Agenda Packet 2001-07-31 SP
CITY COUNCIL B^& p/
AGENDA ~/7~
Michael A. Lady Mayor
Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tem Steven Adams
Thomas A. Runels Council Member City Manager
Jim Dickens Council Member Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Sandy Lubin Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SUMMARY
TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2001
6:30 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE
4. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS on Special Meeting
Agenda Items. Members of the public wishing to address the Council on any
item described in this Notice may do so when recognized by the Presiding
Officer.
5. CONSIDERATION OF THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE POLICY
DOCUMENTS AND ELEMENTS AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FEIR)
The City Council will conduct a Public Hearing to review comments, responses,
and consider the FEIR and adoption of the General Plan Update and related
maps.
6. ADJOURNMENT to Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, August 14, 2001
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 215 East Branch Street.
www.arrovoarande.orQ
I
--- J
TO: CITY COUNCIL J'd-----
FROM: KERRY MCCANTS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR . . . .
ROB STRONG, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR CONSULTANT
SUBJECT: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE 2001 GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE: REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 31, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council :
Begin consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Rep~rt (EIR) and the 2001
General Plan Update and Planning Commission recommendations attached.
DISCUSSION:
The 45-day public review and comment period began on May 21, 2001 and ended
on July 5, 2001. The City mailed approximately 2700 notices to property owners
and interested parties notifying them of the Planning Commission Hearings on July
18, 19 and 25, 2001 as well as the City Council hearing July 31, 2001. In
addition, the notice was posted at the City Hall and a display ad was published in
the Times Press Recorder, on July 25, 2001.
CEOA 15132 requires that a Final EIR to consist of:
a) The draft EIR.
b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft DEIR.
c) A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft
EIR.
d) The responses of the Lead Agency (City) to significant environmental points
raised in the review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
CEOA Section 15151 addresses the standards for adequacy and completeness of
an EIR; CEOA Sections 15166 and 15168 discuss the EIR as an integrated part of
a General Plan and as part of a program including subsequent actions such as re-
I
--------_.~_._-- "-~_.... ----_._~---_.- ..~
City Council
July 31, 2001
Page 2 of 4
zonings, sphere of influence modifications and annexations or potential
development projects consistent with the plan.
CEQA Section 15089 requires that the City prepare a Final EIR before approving
the .project and enables the Lead Agency to review the Final EIR, focusing on the
responses to comments, without re-circulation. The Lead Agency must certify that
the Final EIR was reviewed and considered prior to approving the project, as
specified in CEQA Section 15090.
When the Final EIR identifies one or more (potentially) significant environmental
effects of the project, as is the case with this document, THE Lead Agency must
make one or more written findings for each of those significant effects
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each, as explained in CEQA
Section 1 5091 .
A preliminary draft of a Resolution for consideration by the City Council including
findings and including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as described in
CEQA 15093, was part of the Planning Commission staff report. The City Council
is required by law to hold at least one properly noticed public hearing before
approving a recommendation on the adoption of a General Plan (Government Code
65355). The Resolution is intended as a basis for the certification of the Final EIR
and the adoption of the General Plan. It is anticipated that an amended draft
Resolution will be provided at an August 2001 continued hearing for review prior to
final EIR certification and plan adoption.
On Tuesday, July 31, 2001, the staff and consultant will focus on the following
presentation agenda, unless otherwise directed by the City Council:
1. Brief summary of 2001 General Plan Update process to date and the
remaining steps required for adoption;
2. Presentation of the draft EIR Summary of Impacts, Table EIR-1, pages
EIR 12 through 15;
3. List of Comments Received and Brief Discussion of Response Topics;
a) Revisions or additions to General Plan Policies
b) Areas of cQntroversy - Land Use Changes & AI~ernatives
c) Buildout Population
d) Potentially significant impacts:
(i) Water Resources
(ii) T raffic/Circulation/T ransportation
(iii) Air Quality
4. Overview and Highlights of 2001 Update and Planning Commission
Recommendations
--...- ---"-~----"-'---- -'~-,,-"._-_... ----
City Council
July 31, 2001
Page 3 of 4
a) Planning Area, Sphere of Influence, County Fringe, Urban Area,
Land Use and Circulation Classifications;
b) Element by Element Objectives and major policies.
1. Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
2. Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element
3. Circulation/Transportation Element
4. Housing Element
5. Safety Element
6. Noise Element
7. Economic Development Element
8. Park and Recreation Element
The staff presentation will close with opportunity for Council questions followed by
public testimony on the process, Final EIR 2001 Update and issues of concern.
Staff responses and/or recommendations will be deferred until requested by the
Council, but. ideally some time for Council consideration of major topics should be
reserved prior to adjournment.
An additional hearing has been tentatively scheduled for August 16, 2001,. for the
presentation of Element objectives and policies, with particular focus on proposed
changes from the 1990 General Plan by Element. This will focus on:
. Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space
. Land Use - County Fringe and Urban Area
A hearing has also been tentatively scheduled for August 23, 2001, at which time
the City's traffic consultant, Higgins and Associates will present and explain the
Traffic Model Analysis Findings and Conclusions. The City Council may take
additional public testimony and then consider and provide direction on the Final EIR,
the individual General Plan Elements and the Resolution. It is anticipated that final
Council action will take place on September 11, 2001.
A TT ACHMENTS:
1. Memorandum - Planning Commission Recommendations - 2001 General Plan
Update, dated July 19, 2001.
2. Letter from Diane Sheeley, Economic Development Director, dated July 23,
2001.
3. Letter from Robert Hopkins, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, County of
San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture, dated July 19, 2001.
4. Letter from Nicholas A. Alter, 354 Corbett Canyon Road, dated July 26,
2001.
5. Letter from Julie Wilson, at Julie Wilson Photography, dated July 26, 2001.
6. Letter from Tim Price, 316 La Paloma,- Shell Beach, dated July 24, 2001.
-_..,----_.,-----
City Council
July 31,2001
Page 4 of 4
7. Letter from Patty Welsh, 1151 Pradera, dated July 23, 2001.
8. Letter from Jan Scott, 520 Via Vaquero, dated July 25, 2001.
9. Letter from William G. Kapp, et ai, 617 Woodland Drive, dated July 27,
200l.
--. --~ _J
A TT ACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KERRY McCANTS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.
ROB STRONG, AICP 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR
CONSULTANT
DATE: JULY 31, 2001
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS - 2001 GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE
Pursuant to Section 65354 of the California Planning and Zoning Law this constitutes
outline of the Planning Commission's written recommendations regarding adoption of
the 2001 General Plan Update for all elements except the Safety Element. The
Commission conducted its public hearing on the final EIR and General Plan Update at
a two-part special meeting on July 18 and 19, 2001, and continued Commission
review and discussion to July 25, 2001. The hearing was again continued to the
August 7 meeting of the Planning Commission for consideration of the Safety Element
and the EI R only.
On July 19, 2001, after all public comments were received, the Commission voted on
each of the twelve land use study areas and subareas that had been identified in the
Final EIR, except those resolved by unanimous consent. Unanimous consensus and
recommendation for the land use classifications shown on the May 21, 2001, Public
Review and Comment Distribution Draft Land Use Element Map was reached for areas
1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 as briefly summarized below:
1) Oak Park Acres at James Wav - reclassify from Planned Development (PD) to
Community Facility (CF) reflecting the existing church, related school and off-
street parking.
3) Rancho Grande/La Canada - reclassify from Planned Development (PD) to
Conservation/Open Space and Planned Development combining designation
(C/OS-PD), allowing 1 dwelling unit (du.) per 5 acres (enabling up to 5 units
subject to PD approval).
--..-- _,___. .____'.n.~_____
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31,2001
Page 2 of 11
6). Camino Mercado - reclassify the frontage of Camino Mercado from Planned
Development (PD) to Mixed Use (MU-PD) with Planned Development,
combining designation except, the cemetery that would be classified as
Community Facility (CF).
8) Frederick/ALC and Williams ProDerties Inside and Outside of City Limits and
Sphere of Influence (SOl).
a) Reclassify the portion of the Frederick/ ALC property within the City
from Residential Rural (RR) and Residential Hillside (RH), the latter
requiring Specific Plan to a "Specific Plan" classification without
underlying land uses prescribed. (A mapping error unintentionally
excluding a 2 acres portion of this ownership southwest of South
Traffic Way Extension should be corrected prior to LUE adoption).
b) Classify the 1 85 acres adjoining Frederick/ ALC property outside the
City limits but within the LAFCO approved SOl as Specific Plan
Reserve, and
c) Classify the 201 acre separate "Williams Property" (Moynihan) as
Specific Plan Reserve subject to LAFCO approval to include this
property as part of the City's SOl.
