful completion of the project. KEY PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS • City Project Manager: Teresa McClish • Caltrans Project Manager: Doug Heumann • Caltrans Design Oversight: John Fouche • Consulting Project tanager: Marls Rayback Project Charter Page Agenda Item 10.a. Page 10 APPROVALS: Teresa l leClish City of Arroyo Grande (Sponsor) Deputy District Director Program/Project Management Caltrans District Deputy District Director Design Caltrans District Date Date Date Date Deputy District Director Environmental Caltrans District Project Charter Pagc Agenda Item 10.a. Page 11 LOCATION MAP Project Charter Page 6 of Agenda Item 10.a. Page 12 M EMORANDUM INCORPORATED rr, k iK JULY 10. 1 To: CITY COUNCIL --- y FRO. TERESA �Ac LISHFROM: DIRECTOR of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: JIM BERGMAN, PLANNING MANAGE SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION of TEMPORARY Y USE PERMIT No. 10-005 To AUTHORIZE THE USE of CITY PROPERTY AND To CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CRUISE NIGHT ON J 30 2010 AND CA SHOW ON J 31 2010 DATE MAY 11, 201 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council consider the request from the Arroyo Malley Car Club and adopt a Resolution authorizing the use of City property and the closure of City streets for the Annual Arroyo Malley People's Choice Car Cruise and Car Show on July 30 and 31 v 2010. FIN IMPACT: Total costs associated with the Car Cruise and Car Show is approximately $2,000 for additional Police Department personnel and delivery of traffic control devices, signs and trash cans. As last gear, staff recommends funding $1,500 from the Redevelopment Agency and requiring the applicant to be responsible for the remaining City e The costs associated with the Temporary Use Permit application have traditionally been waived and waiver of additional Bests is again recommended. BACKGROUND: The Arroyo V alley Car Club submitted an application for a Temporary Use Permit to use City property and to close City Streets for the Annual Arroyo Valley People's Choice Car Show and Car Cruise. The following areas are proposed to be used for the evente. Car Cruise — July 30: Closure of East Grand Avenue between Courtland and Alder Streets between :oo p.m. and 8 :35 p.m. Ca r Show — July 31: Option #1 Use of Branch and Bridge Streets, 01ohan Alley and surrounding areas. Agenda Item II.a. Page 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION of TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 10-005 To AUTHORIZE THE USE of CITY PROPERTY AND To CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CRUISE NIGHT ON JULY 30, 2010 AND CAR SHOW ON JULY 31 2010 MAY 11 1 2010 PAGE 2 Option ##2 Use of common parking facilities, streets and parks In the Village area including Heritage square Park, Nelson street, South Mason street, Bridge Street and olohan Allen. City staff from various departments have discussed the requirements for the event and created conditions of approval for the Temporary Use Permit. A Temporary Use Permit authorizing street closures may only be issued upon the approval of the City Council. ANALYSIS of ISSUES: Cruise Night The Cruise Fight consists of the closure of East Grand Avenue between - eourtland and Alder streets. At this event, cars participating in the net day's Car show will "cruise a portion of East Grand Avenue in a loop pattern (see attachment 1). The recommended detour route for through traffic on East Grand Avenue includes: Eastbound traffic — South on B. courtland Street to Ash street; East on Ash Street to B. Elm street South on B. Elm street to Fair Oaks, East on Fair oaks to S. Halcyon; Forth on S. Halcyon. Westbound traffic— South on B. Halcyon to Farroll; West on Farroll to oak Park; Borth on Oak Park, Advance warnings of "Road closure Ahead" would be placed on East Grand Avenue at Halcyon Road and Oak Park Boulevard. Signs would also be placed at Juniper Street, Elm street, Brisco Toad, and Fair View Drive approaching East Grand Avenue. This is the sane cruise route and detour plan from last gear, which did not result in any complaints from the public. Last gear's Car Cruise was well attended and included the participation and support of the "East Grand Avenue Merchants" group. Feedback from local merchants appeared to be positive. Added events hosted by the merchants will include gaup radio and print promotions, family oriented activities such as a movie screening and service gaup BBrs aimed at attracting local residents to the event. car show Car show — July 31 Option #1 Closure of East and West Branch street from Traffic Way to Mason street; Bridge Street from Branch Street to Nelson Street; Olohan Allen from Bridge Street to Short street; Nevada Street at Branch street; car Corral between Village Grill and Bill's Cleaners; Short Street between East Branch and lohan Alley from :00 am until :00 pm; and the use of Nelson Street Agenda Item II.a. Page 2 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION of TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 10 To AUTHORIZE THE USE of CITY PROPERTY AND To CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CRUISE LIGHT ON JULY 3 2010 AND CAR SHOW ON JULY 31 2010 MAY 1, 2010 PAGE 3 between Bridge street and Short Street for registration from :go