9) Vallev Road Aariculture - These County, unincorporated area properties
surrounded by City limits should remain outside the City's Sphere of Influence
and classified County Agriculture, and the nearby High School owned property
within the City limits should. be reclassified from Agriculture (AG) to Community
Facility (CF) to reflect its' public agency ownership.
10) Farroll Avenue - The 10 acre unsubdivided, agricultural use property classified
as Residential Suburban (RS) with a Specific Plan required, should be
reclassified as Single Family Residential Low Medium Density, (SFR-LM-PD),
with a Planned Development combining designation to encourage cluster
residential planned development of approximately 25 du and including possible
expansion of Soto Sports Complex or private park and recreation/ponding basin
potential.
11) East Grand Avenue Mixed .Use Corridor Boundaries (and Adjoining Residential
Area Density Determinations) - Retain the Single Family Residential (SFR),
Medium Density classification for the subdivided, developed areas north and
south 'of the East Grand Avenue Mixed Use (former General Commercial (GC)
classified properties), except Alderhouse and two adjoining lots on Alder Street.
The site specific exception would be reclassified from Senior Housing (SR) and
Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multiple Family Residential, Very High
._O'_______m_____________. ____ __________ -,
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31, 2001
Page 3 of 11
Density with a Planned Development combining designation (MFR-VHD-PD) (the
exception being a refinement evolving from FEIR response ,to comments).
The Planning Commission recommendations on the remainder of the Land Use Study
Areas 2, 4, 5, 7, and 12, were accomplished by separate roll call votes for each of the
following areas and subareas:
2) Rancho Grande at Noves Road - The 53 + /- acres composed of two parcels
should be reclassified from Planned Development to Conservation/Open Space
(C/OS, allowing 1 du per parcel rather than with Planned Development (PD)
combining designation allowing up to 35 du maximum. Vote 3-2: with Brown,
Guthrie and Costello for and Fowler and Keen opposed.
4) Roval Oak Estates - reclassify from Planned Development to SFR-LD-PD and
Conservation/Open Space, Single Family Residential Low Density with Planned
Development combining designation allowing a maximum of 20 du at 1 du per
1.5' acre, exclusive of the tree preservation easement area shown as C/OS.
Vote 3-2: with Fowler, Keen and Guthrie for and Brown and Costello opposed.
5) Prinz. Noves and Oak Park Roads-Northern SDhere of Influence (SOn-Exclude
entire SOl area outside current City limits from City's Urban Reserve and
request County referral to City Council of all development proposals, subject to
County LUE amendment to require minimum parcel size of 2 % acres per
dwelling unit. Revised the prior proposal to retain this as 35 acres within SOl
adjoining Highway 227 for potential Single Family Residential, Low Density
Planned Qevelopment subject to annexation. Vote: 5-0 Guthrie, Brown, Keen,
Fowler and Costello for, none opposed.
7) Villaae Mixed Use Boundaries and Uses-This Land 'Use Study Area was
discussed by geographic sub-areas and includes several controversial property
owner requests for reclassification:
7Sa) Traffic. Wav Highwav and General Commercial-reclassify the
General Commercial classified and GC and HC zoned area south of
the Village Core area (generally south of Poole Street) to Mixed
Use. Unanimous consensus.
7Sb) South of East Cherrv Avenue. East of Traffic Wav-frontaae
(Dorfman and JaDanese Welfare Association) - retain the current
Agriculture (AG), classification unless and until mitigation for
conversion is provided consistent with the proposed General Plan
---- ___" ___________n__ "----.--.- ------.----..------ ----~---~-_..-
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31,2001
Page 4 of 11
policies. (See Ag 1-4.2 and Ag 3-14). Vote 3-2 Guthrie, Brown,
and Costello for and Fowler and Keen opposed.
7W) Sinale Familv Residential Subdivision West of the Villaae-retain
SFR-MD subdivided area along Larchmont, Wilton, and West Branch
between Wesly and Vernon Avenues as Single Family Residential-
Medium Density. Unanimous consensus.
to
7N) Sinale Familv Residential North Side. of Le Point North of the
Villaae-retain as SFR-LD the Residential Rural (RR) zoned and
developed lots on the hillside slopes north of Le Point Street.
Unanimous consensus.
7Ea) South Side of East Branch Adioinina Arrovo Grande Creek at East
Edae of Villaae-reclassify from Village Commercial to SFR-MD and
Village Core (VC) the properties east of junction of Crown Terrace
and East Branch Streets. Unanimous consensus at the July 25,
2001 continued meeting.
7Eb) East Mvrtle. East Cherrv and East. Cherrv Extension East of
Noauern Place South of Arrovo Grande Creek. Include Lierlv Lane
(Stillwell. Estes. et. aU-reclassify from Residential Rural (RR) to
Single Family Residential, Medium Density (SFR-MD) the entire 22
acre area subject to a neighborhood development plan including
infrastructure improvements (streets, water, sewer, drainage, parks,
etc.) providing for agriculture buffer to southeast and
Commercial/Open Space along Arroyo Grande Creek to north and
east. Vote: 4-1: Keen, Fowler, Guthrie and Costello for and Brown
opposed.
7Ec) Nelson Green area East of Mason and South of Nelson Streets
South of Arrovo Grande Creek - reclassify from Village Commercial
(VC) and Office (0), the south side of Nelson Street and east side
of Mason Street to Single Family Residential, Medium Density,
(SFR-MD). Unanimous consensus in response to public comment.
12) EI Camino Real-Reclassify from Residential Suburban, Multiple Family, Office,
General Commercial and Industrial, the area along EI Camino Real to Mixed Use
(MU) with the clarification that the former Industrial classification would
continue to be allowed or conditionally permit industrial/light manufacturing
uses. Unanimous consensus.
I
-."-.- ------.-'.--- -----"-------- ------.....------.,- ---~
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31, 2001
Page 5 of 11
On July 25, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed the 2001 General Plan Update
Policy Document and Elements, and made the following changes, clarifications, and
comments:
INTRODUCTION - No comments or changes to this chapter.
AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Obiective Aa 1. Policv Aa 1-4.2: The Commission discussed the ratio and location
criteria for possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils (e.g. East
Cherry near Traffic Way/Dorfman and Japanese Welfare Assoc.). By a 4-1 vote the
Commission determined to support the policy as drafted, requiring 2: 1 Dermanent
protection of prime soils on another suitable location, acceptable to the City Council,
1) within or contiguous to the City boundaries, 2) within Urban Land Use Element
Area (City and Sphere of Influence), or 3) within the Area of Environmental Concern
(Planning Area), in that order of preference. Vote: 4-1: Guthrie, Brown, Keen
Costello for and Fowler opposed.
Obiective Aa 2 - Acceptable as drafted; unanimous consensus.
Obiective Aa 3 - Acceptable as drafted; unanimous consensus.
Obiective Aa 4 - Acceptable as drafted; unanimous consensus.
Obiective Aa 5. Policv 5-2.2: The Commission considered both the response to
comments outlined in the FEIR, C-2-R-1 and R-2, and an additional memo from the
County Agricultural Commissioner's office dated July 19, 2001 (attached). Following
discussion of the minimum agricultural buffer distance and need for flexibility to fit
existing conditions, the Commission recommended the following changes:
"No portion of any new residential structure should be
located closer than 200 feet. from the site of agricultural
operations. Greater or lesser distances may be required
based upon site-specific circumstances "(changes
underlined) .
Obiective C/OS 1 - Acceptable as drafted; unanimous consensus.
Obiective C/OS 2 - Acceptable as drafted; unanimous consensus.
Obiective C/OS 3 - Acceptable as drafted; unanimous consensus.
----- n~
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31, 2001
Page 6 of 11
Obiective C/OS 4 - Acceptable as drafted; unanimous consensus.
Obiective C/OS 5 - Acceptable as drafted; unanimous consensus.
Obiective C/OS 6, Policy C/OS6-1, regarding water resources, projected General Plan
population at buildout and per capita consumption were discussed at some length.
Staff clarified that the last sentence of the policy should read: The 3,590 acre feet
per year minimum SUDDlv durina drouaht conditions is estimated as capable of
supporting a City of 20.000 residents (at 160 gpd per capita average consumption).