am to g:o am. Car show option ##1 is nearly the same as last year with the request to utilize East and Vilest Branch street instead of the Nelson street Heritage square Park area. Last gear, the Village Improvement Association surveyed business owners and reported support for the use of East and Hest Branch street for the event. This support was, however, net unanimous most likely due to the fact that different business types are affected differently by the closure of Branch street. For example, restaurants and bars most likely see an increase in revenue; retail may gain slightly or see similar receipts as on a normal weekend day, while service businesses that rely on local trade such as hair salons may suffer decreased sales. Businesses may also be impacted by use of restrooms and other facilities by the public. Below are comments received by staff and observations from last year's event and proposed remedies to attempt to alleviate or decrease the impact of issues associated with the event. Participants of the car show set up chairs or congregated on the sidewalk, which lead to decrease traffic into businesses. o The applicant has included a statement on their application that setting up chairs or blocking business entrances is not allowed. o The applicant states that they will monitor and attempt to control the situation during the show. o staff recognizes the varied use of the public right of way which includes walking, gathering and sitting at tables and chairs provided by existing merchants and believes some of the concerns from last year will not be completely alleviated. The Fire Chief is requesting that 20 feet of clear right-of-way be provided on East and West Branch street for emergency vehicle access. o Cars shorter than 15 feet in length will be backed perpendicular to the curb to ensure 20 feet of dear emergency access. o Staff asked for cars to be parked head first into the curb to allow for the Majority of the public to pass between the front of the displayed cars and the front of local businesses. This option was considered, but was not acceptable to the applicant dine to aesthetic considerations. Businesses requested better noticing prior to City Council consideration of the event. o The owner of Klondike Pizza has been attending meetings between the applicant and staff. Staff mailed notices of this hearing to all affected businesses on East Grand Avenue and on Bast and West Branch street. Agenda Item II.a. Page 3 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION of TEMPORARY Y USE PERMIT NO, 10 To AUTHORIZE THE USE of CITY PROPERTY TY AND To CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CRUISE NIGHT ON JULY 309 2010 AND CAR SHOW ON JULY 31 v 2010 MAY 11 201 PAGE 4 Staff will also supply addresses of all affected businesses to the applicant to assist to their required notification. Posting of "No parking signs" 24 hours before the event to enable towing of offending vehicles is perceived to reduce the number of customers entering Village businesses the day before the event. Shop owners have, in the past, turned the signs around or moved then closer to the buildings. o Staff recommends that new format of "No Parking" signs be developed s that the day of the restricted parking is at the top and bolded and the no parking and other legal statements be minimized. Better integrate merchants from East Grand Avenue and Branch Street into the event. o This item has been noticed and scheduled for a hearing nearly two months before the event to assist in notification and if approved will allow merchants to better prepare for visitors and participants attending the event. o The East Grand Avenue Merchants subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce is coordinating business efforts for the Car guise. Trash cans needed to be emptied more often during the event. o The applicant has been made aware of the trash issue and is required to submit a plan to better address the problem. Car show — duly 31 st Option #2 Configure the ear show as it was held prior to utilizing Branch street. This option includes the use of Heritage Square Park, Nelson Street between south Mason Street and Bridge Street; olohan Alley from Mason Street to Bridge Street; and Short Street between East Branch and Mohan Alley. This option would utilize 01ohan Alley. between Bridge and South Mason streets; Bridge Street between Branch street and Traffic Way; Nelson Street between Bridge and South Mason Streets; Short street between East Branch and Nelson Streets; and Heritage Square Park from 6 :00 arm to :oo pm on Saturday, July 31, 2010. It is also requested that south Mason Street between East Branch and Nelson streets be dosed from :30 am to 10 :30 arm on Saturday, July 31, 2010 for the purpose of creating a registration area for the car show (see attachment 2. The Car show organizers have indicated they are willing to utilize the former location if locating it on Branch Street is negatively perceived by the City and/or businesses, but Agenda Item II.a. Page 4 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION of TEMPORARY USE PERMIT No. 10-005 To AUTHORIZE THE USE of CITY PROPERTY ' AND To CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CRUISE NIGHT ON JULY 30 2010 AND CAR SHOW oN JULY 31,2 1 MAY 11 q 2010 PAGE 5 prefers option #'l. While staff believes there are some negative impacts to businesses from Option #1, it is felt the overall business impact is positive. Due to the size and location of the Car Sho w, the Police Department traditionally utilizes a foot -beat team comprised of two 2 police officers for security purposes. While the event does not usually produce a large number of incidents, the police units are beneficial in handling potentially unruly situations and in keeping illegal alcohol consumption to a minimum. The City displays the DARE unit and other emergency vehicles during the event. Costs associated with the Car Shover have been waived in the past. This has been done on the basis that the Arroyo Malley Car Club is a community based non- profit organization, which places the majority of the funds it raises through the Car Show back into the community through donations to other non - profit organizations. Many of these donations go to youth- oriented groups (see attachment 3). ADVANTAGES: City staff believes that the annual Car Show and Car Cruise has been a successful event in the Village area and on East Grand Avenue for m any years and appears to benefit residents and businesses by providing a family oriented event and attracting tourists to local businesses and hotels. DISADVANTAGES* The primary positive impact of a business promotion opportunity and entertainment event for residents and visitors could be offset by the following negative impacts: traffic diversion through residential areas; inconvenience and delay to east - crest' through traffic between Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach; and difficultly of access to businesses or residences on the closed segment of East Grand Avenue during the Car Cruise and in the Village during the Car Shover. To mitigate these potential negative impacts during the Car Cruise, Car Club representatives will allow delivery trucks and others who have a need for local access, and any residents exciting, to pass through the road closure where Cruise Night vehicles will be circulated in a loop pattern and in the Village residential areas adjacent to the Car Shover. ALTERNATIVES: ES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Car guise and Car Show option #'l ; 2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution approving the Car Cruise and Car Sho w option #1; 3. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Car Cruise and Car Show Option 2; Agenda Item II.a. Page 5 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT No. 10 -006 To AUTHORIZE THE USE of CITY PROPERTY AND To CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CRUISE NIGHT ON JULY 30, 2010 AND CAR SHOW ON JULY 31, 2010 MAY 11 2010 PAGE 6 4. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution approving the Car Cruise and Car Shover Option #2; 5. Do not adopt either Resolutions; 6. Provide direction to staff. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CE A , the Community Development Department has determined that this project is exempt per Section 15061 ( b )( 3) of the CEA Guidelines. If the Council does not feel that this determination is appropriate, project approval shall not be considered. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: Staff mailed 241 "Courtesy Notices" to affected businesses and residents on East Grand Avenue, East and West Branch Street and Bridge Street. Representatives from the Car club and the East Grand Avenue Merchants group have visited merchants on East Grand Avenue to disseminate information about the Car Cruise including the date, time and mute o the event. Representatives from the car Club and the East Grand Avenue Merchants group will visit merchants for a second time in July. Bob Lund of the Village Improvement Association will be notified of the details of the final street closures and traffic control plan to disseminate the appropriate information to pillage Business owners. A condition of approval is included in the attached Resolution requiring a notice of street closure to be published in the Times Press Recorder. The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 6, 2010. The Agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 7, 2010. Attachments: 1. Car Cruise map 2. Car Show map Option #1 3. Car Show map Option #2 4. Letters from the Arroyo Grande Car Club Agenda Item II.a. Page 6 OPTION #1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of THE CITY CODICIL of THE CITY of ARROYO OYO G AI E APPROVING TEMPORARY Y USE PERMIT 1 005; AUTHORIZING ING THE USE of CITY PROPERTY AND To CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CRUISE FIGHT ON JULY 30,2010 AND CAI SHOW ON JULY 31 t 2010 WHEREAS, organizers of the Arroyo Valley People's Choice Car Shover have requested closure of certain City streets and tyre. use of City property as outlined below, for fts annual Car Show and Cruise Night event to be held on .duly 30 and 31' 2010; and WHEREAS, EAS, members of the Arroyo V alley Car Club will be responsible for traffic control and cleanup; and WHEREAS, the "cruise" event and car show are expected to benefit both the East Grand Avenue business corridor and Historic pillage commercial area and provide both resident and visitor entertainment and attraction; NOW, THEREFORE, E, E IT RESOLVED ED that the City Council of the city