Historic and current per capita consumption was reviewed and acknowledged to
exceed the proposed use rate, despite prior "water neutralization" programs of the
City regarding new developments. The Commission requested additional study and
report from Public Works and water master plan consultants on possible mitigation
measures to achieve per capita water consumption reduction to the targeted level,
and to report annually on actual use. The Commission asked staff to return with
additional policy proposals to assure more efficient water use and report on current
average consumption by different land use types, densities and design factors,
including agriculture, commercial, office, industrial, and residential of various types
and densities. At a minimum, the Commission's unanimous consensus was to
prescribe specific "triggers" or thresholds of water use (e.g. 90% of estimated
drought yield) and/or prescribing that consumption greater than 160 gpd) as requiring
the City Council consider further mitigation and monitoring or reduction of further
development toward build-out until estimated yields or average consumption are
resolved to comply with the stated management objective. The Commission
requested Council referral on possible water resource mitigation and monitoring
program proposals due to this possible resource constraint to estimated General Plan
Update buildout.
FRINGE AND URBAN LAND USE ELEMENT
Prior to policy review the Commission considered several map clarifications and
corrections based on public comments and owner concerns.
Re: Land Use Studv Area 1 2 - EI Camino Real - Owner AI Epstein asked for verification
that the property at 201 Brisco Road was being corrected to be part of Mixed Use rather
than Multiple Family Residential classification. Staff confirmed that this correction
would be reported to the City Council.
Re: Land Use Studv Area 7E - Villaae Gore Boundaries - Owner Richard DeBlauw
asked that former Loomis properties on the south side of East Branch not be
reclassified from Village Core (VC) to Multiple Family Residential, as previously
-----
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31, 2001
Page 7 of 11
requested and preliminarily recommended. Staff confirmed that the eastern four flag
lots (APN Nos. 07-501-30, 31, 32 and 33) would still be recommended for
reclassification to Single Family Residential, Medium Density, but that the subject
property including 520, 522 and 528 East Branch would remain classified Village
Core (V C) . (These creekside properties had recently been reconfigured by lot line
adjustment, AGAL 00-173, to facilitate a Mixed-Use development proposal.)
Additionally, staff clarified that a residential classified and zoned triangular shaped
property on the north side of East Branch at Crown Terrace and Le Point Terrace
Streets had been incorrectly mapped as Village Core. The map correction to Single
Family Residential, Medium Density will be reported to the City Council.
Re: Land Use Studv Area 8a-Frederick/ALC-Based on a request to include all
contiguous parts of the ALC ownership within a proposed Specific Plan the
Commission by unanimous consensus accepted that the SP boundary within the City
should be corrected to include a 2 acre portion of Frederick/ALC property southwest
of Traffic Way Extension and adjoining Freeway 101, incorrectly excluded on the
draft map. This 2 acre parcel was retained as Single Family Residential, Low-Density,
(formerly Rural Residential). Other adjoining properties not owned by Fredrick/ ALC
including several homes owned by the Lawlers remain SFR-LD classification, subject
to amendment if or when a Specific Plan resolves future development and
infrastructure improvements in the vicinity.
These map corrections were accepted by unanimous consensus of the Commission.
Table LU-1-regarding residential density, zoning categories and population density
was also clarified by staff, to revise the Persons per household from 3.0 to 2.4 p/du.
average based on 2000 census data. Approximate population density will be
corrected on the table for future buildout calculations when land use classification
acreage refinements are provided prior to or concurrent with Development Code
revisions.
Objective LU (Frinae) Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU1 Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU2 Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU3 Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU4 Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
~--~
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31, 2001
Page S of 11
Obiective LU5-Policv 5-5, The Commission by unanimous consensus deleted the
proposed policy as worded providing for possible heavy commercial and light
industrial uses in all Mixed Use areas. Instead, the Commission directed staff to
"Define different Mixed Use overlay or combining designations concurrent with
Development Code revision for General Plan consistency to clarify allowed,
conditionally permitted and prohibited uses in each MU subarea." This alternative
policy recommendation was accepted by unanimous consensus to become LU 5-5.
Policv 5-S.3:-The Commission recommended .clarification of the preferred location of
off street parking in Mixed Use corridors by the following change. "Promote the
development of buildings along a landscaped sidewalk frontage. Promote rear yard
parking by discouraging front yard parking and encouraging private, shared or public
parking facilities located to the rear of buildings or side streets in Mixed Use
corridors. " Vote was 4-1 with Keen, Fowler, Guthrie and Costello for and Brown
opposed.
Obiective LU6-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU7 -Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LUS-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU9-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
.Obiective LU1 O-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU11-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU11.5-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective LU12-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Objective H-1, Policy H1-S.3- The Commission discussed the adopted affordable (low
and moderate income) housing policies of the 1 993 element. The Commission
concern was primarily that new developments are avoiding on-site construction of
such units by payment of "in-lieu affordable housing fee." The Commission
recommends that these in-lieu fees be increased from 1 % to a minimum of "5% of
the value of new construction as computed for building permit," and to include
commercial and other non-residential construction in this requirement if on-site
~--_._.- --_.._._-._-~
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31, 2001
Page 9 of 11
affordable housing is not provided. Vote was 4-1 with Guthrie, Brown, Keen and
Costello for and Fowler opposed.
SAFETY ELEMENT
Discussion and recommendations on this element of the Update were deferred until
Chair Costello had opportunity to review technical report and maps. Discussion was
deferred until August 7,2000 regular meeting for possible recommendations.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
The minor typographical corrections suggested by the City's Economic Development
Director letter of July 23, 2001 were mentioned accepted as outlined in the attached
letter. Additionally, the Commission recommended the following minor clarifications
or changes:.
Obiective ED1-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective ED2...,..Revise title "Mixed Use, Office, and Light Manufacturing." Expand
Objective ED-2 and Policy ED2-2 to clarify primary purpose:... "to promote and
enhance base line job opportunities within the City for local residents.
Obiective ED-3-acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective ED-4-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective ED 5 and Policv ED5-1 - Revise to read: "ED5 Develop a strategy that
promotes the importance of tourism in the City.
ED5-1 - Become an active participant in the San Luis Obispo Countywide
tourism programs."
Objective ED6-Acceptable as drafted, unanimous consensus.
Obiective ED7. Policv 7-1.3- The Commission deleted:..."the Conditional Use Permits
for..." and supported the concept of alternative administrative review process
for routine projects. Vote by unanimous roll call.
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
By unanimous consensus recommend as drafted.
----- ------
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31, 2001
Page 1 0 of 11
NOISE ELEMENT
The Commission requested that Restaurants with and without outdoor dining and
entertainment and/or drive-up windows be added to Table N-1. Otherwise the
objectives and policies, reformatted from 1993 adopted policy document, is acceptable
as drafted, by unanimous consensus.
CIRCULA TION/TRANSPORT A TION ELEMENT
Obiective CT1 - The Commission agreed with staff recommendation that the arterial
collector and local street standard sections and typical rights of way be revised by
Public Works and Community Development proposing new sections including
provisions for bike lanes, transit turnouts, adequate sidewalks, parkways, medians,
travel and parking lanes where appropriate. Otherwise the policy text is
acceptable as drafted by unanimous consensus.
Obiective CT2 - The Commission requested further clarification from Public Works
and traffic consultants regarding Level of Service (LOS) 'c' or better on all streets
and controlled intersections. These polices need refinement to address significant
delay or less than LOS 'C' on some movements particularly at problem
intersections, despite average LOS criteria.
Obiective CT3 Policv 3-3.1 - The Commission by unanimous consensus
recommended the following addition:"... including neighborhood connections in
addition to conventional streets."
Obiective CT4 - Acceptable as drafted, by unanimous consensus.
Obiective CT5 - Acceptable as drafted, by unanimous consensus.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
It being midnight, the Commission decided to defer any discussion on whether or
not to recommend certification of the Final EIR, and related mitigation monitoring,
findings or statements of overriding considerations until their next regular meeting
on August 7, 2001. It was understood that the Council will start it's Public
Hearings on the 2001 General Plan Update on July 31, and continue Public
Hearing on traffic model analysis of Circulation Element and other environmental
water resource, and air quality issues of the Final EIR to a second continued
hearing in late August. The Commission will offer additional report and
-~
Planning Commission Recommendations
2001 General Plan Update
July 31,2001
Page 11 of 11
recommendation after their August 7, 2001 meeting regarding Safety Element and
Final EI R.
- End of report -
Staff will introduce and explain these recommendations as part of the City Council
Public Hearing on July 31, 2001.