of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Temporary Use Permit 10-005 as set forth below, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: 'I. East Grand Avenue between Courtland Street and Alder Street shall be closed from : 00 P.M. to 7 :30 P.II M. on Friday, duly 3 0 2010. The foIlo ing detour route for through traffic on Grand Avenue shall be established: Eastbound traffic — South on S. Courtland Street to Ash Street; East on Ash Street to S. Elm Street; South on S. Elm Street to Fair oaks; East on Fair Oaks to S. Halcyon; forth on S. Halcyon; Westbound traffic — South on S. Halcyon to Farroll; Vilest on Farroll to Oak Park; North on Oak Park. 2. Closure of East and West Branch Street from Traffic Way to Mason Street; Bridge Street from Branch Street to Nelson Street; Olohan Alley from Bridge Street to Short Street; Nevada Street at Branch Street; Car Corral between pillage Grill and Bill's Cleaners; Short Street between East Branch and 01ohan Alley from 6:00 am until :00 pm; and the use of Nelson Street between Bridge Street and Short Street for registration from 6amto9am. 3. That the Arroyo Halley Car club will adhere to certain requirements and conditions set forth by the Community Development, Streets, Police, and Fire Departments regarding security and traffic control and all other Agenda Item II.a. Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE applicable conditions of a Temporary Use Permit to be issued by the City as set forth in Exhibit "A "; and On motion f Council Member on the following roll call Grote to grit: , seconded by Council Member , and AYES: NOES: ABSENT. the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 11 day of May, 2010. Agenda Item II.a. Page 8 RESOLUTION NO, PACE TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST. KELLY WETM RE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY ,J, CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item II.a. Page 9 RESOLUTION No. PAGE EXHIBIT " " CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CAR SHOW CRUISE NIGHT TEMPORARY Y USE PERMIT 10 -005 FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, ,SLILY 30 AND 319 2010 General conditions 1 The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, county and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The event shall Occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department. 3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The city may, at its sole discretion, participate at its on expense In the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. Community Development Depa ent conditions 4. The applicant shall notify affected merchants and property owners on the affected street closure segments prior to the events and inform the Arroyo Grande pillage Association and the chamber of Commerce of the char show and cruise night activities. Parke and Recreation Department conditions b. The event organizers shall coordinate the number and placement of waste containers by Monday, duly 19, 2010, with the Director of Recreation and Maintenance Services. 6. The event organizers shall submit a trash and recycling plan, supervise all areas, and p ick up litter, waste, and debris, and shall empty all City waste containers in durnpsters provided by the Car Club. Agenda Item 11.a. Page 10 RESOLUTION No. PAGE Police Department conditions 7. The applicant shall reimburse remaining Streets and Police Department expenses for traffic control and related services associated with the Cruise Night and Car Shover events up to $500. Streets Division conditions 8. The event organizers shall be responsible for providing, setting up, and removing barricades for closures of City streets, alleys, parking lots, driveways and City facilities mentioned in the application. g. Event organizers shall place all barricades and signs posting on- street paring restrictions and parking lot closures a minimum of 48 hours prier to the event. 10. Street closures shall be noticed in the Times -Press R ecorcter at least once during the week prior to July 30 and 31 2010. 11. Event organizers shall coordinate with the Police Streets, and Fire Departments with regard to the closures of streets, alleys, parking lots, and the use of City pro perty. 12. Event organizers shall clean all City streets and parking areas utilized at the conclusion of the event. Building and Fire Department conditions 13. Event organizers must comply with the Building and Fire Department guidelines. 14. Emergency access must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Fire. 15. The use of generators must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Building and Fire. 16. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced per Police and Fire Department guidelines. 17. All food booths must comply with the San Luis Obispo County and City Building and Fire Department guidelines. 18. The Building and Fire Department must inspect all food booths and generators prior to event opening. 19. Event organizers shall provide one handicapped accessible restroom. Agenda Item II.a. Page 11 RESOLUTION NO, PAGE ADDITIONAL CO ITI S 22. The eve nt organizers shall pr vide a $1,000,000.00 com mer ial general liability insurance policy, subject to City Attorney approval, naming the City as additional insured. Agenda Item 11.a. Page 12 OPTION RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ARROYO o o GR NDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 10- 005 AUTHORI ING THE USE of CITY PROPERTY AND To CLOSE CITY STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL. ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CRUISE NIGHT ON JULY 30 2010 AND CAR SHOW ON JULY 319 201 WHEREAS, organizers of the Arroyo Valley People's Choice car Shover have requested closure of certain city streets and the use of city property as outlined below, for its annual car shover and cruise Night event to be held on July 30 and 31 2010; and WHEREAS, members of the Arroyo Valley Car Club will be responsible for traffic control and cleanup; and WHEREAS, EAS, the "cruise event and car show are expected to benefit both the East Grand Avenue business corridor and Historic pillage commercial area and provide both resident and visitor entertainment and attraction; NOW, THEREFORE, E, E IT RESOLVED that the City council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Temporary Use Permit 10 -005 as set forth below, subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: East Grand Avenue between Courtland Street and Alder Street shall be closed from x:00 P. M. to 8:30 P.M. on Friday, July 30 2010. The foIlo ring detour mute for through traffic on Grand Avenue shall be established: Eastbound traffic — South on S. Cortland street to Ash Street; East on Ash Street to S. Elm Street; South on S. Elm Street to Fair Oaks; East on Fair Oaks to S. Halcyon; North on S. Halcyon; Westbound traffic — South on S. Halcyon to Farroll; West on Farroll to Oak Park; North on Oak Park. 2. That 01ohan Alley; Bridge Street between E. Branch Street and Traffic Way; Nielson Street between Bridge and Mason Streets; Short Street between E. Branch and Nelson Streets; city Hall parking lot; and the lawns on nelson Street between Short and Mason Streets shall be closed from :go A.M. to :00 P.M. on Saturday, duly 31, 2010 for the purpose of holding the car show. 3. That Mason Street between E. Branch and Nelson Streets shall be closed from 6 -. 00 A. M. to 9: 00 A. M. on Saturday, .July 31, 2010 for the purpose of holding the car show registration; and Agenda Item 11.a. Page 13 RESOLUTION No. PAGE 4. That the Arroyo Valley Car Club will adhere to certain requirements and conditions set forth by the Community Development, Streets, Police, and Fire Departments regarding security and traffic control and all other applicable conditions of a Temporary Use P ermit to be fissured by the City as set forth in Exhibit "A "; and On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to it: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this '1'1 day of May, 2010. Agenda Item 11.a. Page 14 RESOLUTION ISO, PAGE TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST. KELLY WETMO E, CITY CLEF APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: T: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item 11.a. Page 15 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE EXHIBIT IT "A" CONDITIONS of APPROVAL ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CAR SHO & CRUISE NIGHT TEMPORARY A USE PERMIT 10- D05 FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, ,JUlL.Y 30 AND 31, 2010 General conditions 1, The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, state, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department. 3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his /her sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court casts and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his /her obligations under this condition. Community Development Department conditions 4. The applicant shall notify affected merchants and property owners on the affected street closure segments prior to the events and inform the Arroyo Grande Village Association and the Chamber of Commerce of the car show and cruise night activities. Recreation and Maintenance Services Department conditions 5. The event organizers shall flag all sprinkler heads on turf and lawn areas to prevent damage. Applicant will be responsible for cost of broken sprinklers and labor associated with damage caused due to cars on turf area. 6. The event organizers shall coordinate the placement of waste containers by Monday, July 20, 2010, with the Director of Recreation and [Maintenance Services. 7. The event organizers shall submit a trash and recycling plan, supervise all areas, and pick up litter, waste, and debris, and shall empty all city waste containers in dumpsters provided by the Car Club. Agenda Item 11.a. Page 16 RESOLUTION Igo. PAGE 8. One week prior to the car show, event organizers shall inform the Recreation and Maintenance Services Department on number of trashcans that will be needed for the event. Police Department conditions 9. The applicant shall reimburse remaining Streets and Police Department expenses for traffic control and related services associated with the Cruise Night and Car Show events up to $500. Streets Division conditions 10. The event organizers shall be responsible for providing, setting up, and removing barricades for closures of City streets, alleys parking lots, driveways and City facilities mentioned in the application. 