.
I
---~-- ----------
- ------_.__.__...~._---
. A TT ACHMENT 2
?ftV;j 0/ P.O. Box 550
~ ~~ 215 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Phone: (80S) 473-5485
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FAX: (80S) 473-0386'
E-Mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org .
July 23, 2001
Rob Strong
Strong Planning Services
14500 Morningside Drive
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Rob:
In reviewing the updated General Plan, page ED-3 of the Economic Development
Element, I noticed that we have not referenced Professional Offices as previously
discussed. Unless you can think of something more creative, I would
recommend adding the language "Professional Offices" to the already existing
"Light Manufacturing" section, beginning on page ED-3. Specifically, the
language could read "Light Manufacturing/Professional Offices" as indicated in
the attachment.
Additionally, I would also recommend that you align the percentage~ within the
"current employment composition" on page ED-1 of the Economic Development
Element. I have attached the page for your quick review.
Finally, I thought you might want to review the punctuation on the attached page
ED-8 for consistency purposes.
Should you have questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience at
473-5486 or you can reach me via email at dsheeley@arroyogrande.org.
Sincerely,
~D.-IL ~~
Diane Sheeley
Economic Development Director
Attachments
c. City Manager
Community Development Director
economicdevelopmentelementl072301 memo.doc
1
Introduction -
In addition to the City's business retention and expansion program, the City Council's adopted
Economic Development Strategy addresses supporting businesses proposing appropriate projects
within the scope of the General Plan.
The Economic Development Strategy engages and is consistent with previous work conducted by
the Chamber of Commerce and several City-initiated studies including the following:
Economic Opportunities Analysis Final Report (Applied Development Economics)
Approved October 31, 1995
Business Development Marketing Strategy (Applied Development Economics)
Approved January 13, 1998
Redevelopment Plan Implementation Strategy (Urban Futures, Inc.)
Adopted June 8, 1999
Home Based Business Plan (Applied Development Economics)
Approved January 25, 2000
Current Employment Composition -
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1999 Regional Profile states that an estimated
annual average employment by industry in the San Luis Obispo Region includes 75% of the
county's workforce employed in the areas of Government, Trade, and Services. Retail Trade
alone constitutes 21.2% of the County workforce. More specifically, in 1999, Sa;'l Luis Obispo
County estimated,an annual average employment by industry as s:
Government ~
Trade
Services t1li0
Manufacturing -
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate -
Construction and Mining -
Transportation and Public Utilities 5%
Farmin
TOTAL
According to the California Employment Development Departme ,Arroyo Grande's labor force in
April 1999 was 7,190 with 6,950 employed with Arroyo Grande's percentage of the countywide
employment base was 6.6%, and 240 people unemployed (a rate of 3.4%). Resident population
in the City of Arroyo Grande represents 6.5% of the County's total population. Despite this
apparent ''jobs-housing balance", Arroyo Grande is often referred to as a "bedroom" community
since many residents commute to neighboring San Luis Obispo or Santa Maria for employment
opportunities.
Creating a balanced economic image for the City is outlined in the Economic Development
Strategy. First and. foremost, the existing job base needs to be nurtured and protected. In
ED -1
-_.-._----_.. ---~------_.-.- -- -- - ------ -------
EDl-1.6 Conduct, promote, and encourage training
workshops through the Arroyo Grande Valley Chamber of
Commerce, the San Luis Obispo County/Santa Barbara
County Small Business Development Center, and the Cuesta
College Institute for Professional Development
EDl-1.7 Continue implementing community outreach
program including active participation with the Arroyo
Grande Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Village
Improvement Association, and local service clubs
ED1-1.8 Promote the Economic Vitality Corporation's
Revolving Loan Fund and Micro-loan programs to Arroyo
Grande businesses
EDl-1.9 Collaborate with support organizations that
contribute to the economic well-being of Arroyo Grande,
including, but not limited to, the Arroyo Grande Chamber of
Commerce, Edna Valley/Arroyo Grande Valley Vintners
Association, Economic Vitality Corporation, Cal Poly, Cuesta
College, California Association for Local Economic
Development, California Downtown Association,
International Council for Shopping . Centers, American
Economic Development Council, the California
Redevelopment Association, and the UCSB Economic
Fore
LIGHT MANUFAcnJRING / f'1l D'F~ 5S I DA>A- <..., OP'FI c. E 5
"
OBJEcnVE ED2 Enhance business retention and expansion consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Policies
POUCIES ED2-1 Encourage adequate infrastructure to support business
expansions and new development opportunities
ED2-2 Continue outreach and networking with industry groups, real
estate brokers, developers, and others including accOuntants,
lenders, and attorneys
ED2-3 Encourage City Council/Planning Commission to identify
areas in the General Plan with opportunities for retaining and
expanding businesses
ED2-4 Continue to balance economic goals with strong policies and
programs that promote and maintain the community's. environment,
quality of life, and rural character
ED - 3
-~
.
IMPLEMENTATION
MEASURES ED7-1.1 Improve guidelines for design and development
revi~ ~ or
ED7-1.2 Establish clear City standards and thresholds of
acceptability for new development;
ED7-1.3 Examine the possibility of an administrative
review process as an alternative to the. Conditional Use
, ~k Permits for routine projects that are consistent with the
policies of the General Plan and requirements of the
(;..C'I\ ~ t ~ . 0 '^' Development Code and City design and. development
oJ" guideline~
r^~
ED7-1.4 Continue to coordinate "one-stop" development-
C?, "t related staff meetings with businesses prior to submission of
any formal applications, and
ED7-1.5 Provide City staff with ongoing education and
training as to the importance of timely responses.
ED - 8
.-
A TT ACHMENT 3
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Department of Agriculture/Measurement Standards
2156 SIERRA WAY, SUITE A · SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401-4556
RICHARD D. GREEK (805) 781-5910
AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/SEALER FA.'{ (805) 781-1035
AgCommSLO@co.slo.ca.us
July 19, 2001
TO: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
FROM: Robert Hopkins, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner .~~~
SUBJECT: Agricultural Buffers
It is my understanding your review of the revised General Plan includes considering the use of
buffers, with a specific distance of 100 feet, to protect agricultural lands and agricultural
operations. Our offic.e wholeheartedly supports the use of buffers to protect agricultural land but
would also recommend using as a starting point a larger distance. Our experiences indicate that
there are many circumstances where intensive agricultural operations, such as vegetable crop
production, require buffer distance larger than 100 feet. We would recommend using a starting
distance of 200 feet and provide for a smaller distance based on site specific factors and other
mitigation measures such as screening and disclosure.
Urban and residential uses can c~eate incompatible land use problems when occurring next to
agricultural operations. Some of he fanning operations within and adjacent to the city, are
already somewhat impacted by the potential for incompatible fanning activities. However, with
careful" and conscientious fanning practices existing fanning operations in these locations are
able to successfully fann. Additional residential or urban development with no or inadequate
buffers adjacent to theses agricultural operations would likely significantly'worsen
incompatibility impacts compared to the existing circumstance. Common types of impacts to
agriculture from residential uses include trespassing, traffic, complaints vandalism, increased
liability and increased regulation. Common types of impacts from agricultural operations to
residential uses include noise, dust, odors, agricultural chemical usage, farm implement traffic
and fann labor. Additionally, agricultural practices, such as pesticide applications, may need to
be further regulated or restricted due to adjacent land uses. Typically the extent of
incompatibility is dependent on the intensity of the agricultural use and intensity of the urban or
residential use. Vegetable fanning is an intensive agricultural use and is at an increase risk of
being impacted by urban uses.
Current the typical range of buffer distances our office uses for vegetable crops is 150 to 300
feet. Various site specific factors are evaluated in detennining a buffer distance. These may
include, topography, prevailing wind dir~ction, natural screening (e.g., vegetation, stream
channels), and extent of existing development. As well project specific features such as parcel
size, configuration, density of development, and intended type of land use.
~ -~-----_.- "-
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
July 19, 2001
Page 2
Buffer distance recommendations are made based on all relevant site and project criteria,
practical knowledge of agricultural practices, technical literature, and our professional
judgement. Or over all concept and approach is to provide a substantial margin of safety for the
agricultural use.
Our experience indicates that distance is the best approach to protecting agricultural operations
where they interface with nonagricultural use. In those circumstances where sufficient distance
is not possible then screening can supplement the distance.
For further information or clarification concerning agricultural buffers I can be reached at 781-
5753.
H:\RLHLUP\Arroyo Grande PC butTers.wpd
--~_._-_.,-_._---- - - ------ --'---
A TT ACHMENT 4
Nicholas A. Alter R"'CE\VF:1
. l:' - ~J :... ''''': ~, '. ~",,_ ::
354 Corbett Canyon Road TY ~r- ~r>RnyO '. '. ."
C\ u' i ,\ 1.:'; ,. ,.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 0' JUL 21 M\ 9: '9
(805) 474-8062 Voice
(805) 474-8083 Fax
nickalter@mindspring.com e ~ e \ ~ tJ\CU\Clfj f(X
July 26, 2001 e..,' ~ At\orne.~
~. l)tv, t>1~'
Michael A. Lady, Mayor ~, 6tro~
Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor Pro Tem
Thomas A. Runels, Council Member
Jim Dickens, Council member
Sandy Lubin, Council Member
Dear Mayor and Council:
I offer the following comments on the 2001General Plan Update and EIR.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Ai. Conservation & Open Space Element (C/OS6). I am concerned that there is no stipulation in this
critically important policy provision for maintaining water quality standards in managing land use and
urban development within the limit of our 3590 acre-feet/year capacity at buildout. I urge Council to add a
stipulation requiring that State quality standards be maintained for both drinking water and aquatic life.
0 I understand from the Regional Water Quality Control Board that Federal regulations for Phase II
of the Storm Water Regulations (per the Clean Water Act) will be implemented within the next
couple of years. These regulations will require municipalities to prepare storm water management
plans that will typically call for such policies on drinking water and aquatic life to be included in
their General Plans.
Urban Land Use Element (LU7). The concept ofRC and BP uses conflicts with the concept of
preserving and enhancing Arroyo Grande's "small town character and rural setting" (LUI2) as well as with
the provisions for Growth Management (LUll).
Large-scale regional-serving uses are simply out of character and out of place in Arroyo Grande.
While I recognize the existence of such regional-serving uses in Arroyo Grande today, allowance of
additional regional-serving uses would constitute a contradiction of General Plan policy and would be
contrary to the expressed will of City residents.
I therefore urge Council to modify LU7 to state that the Regional Commercial and Business Park
designations will be confined to those land uses that exist in Arroyo Grande today, except as voters may
otherwise approve in the future by referendum.
Circulation Element (CE2 and CE4). CE2 speaks of evaluating feasibility and funding alternatives for
an EI Campo interchange and of scheduling improvements "concurrent with ALC." This is very much
putting the cart before the horse. The Mayor and City Council have made it clear that, as a matter of
philosophy and policy, Our city will nm allow development projects to drive infrastructure; rather,
infrastructure is to be the driver of development.
If feasibility and funding alternatives for Traffic Way and El Campo are considered necessary, ind~endent
of ALC, then any reference to ALC should be stricken. Otherwise, Paragraph CE2 should be stricken in its
entirety.
~---_._-_.._.- -~-~_.._. i
Mayor and Council
July 26, 2001
Page 2
CE4 resurrects the proposed 227 bypass idea that the City previously rejected and that has no place being
brought back in our General Plan.
Economic Development Element. This element lacks substantive policy direction for focusing the
community's fmite resources where they can do the most economic good within policy limits set elsewhere
in the General Plan.
Most notable, there is no attempt to tie an economic development strategy in with land-use policies for
Growth Management (LUll). In this regard, there is no policy direction on thekind of economic activity
that is best suited to the kind of community defined in the Land Use, Ag/Conservation/OS and Circulation
elements.
Should economic development focus more on business activities that tie in with a redevelopment strategy
than with an expansive strategy for new development (e.g., ALC)? To what extent is each type of strategy
appropriate and desirable? Both types stimulate economic growth. The question is, do we want both and
can we afford both? My own sense is that we don't and we can't; and that we doom both by trying to
accomplish both.
Em
I concur with most of the EIR statements and positions, except as noted below;
Study Area #2 (Rancho Grande - Noyes Road). I support the Planning Commission's recommendation
to limit this development to 10 houses, given the environmental concerns of this 53-acre property. I urge
Council to modify its earlier 3:2 vote in favor of a 35-unit development by requiring a scoping-EIR before
allowing the developer to build more than 10 units.
Study Area #3 (Jbnch Grande - La Canad~. In addition to concurring with the Planning Commission's
recommendation to limit this development to Idu/5 acres, I wish to express my dismay over the City's
allowance of the developer to make such an environmental mess of this and the adjacent hillside area. I
understand the developer presently has the right to do what he's done,but it could have been avoided with
better land-use planning.
This kind of desecration of land stands as an example of why we as a city must do a better job of
establishing current and future land-use policy.
Study Area # 5 (Northern SOt). I urge Council to exclude all 735 acr~s (misstated in the EIR as 760
acres) from the City's SOl and URL, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
I oppose any increase in density of the 35 acres (misstated in the EIR as 60 acres) proposed for retention
within the SOI- especially an increase that would allow 35 homes where no more than 14 would otherwise
be allowed, consistent with the density of "existing surrounding land uses" (LUll-I). This area should be
zoned County RS to preserve the rural countryside. Zoning for an additional 20 homes would be
inconsistent with other stated policies and requirements on water consumption, Fringe density, and noise.
-- -
Mayor and Council
July 26, 2001
Page 3
Study Area #7 (VilIa(:e Mixed-Use Boundaries and Use~. Council must retain the Agriculture
classification of the prime Ag soils, notwithstanding the intense pressures of Mr. Dorfman to convert this
10-acre property for residential development.
The General Plan Update states unequivocally, "No net loss of prime farmland soils." It would be
unconscionable for Council to adopt this policy and then to immediately break 'it. Such an act would make a
sham of the General Plan process. Moreover, it would embolden developers to continue to chip away at the
then-remaining 330 acres of prime Ag soils. Before long, the critical mass of prime farmland needed to
sustain a viable Ag community would be gone.
To listen to Mr. Dorfman dismiss this small widowed parcel as insignificant is not to see its value to the
whole. It begs the question, "Do we or don't we want a sustainable farm community?" The General Plan's
Economic Development Element says (on page ED-4) that we should "encourage and support the retention
and expansion of Agriculture business activities." How can we do this if Council allows our prime
farmland to shrink?
Study Area # 8 (J'rederickl ALC). Speculative statements made on page EIR-73 about .the ALC project
reducing trip length, air quality problems and circulation problems in South County should be deleted.
These statements erroneously assume that the ALC project will draw from the labor pool within South
County. This is unsupported by the ALC Specific Plan and is contradictory to the types of job skills
available in South County for the ALC project. Job skills for the high-tech nature of the R&D activity in
ALC are in short supply in South County.
The fiscal impact analysis for the ALC specific plan indicates the project could generate on-site
employment of 2,800 persons and off-site employment of 1,500 within the City of Arroyo Grande, which
would represent nearly a 50% increase in the City's present employment base. Clearly most of these jobs
would have to be ftlled from outside Arroyo Grande proper as well as outside of South County, increasing
commuter traffic and trip lengths. At the very least, this commuter traffic from outside the area would
offset commuter traffic presently going from Arroyo Grande to Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo.
CONCLUSION
My chief concern is how willing our city is to live by the General Plan. I encourage City Council to
strengthen compliance with the General Plan's major policy provisions. Non-compliant projects should be
subject to a higher standard of approval than projects that are fully compliant. In the absence of such a
higher approval standard, the interests of the community at large can be too easily subverted by a self-
serving few who would destroy what area residents want to protect.
Finally, I want to say how much I appreciate this city council and stafffor the quality ofleadership and
effort that went into the process and preparation of the General Plan Update and EIR. Notwithstanding my
comments above, I think it's a document we can be proud of and should all support.