11. Event organizers shall place all barricades and signs posting on- street parking restrictions and parking lot closures a minimum of 48 hours prior to the event. 12. street closures shall be noticed in the Times-Press Recorder er t least once during the week prior to July 30 and 31, 2010. 3. Event organizers shall coordinate with the Police, streets, and Fire Departments with regard to the closures of streets, alleys, parking lots, and the use - of City property. 1. Event organizers shall clean all City streets and parking areas utilized at the conclusion of the event. Building and Fire Department conditions 15. Event organizers must comply with the Building and Fire Department guidelines. 16. Emergency access must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Fire. 17. The use of generators must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Building and Fire. 18. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced per Police and Fire Department guidelines. 19. All food booths must comply with the San Luis Obispo County and City Building and Fire Department guidelines. Agenda Item 11.a. Page 17 RESOLUTION No, PAGE 20. The Building and Fire Departrr ent must inspect all food booths and generators prior to event opening. 21. Event organizers shall provide one handicapped accessible restroorn. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 22. The event organizers shall provide a $1 000,000.00 commercial general liability insurance policy, subject to City Attorney approval, naming the city as additional insured. Agenda Item 11.a. Page 18 ATTACHMENT I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK N THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK N ATTACHMENT 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK II+ ATTACHMENT ARROYO VALLEY CAR CLUB The Arroyo Valley Car Club anon -- profit organization, with approximately 40 members, and has presented a People's Choice Car Show in the Village of Arroyo Grande every year since 1989 with the exception of 1997. The 2 day family event draws from 3 states oth than California with participants making reservations in local hotel/motels 1 year in advance, many of whom arriving Thursday night before the cruise and s taying until Sunday. The annual car show is the Clubs only fund raiser and the continuing success of the shove is due to. approximately 3000 Classic Car Enthusiasts attending the shover, dedication and hard work of our members; and donations from our sponsors. This combination has allowed the Club to donate more than $ 82,000-00 to local youth and senior citizen organizations in the area since 1989. Those organizations include: Santa Cop Five Cities Meals on Wheels Boys & Girls Club Rancho de los Animales for the Disabled South Counter Seniors Harvest Bag Boy Scouts Central Coast Masonic Dodge for Kids ID's Carp Fire USA D.A.R.E for Arroyo Grande AG Police Explorers C. .S ;A Paulding Middle School Campfire USA Thank you for your continued participation. We hope you enjoy the shove. Board of Directors Arroyo Valley Car Club P. 0. Box 10 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 806-489-9195 Agenda Item II.a. Page 22 .; bill.. ARROYO VALLEY CAR CLUB Tuesday, February 2, 2010 Steve Adams City Manager City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande,, CA 93421 Dear Steve,, Another year has come and gone with much success and lots of change. We, The Arroyo V alley Car Club,, are looking ing f r ward to another successful Car Sh (Jury 31,, 2010) and Friday Fight Cruise (July 30 2010), Both of these events are very popular, As in the past, we have tried to Deep it low key and non-commercial and want to keep it that gray. The participants are already contacting us asking ing for assurance that the event will stirs tale place* They tell us that they really enjoy the show and their visits to the area. They are especially generous in their praise for the beautiful and friendly atmosphere. The continuing success of the shover and the dedication and hard work of our members have allowed us to donate approximately $88,000.00 to local youth and senior citizen activities since 1989. One of the events that has created a great amount of interest for the past years has been our Friday before the Car Sho Evening Cruise. The Cruise allows local residents to see many of the cars entered in the show,, show off a Part of the town and benefit the local merchants. We would very much file to hold a cruise again this year and would be pleased if Arroyo Grande Druid agree to permit the use of a portion of Grand Avenue. We propose closing Grand Avenue between Adler Street and Court #and Street from 6:30 to 8:30 PM on the last Friday of July, The cars would travel in a continuous circular pattern during this time. Pi 0, B ox 1037 Arroyo Grande, A 93421 Agenda Item II.a. Page 23 Page 2 We realize that this event may be n imposition on some of your merchants,, but we believe that it has a positive impact overall. It is a golden opportunity for your many and diverse business to attract attention and out past experience indicates that it brings many spectators from throughout the Five Cities area. It is respectfully requested that you bring our request to the attention of your City Council. Arroyo Valley Car Club carries 1 million liability insurance for Car Club events. Respectfully, William M. Madison President Agenda Item II.a. Page 24