Sincerely,
(}ui;::-
Nick Alter
_..~---- -.-----......- ..-
A TT ACHMENT 5
'.,IT
H 0 T 0 G R AoI Jut 27 AA 12:2j"
July 26, 2001
To thei~embers of theArroyo GrandePlanningCommittee,
~. c.... " . .. '.' .' '.. .. . . ....,' <. . " .' C^
,. -. -",.'-'" .,' .... ',' """ ..',
My~~ei~.T\llie Wil~on formerly Juli~ Loomis.J am the great granddaughter of E.C. Loomis
.and m>'~~1>~d Scott~d IcurrentlY()wnE.C.B>omis & Son Feed Store.;] write you today in
re~~.!g~~directi~p~fo1lf ~it>"~ fllture' I haye not given my 9pinioI19~!this subject until
nO~'.~M~.t~ti1y prec~9usP()SitiOl1.9f~ing the <iaughter of ~ne()fthep~ers who sold .the
LO~ttM~~r9P~ andJtl~odl1e to. th.~..fa9t.tl1at w~~ current. tenaJ1tsofth.S~~w owners. But a
IeCeJ:l*~9~~'fu. the 't~'~g.t1LJIlTribUIle.1iasstirredme enough to c(jmment.'i>;,
Thei~~~~~d,.~i.bt If~lpassionat~~bdfftthebuil<iings on the .DeBiaw.ri()~. They hold both
.y~. ..'.....:,'i..,' .<:t:>J"-<.-.i:," ,-, ..:- ,_ . -: .'- .:.;,.".....,'< -.....:<...,' .-:,,;,',: : " .'-........, .....:.:: ,'..,_.,( ',. .. ,.... .." ". ..-.....'.... .. -'" .... ,', :.. ,,' -.- ',i:,:':,"_.... ..', ,"-'.:: ._,-..--:<",
th.e~~~()I]c~.~~fourR9mmt1l:1ity'aJ1~Wf family'g,.past.As a resi~~t of~yo Grande I am also
. CO,tu;tJj}~ ~1:>9ut maint.apungthe..hist()rY of our9ommunity. . .". . ..' .......... . . /.'...,.
t::"_;'.';;:_~-/,:}'::\,',"/;:,{:, :Y?~',~'-', ,',,','., :::",:":,\,_-','::<"::",>:',::,',:,, "'_"':,~f:',\":;-:-'-:':" ,: ',:,",;::w~,_:: _ :,' " ','." ,""', ,'>:., -" "'", ",""",:;~
.fu~Ju#e~2~".TelegrablTri~une..artifl~. B9b. LUIldof th.e Arr9yoQrand~c~i'lage.Ass()Ciation was
quote~'~aying,"Busin~ss9wners. want .standards.that won 't deviateftomtl1~historical. image of
the villt1ge"but thenvventon to say that "Most members of the Village ~~iation support the
DeBta.wdevelopment". To me thetwo statements of Mr. Lund are. in con~t to each other. If
we are ~illing our town as the "Historical Village" and then turn arounda:n~allow some of the
to.wns.oldestbuildings to be tom down and replaced bya "sort-of-turn-of-tJ1e-century" image,
then we have lost our history. Whatmakes Arroyo Grande so unique, is that it doesn't have the
cookie cutter look like of so many other towns in California. .
I believe, With very little creativity and vision, we could continue to preserve our historic
buildings and develop around them structures that would enhancetheirhist<>rical appearance.
One example of this type of development is in the town of Danville., California. A shopping area
called The Danville Livery and Mercantile uses a "turn-of-the-century" look, With wood
sidewalks and quaint storeftonts, to give this wealthy community a unique and warm feeling. No
doubt developing a "turn of the century" shopping center around the feed store buildings would
allow. the existing structures to both remain and be enhanced.
I truly appreciate your time in allowing me to offer you my opinion. I also appreciate your desire
to keep our community a place that reflects its past. I would be haPPY to()ffer my time in
gathering photog.t1Lphs and information about the Danville Livery and Mercantile, should you
have any interest.
In conclusion as Mr. Lund was supposedly speaking for MOST of the members of the Village
Association in support of Mr. DeBlaw's development. Let me also speak for MOST of the
custoniers ofE.C.Loomis & Son Feed Store. Not a day goes by that we don't hear of how
heartsick our customers are at the thought of the feed store andth~ buildings around it being tom
down. . Please give careful thought to keeping the "Historic Village of Arroyo Grande", historic.
Thankyou again for your time arid consideration.
Sincerely,
f: 'W~ - t: ti~~
Iu leWilson W'1 M~tY
Ci~ ~~\~
~~' Du. r
,.s~
~I~ un IIANU nun - ARROYO 6IAHU, CA. 9HZO - [,.F.] 8o~-~81-IIOI - WWW.JULlEWILSOH'HOTO U'HY.COH
---- -~'-'--",- "-
-. ATTACHMENT 6
RECEIVED ~.Ct~M~~
July 24 tho 200 I C! TY OF I\RRO'(O C:(~;\!.;:~r~ ~~ Mo(r\~
City of Arroyo Grande, 01 JUL 26 PH 2: 23 ~.1XN O{r-.
~~~~
Attention; Mayor Lady and
Council Members
Re: rezoning of property at Cherry Ave and Traffic Way from agriculture to residential.
The ten acre property referenced above is no longer ''prime agriculture". The
City's own zoning has created this very small nonprofitable island of agricultural land
surrounded by existing homes and businesses located just blocks ftom the village!
The City is creating and accepting future liability for itself by insisting this
particular piece of land remain zoned as agriculture.
In today's climate of liability lawsuits, I feel the Cities direction of continued
agriculture zoning with its constant use of pesticides so close to the homes and businesses
that now surround the property has created and is continuing to force a potentially
hazardous situation upon the neighbors surrounding this land.
By rezoning this property to residential, its use would be consistent with the
properties that already surround it. It would also aUow solutions to relieve recurring
drainage problems that now exist on the site. Rezoning would allow for widening the
existing 16' wide neighborhood street to safely accommodate one (1) lane of traffic each
direction with full parking and curb, gutter and sidewalk on each side oftbat street. That
change would hopefully allow the City to post a 25 mile per hour residential speed limit
enforceable by the Police department. These actions would certainly create a much safer
environment than exists now.
On a final note, I would like to comment on the proposed 2: 1 land mitigation for
properties like this piece of infill that could be classified as having prime farming soils,
like the majority of the land on which this City with its homes and businesses now rest.
Under this condition the property owner would have to essentially pay three times as
much for the property forcing the price of any home built on that property to be priced
substantially higher. If the City adds this new financial burden to the owner, the City
itself is forcing those increases to take place.
We hear and read regularly that City officials want more affordable or should I
say attainable homes in our area so our working class residents are more able to purchase
them but as we can plainly see you are trying to create policy that does the exact
opposite! What should people believe your political rhetoric or your policy actions?
This small and now politically sensitive piece of property is a perfect example of
infill or smart growth by the City's own standards and guidelines. All planning
consultants that the City has hired paying for their professional recommendations have
also classified it as residential infill.
. -
This ten acre piece of property is not prime farmland, the City decided that many
years ago when it saw fit to establish zoning that now isolates it among the existing
homes.
Farming is a rural business endeavor, it was never meant to take place inside the
innermost areas of the City beside tract homes and businesses.
Please have the courage to examine all the facts concerning this property, don't
use it as a political football. Rezone it as residential to make it hannonious with the
neighborhood it now finds itself located within.
. ~S~full&2 .
G~ ~
im Price
Tim Price
316 La Paloma
Shell Beach, CA 93449
r
A TT ACHMENT 7
Dear Mayor and Council Members, July 23,2001
I have been trying to become involved with the city of Arroyo Grande and have
recently started attending council and planning commission meetings. Some of the things
I have heard really bother me, such as the money spent to develop a new general plan.
You spend good money to have these consultants come in, and help with this process
then it seems you don't really listen to what they say. One example is the 10 acres out on
Cherry Lane, both consultants said this is infill and it should be developed. But the city
seems to treat this land as valuable Ag land. It would be valuable, but along the way
developers were able to build all around this parcel, on the same soil you now think is to
prime to build on. I know that you were not the people responsible for those bad
decisions; but I feel that you can now right a wrong. This was prime Ag land, but its time
has come and gone. And you treat this property as though other prime Ag land surrounds
it, not the residential houses. It is time to do some smart growth with the land in our city
limits, and learn by the mistakes of others. I for one would not live out in that area the
way it sits now. I think that a lot of problems in the area could be addressed, such as the
drainage problem people have out there. You have the oppo~ty to take bad decisions
of others and turn this into a positive move. The bad move in my eyes was to develop all
around the area, leaving drainage problems, people unable to park on the street in front of
their homes, having to contend with mud and muck, pesticides and th.is patch ofland that
separates instead of connecting neighbors. I just ask that you truly think about what the
best use of this infill would be, lets do smart growth with our city and learn from our
mistakes. Remember mistakes are only bad when you don't learn from them.
Sincerely,
(~1
C) -!
- -'........;,.-
-~
c- o
c: -'1
r- :;:;
N >m
:::1(j
) Patty Welsh Ci"\ ;:G j11
0-
-0 -<<
1151 Pradera Ct. . ...... ol'Tl
c:;
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 N
..
., >
N o-
w
t: (:,i~ M~v -
Ci~A-&fY\~
CD~. 8w' ~(Y~d""
t(L.. ~~
-~-~._-- --~--_.._-- '-
A TT ACHMENT 8
RECEIVED
July 25,2001 ,"'try tfC f. RROYO r .),~ .-
-
I....... l,,'1"'"\ ~ .....,dd-' ..-
Arroyo Grande City Council o I JUL 26 AN /I: I 9
P.o. Box 550 LI~ /'v'fM~~(
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 t'.
RE: Dorfman Rezoning Request for the General Plan tA ~ A-l-\o.-v\ U)
tof'M"4".lJeA ]) I r.
Gentlemen, Q.s+r~
At the Planning Commission public hearings last week, Mr. Dorfman and his supporters
were very persuasive, if one didn't have the truth available for comparison. Fortunately,
we do.
Mr. Dorfman stated that it is not a matter of saving farmland, but of no growth. He says,
"there's nothing to save." He is mistaken on all counts.
If this isn't viable, prime ag land worth saving, then we might as well toss out our
definition. This parcel consists of top grade soils. It is farmed by one of our premier
farmers. If Mr. Taylor doesn't know good farmland, no one does. It has been in
production for so many years, no one can say exactly when it began being farmed.
Mr. Dorfman says the land isn't worthy of being farmed because this parcel, on its own
will not support a farmer because it is too small. But out of39 ag parcels within A.G., 30
are 10 acres or less. That means 77% of agricultural land ownership within the City of
Arroyo Grande consists of parcels of 10 acres or less. Every real farmer in the area
knows you farm where the land is good and available, and if that means in separate
parcels, then so be it. Contiguous ag land is helpful, but not necessary to earn a living.
The "develop-at-any-cost" folk have picked up a buzz word, "No Growth" to vilify
anyone whose growth policies are more reserved than "pave it over, slice it out, build it
up." I believe in growth. Always have. But I also believe that we need to grow with
care instead of reckless abandon, so that we don't end up like every other gullible farm
town, buying into the promises of developers who make their money, while we end up
shaking our heads, wondering what happened to us and why we look like every city in
the the San Fernando Valley.
Our interior farmland is one of the most precious, if not THE most precious assets we
have as a community. That's why the ag zoning has remained in place throughout all
these decades. It has been valued as an asset. Only thirteen cities in the whole state have
such interior farmland. It should be cherished as defining us, not auctioned off to the
highest bidder. Maybe Mr. Dorfman wants to live in a place that looks like Orange
County after it bowed to development. I don't. Ifwe start picking off our farms in bits
and pieces, we will end up like every other unfortunate faming community with ill-
advised leadership. We will have lost our soul.
I
I
I
I
- -~--- ~._-_..~..,..,~ --.-J
-2-
Mr. Dorfman calls it "infill" and "smart growth." It is not. Smart growth is not the same
as growth everywhere and under all circumstances. The General Plan is making a
generous allowance for new growth in areas that are more suitable for growth. Replacing
prime ag with houses, when there are alternatives; isn't "smart." Nor is it smart growth
when 86% (n!) of the population have said they favor preserving our interior ag land.
Infill building and smart growth are not defined by giving up what is meaningful to a
community in order for a developer to make a profit.
Mr. Dorfman says the city is a corporation and should have a corporate policy that is
maintained no matter who is in office. EXACTLY, MR. DORFMAN! And that
corporate policy is our General Plan. The Dougall regime chose to ignore the GP and
voted to allow Mr. Dorfman to investigate a rezoning. But Mr. Dorfman should never
have interpreted that as sign he would get his way. The only thing needed to ruin his
plans was an election wherein leaders would be elected who would follow the corporate
policy, the General Plan. And indeed, that's exactly what happened. But now Mr.
Dorfman cries foul because our leaders are following the rules. He lost the bet he was
making to beat the system and get around our General Plan.
Mr. Webb, Mr. Dorfman's partner, says "whether or not the property owner can turn a
profit by farming" must be considered when one is gauging the value of keeping a
property in ag zoning. The argument is specious and it's easy to see why it doesn't hold
water when you get all the facts that Mr. Dorfman isn't telling you.
In his speech he mentions the woman who inherited the land, and then speaks of the
current owner not being able to pay property taxes on it with what is earned by renting to
a farmer. The jump made by the listener was that the poor woman who inherited it is the
one who can't afford to pay the taxes. He doesn't tell you that he, Ed Dorfman, was the
buyer of the property for "Dorfman Homes." He also neglects to mention that he paid
$950,000 for that farmland and knew at the time of purchase that he wouldn't be able to
pay the property taxes unless he got the rezoning. He made a bet and it looks like it's
costing him money because he lost the bet.
He's been crying "poor me" to the neighbors on Cherry. He wants pity for all he's
suffered. But the truth is, with the price of commercial property today and his acreage
which includes both ag and commercial, he would realize a profit of about $345,000 if he
sold it today with its current zoning, after holding it for only two years, and having never
made an improvement on it. This is the man we should feel sorry for? That kind of
profit isn't good enough? Nope, not when he sees the possible profits if only we will
give up the city's heritage to his greed.
Then there are the residents who are being promised parking and a wider street and who
don't seem to understand that they are being led down a primrose path that could well
end with them being the 227 bypass egress with their new improved wider access. And
.
---"._- - o- j
-3-
there are residents who complained of dirt and pesticide use, but we didn't hear from
many of the others who willingly gave up some of their front yards years ago so that the
farmland wouldn't have to be affected. And we heard from people who have been
promised affordable homes if only Mr. Dorfman is allowed to build. They are naive. No
community has ever built itself into affordable housing. Not ever. Orange County tried
and destroyed itself. I would challenge anyone to come up with proof that it can be done
or ever has been done. It just doesn't work that way.
So gentlemen, hold fast to the facts and to the will of the people who have made their
wants known. Do not be swayed by the fast talking of someone with a buck on the line.
This city deserves better. The future depends on it.
Sincerely, ~
J Scott
20 Via Vaquero
Arroyo Grande
---~_._........_- -_._._--_..._--~ -..---J
A TT ACHMENT 9
July 27,2001
William G. Kapp, et al.
617 Woodland Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805) 489-3275
Mayor Mike Lady
City of Arroyo Grande
Post Office Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Re: 1110 A through G Sunset Drive; Proposed General Plan and Rezoning
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I have owned seven-units located at the referenced address for 15 years. I have been
watching the General Plan process in the news and by periodic visits to the Planning
Department. On July 7.2001. it is my understanding that the Planning Commission
closed the public comment period for the May 21, 2001 distribution of the proposed
changes to the General Plan. In preparation for the upcoming City Council discussions on
the Planning Commission recommendations, I visited Mr. Strong today and again
reviewed the map designation for my property. I was surprised to see the Commission had
authorized a change in the designation for my property trom the currently zoned
designation for 11 units/acre (multi-family apartments) to medium density (single family
residential). If this is approved by the City Council. my property will no doubt be down-
zoned to match the General Plan. As you aware, establishing a non-conforming
designation severely limits an owner's flexibility with regard to financing and enjoyment
of other rights bundled with properties improved under consistent zoning and general
plan designations.
I used to attend City Council meetings religiously in the past. At those meetings. situations
like mine would occur trom time to time. The City Council occasionally got caught in a
predicament where property owners were not specificalJy noticed regarding such a
change. The City Council directed staff to always notice owners specifically about
changes that were being considered for individual parcels. In discussing this matter with
Mr. Strong, he assured me. as well as one of my partners (in a telecom on this date) that it
was not his intent to change the designation against the desires of the owners of the
various parcels within existing neighborhoods. He acknowledged that such a change
certainly should have been specifically noticed to my partners and me so the Planning
Commission would have had the benefit of our input prior to taking action. Since the
Planning Commission has already taken action, Mr. Strong rightly advised us that he
cannot now make the change necessary to restore our property with its historical
designations or the equivalent without the permission of the City Council or the Planning
Commission. 0
I ~
.j
On behalf of my partners. I respectfully request you to authorize Mr. Strong to restore the f:.
equivalent of our previous General Plan designation to our Sunset Drive parcel. Thank c:. ror-"
.,f.~. (-
you for your attention to this matter. --1 c
-<
c-" r-
Sincerely, rn NJ
<:
rn -..:} "
WILLIAM G. KAPP r-- *~.;.-;.,
Or f",.) <
cc. Joe Costello, Planning Commission Chair W~/ffi-- .C .: C)
<-I>". C) rn
Rob Strong, Community Development Department ~j~ -
~
--I,"'., '."J
0.
fT1 j T1
-0
:-i
Michael G. Titus
404 Lierly Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ~'r.~'Ve:,
CITY tlF ARFWYO uiRAN.fYE
July 30, 2001 QI JUl30, PH ~ 01
Arroyo Grande City Counell
CC:Kerry MeCant,. Community Develop. Director
Rob Strong, General Plan Consultant
Steve Adams, City Manager
Subject: Land Use Study Area #7E - E. Myrtle and E. Cherry Ave.
The PlanniQg Commission is recommending for this 20 aeft, 12 pan:el.ra a land
use designation of medium density (MD) of 4.5 houes per aere while the eoutlltaDt,
Rob Stronlt recommended less dense land use east of Lierly and the MD
designatioD west ofLierly.
ID arriviDg at a final land use designation for the updated General Plan, the CoueD
may waDt to consider the followiDg:
1. WhUe maps, ineluding the attaehmeDt to Rob StroDg's July 1'* letter,
show Myrtle aDd Lierly Lane inteneetiDg, they do MI. Arroyo Grande
Creek yean ago altered its course aDd its lOuth bank begiDs 4 to 6 feet to the
Dorth of pareel #4.
2. Of the 12 pareels, four are 12,000 to 20,000 square feet ud an aclditfo...
house oeeupies a portioD ofpareel #7. A land use desipatioa of medium
density would be in CODmet.
3. The reeommeaded ag set baek elfeetively eBminates the developmeDt
aereage of pareel1 1,2,3, " and 12.
Rob Strong's July I'" memo reeogaizes that "Based on the pareel eoDfJpration,
IoeatiOD of e~sting houses, rudimeatary private road easements, draiuge ud other
design constraints. . . . . a prerequisite to remaiug a requirement for a
neighborhood assessment distriet to provide for area water, sewer, drainap, park
aDd street improvemeDts Deeded."
Rob Strong's eondusioDs and an on-site visitatioD to this area suggests t.at the area
be subject to a IaDd use designation similiar to a SpeeifIe Plan.. The area does Dot
Ie itIoIfto ~ _eIopment.
Att.-ehmeDtI: Titus 7 - 13 letter, Area map C:%~
~~
C D i/~
f.--i-lv7
---~-
\
\
\
i
\ .............
~ ~__.cr.A1<EN~~. T ..
/'\ ~--_.._~\- ..' \ . ...
\ , .. " .~-
\
~
~
....
....
~
::0
~
t'"
en
~
~
0
~ '.
Eft \
\
<:
j:I
-<
~
...0.......0...00.........(0) rfi
~it~~~8:~~~~is~ tj
~
;;111;111111
LAND USE STUDY
AREA 7E ~
gi~1
BJ
~-><
~5
i ~(~
i \/"
I
,
L. _.---- --- -----
July 13, 2001
Kerry McCant
Community Development Director
Rob Strong
General Plan Update Consultant
Planning Commissioners
Re: Land Use Element/Zoning
Area 7E
In finalizing the land use element for City Councll action, the foRowing needs to be
considered when adopting a recommendation for the 7E area:
1. Contrary to zoning and city maps, Lierly Lane and Myrtle (both
unimproved dirt roads} do NOT intersect. A personal tour or a viewing of the
overhead photo of the city shows that a interception would oecurOVER the Arroyo
Grande Creek. The city does own a SO It. right of way but maintains Myrtle only to
the most westemly border of the StiDweR property. The existing dirt road
terminates to the East of the Vandaveer property and is not city maintained
2. Both Cherry east of Branch Mill Road and Lierly Lane are private
roads with eight foot easements and multiple owners. The expansion of Cherry to
meet cireulation element requirement of a 40 Ft. road (curb to curb) and an
additional 12 Ft. right of way for sidewalks, would require the invasion of one
structure and within 5 Ft. of a second OR the acquisition of agricultural preserve
land from the DiDon Trost.
3. The consultant's report recognizes that the infastructure in area 7E is
inadequate including the lack of sewer service.
Mrs. Titus and I support the zoning of selected parcels in area 7E subject to the
foRowing:
1. The maintenance of the roral character of the area by recognizing the
minimum lot size in the area is in excess of 12,000 square feet. A s~
designation LM (low medium density) of 2 % per acre would be clo eeting this
requirement.
2. For reasons cited in #2 above, East Cherry does not lend itself to
development as a city owned and maintained residential street.
~~._- ._--- --"~----..........--
3. The logical aeeess to the three major parcels (Stillwell, Vanderveer, Peten)
is Myrtle Street where a right-of- way aJready exists.
It would appear due to eirculation and infastnldure elements that the area lends
itself to two zoning designation. . . . .one for the parcels west of Lierly Lane and a
less dense zoning for property east of Lierly Lane.
Cordially,
Miehael G. Titus
-------~~_._-_._---_.- -- ----- --~-~.._-,---- ---.--....----
RECEIVE!!)
CITY fJF ARROYO ~fti\.NE!E
01 JUL 30 PH 3: 0 I
TO THE ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
RE: LAND USE ELEMENT FOR TRACT 1998
I
FROM: DAVID AND MICHELE NORWOOD, 649 ~TTHEW WAY, ARROYO GRANDE
~?tf;
DEAR COUNCIL:
WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT ALONG WITH THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. WE ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LAND, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. THE SURROUNDING
AREAS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY OVER DEVELOPMENT OF UNSIGHTLY
HOUSING TRACTS BY AN OVERZEALOUS DEVELOPER WHO HAS BENEFITTED
FINANCIALL Y NOW BY THREE SEP ARA TE DEVELOPMENTS. ENOUGH IS
ENOUGH. CRAMMING MANY SMALL, UNDESIRABLE LOOKING HOMES ON
LIMITED AREAS OF LAND IS NEITHER AESTHETICALLY PLEASING NOR
ENVIRONMENTALLY SMART. LET THIS DEVELOPER GO ELSEWHERE. HE HAS
RAPED OUR CITY ENOUGH! WE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OURPOWER TO STOP
FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF THE OAKS AND WILD LIFE WE TREASURE.
WE HOPE YOU WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND VOTE TO PROTECT THE LAST OF
OUR OPEN SPACES.
C: City Manager
City Attorney
Comm Dev Director
R. Strong
.~
:-';-y ,.,,..RECE1VEO
'.d J li rAP p 0 \I 0 r' ,., , . ,
6 \ \ I t ~:!1;/:.\;\2 ~
JULY 24, 2001 01 JUL 27 PH 3: 59
COUNCIL
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEAR COUNCILMAN,
. OUR FAMILY MOVED TO CAMARILLO IN VENTURA COUNTY TO ESCAPE
THE CONGESTION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY IN 1977.
WHEN CAMARILLO BECAME NO MORE THAN AN EXTENSION OF LOS
ANGELES, WE MOVED TO ARROYO GRANDE IN 1991.
WHEN PURCHASING OUR HOME, GUTTING THE IllLLSIDES SURROUNDING
US FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DIDNT SEEM LIKELY OR EVEN POSSmLE,
CONSIDERING THE CHARACTER OF THE TOWN.
ALTHOUGH I AM RETIRED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT, I NOW SUPPORT MY
FAMILY BY WORKING IN THE ELEVATOR INDUSTRY AND GROWTH, EVEN
mGH RISE GROWTH WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO OUR WELL BEING.
HOWEVER, I AM OPPOSED TO MR.. FREDERICK BEING GIVEN CARTE
BLANCH TO BUILD A MYRIAD OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ABUT
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITIllN THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS.
IF AN INTERCHANGE IS BUILT AT EL CAMPO WITHOUT TAXPAYER
EXPENSE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE CITY ANNEXING THE
REMAINDER OF THE FREDERICK PROPERTY AND LETTING HIM BUILD
WHATEVER WILL MAKE THE MOST PROFIT WITHOUT BEING A DRAIN ON
THE.TAXPA YER.
I SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE CURRENT ZONING WITH THAT MUCH
PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. CERTAINLY THERE IS
ENOUGH AREA TO BLIGHT WITHOUT ENCROACillNG ON THOSE THAT ARE
HERE FOR A REASON, AND DON'T WANT TO PAY THE EVENTUAL COSTS OF
ARROYO LINDA.
RON NISBETT
ARROYO GRANDE
~: ti~ M~ey
M~~
c.o~ D(.ij D< (c tz.'\r
{...$~