Loading...
Minutes 2001-10-03 SP MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3,2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 214 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lady called the Special City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Runels, Lubin, Dickens, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, and Mayor Lady were present. City Staff: City Manager Adams; City Attorney Carmel; Director of Administrative Services Wetmore; Director of Public Works Spagnolo; Acting Community Development Director Heffernon; and General Plan Update and EIR Consultant Rob Strong were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Mayor Lady led the Flag Salute. City Manager Adams gave a brief overview of the discussion outline for the meeting, which would include receiving public comment; a review and discussion of the Agriculture Element policies; a review of changes to the document in response to public comment received; clarification of outstanding issues, particularly with regard to a policy regarding E. Grand Avenue Gateway affordable housing density; an opportunity to address any issue the City Council wants to clarify or revisit; a review of the ErR and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and consideration of adoption of the General Plan Update. 4. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, spoke in favor of retaining agricultural land and uses in the City. Bruce Vanderveen, 1273 Branch Mill Road, spoke in favor of converting the parcel located at 1273 Branch Mill Road from agriculture to single-family residential. He stated there were many people in the audience in support of the project and requested they stand to show the Council their support. Mona Tucker, 660 Camino Del Rey, requested the Council look favorably upon Mr. Vanderveen's request to convert his parcel from agriculture to single-family residential. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 2 Wayne King, representing the owners of the Vanderveen property, quoted from the CASP Study regarding definition of prime agricultural land. He spoke in favor of converting the Vanderveen property from agriculture to medium density single-family residential. Mary Vanderveen, Branch Mill Road, stated that the decisions the Council make affect lives. She spoke in support of converting the Vanderveen property from agriculture to single-family residential. Ed Cardoza, 428 Greenwood Drive, expressed concerns about the condition of Branch Mill Road. He stated that the Council's prime concern with further development in that area should be safe access to Branch Mill Road. He stated currently, Branch Mill Road was not safe and stated that resurfacing would be welcome. He expressed further concerns with regard to the blind turns and hills, and some areas that bottleneck on Branch Mill Road. He concluded by stating he was not against development; however, he was concerned it be handled in a responsible way. Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, stated he was one of the few people who have preserved agricultural land, his ranch is in an agriculture preserve, and that was his choice. He stated he had watched the City grow over the years and believes that property rights are a major issue. He said if property owners want to preserve their land, there are tools to do that. He stated the City needs to focus on developing a plan that addresses traffic and streets. He urged the Council to plan properly for the City's development. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle, thanked the Council for its arduous task in developing the General Plan and commented that tonight the Council would be discussing the policies on agriculture. He stated that when discussing water as a barrier to development in the City, there is no problem with water; in discussing the traffic issue, it is known from the consultant's testimony that the traffic model cannot be used without proper data to make decisions about what the City should do with traffic. He said a sound policy has been developed in that area. He stated that as the Council considers agriculture, it should also consider the rights of people to develop their property. He stated that the General Plan is a plan to guide development. Pat Cusack, 1080 Newsom Springs Road, spoke in support of Mr. Vanderveen's conversion request. He commented he had followed all of the work that has gone into the General Plan Update, and appreciated the opportunity for providing input. He spoke in favor of preserving as much agricultural land as possible, while at the same time acknowledging there are certain situations that may call for some considerations for people to convert and develop property. He supported the residential zoning of the Vanderveen property as well as the Cherry Avenue property. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 3 Carie Randolph spoke in support of saving agricultural lands, and stated she understood that property owners have property rights, although the lands in question have always been zoned as agriculture. She stated that most of the public voted to preserve the agricultural lands. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive, stated that the previous speaker was probably referring to the survey that was done four years ago. She reminded the Council what the survey said, that over 88% of those surveyed said save our prime agricultural land. She requested the Council reflect back on the results of that survey. 5. CONSIDERATION OF THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE POLICY DOCUMENTS AND ELEMENTS AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AGRICULTURE and CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Consultant Strong stated he would begin a review of the Agriculture Element policies. He clarified that from the previous public hearings, the Council has gone through the policies and objectives in the other Elements, identifying by consensus any changes. He stated the Council had made partial progress in reviewing the Agriculture Element and had requested some alternatives. He distributed a memo depicting anticipated objective and policy alternatives for the Council's review and discussion. He then explained that other policy statements have been considered and changes that had received consensus were reflected in the Plan. Consultant Strong explained there was one objective in the Agriculture Element (Ag1) that had a need for further consideration of refined wording. He acknowledged that there had been concerns expressed about the definition of prime farmland soils. He explained the proposed wording in the draft was derived from the Local Agency Formation Commission's definition of prime agriculture land which comes from State law, and it basically references Class I and Class II Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classifications, and distinguishes whether irrigated or not (provided that irrigation is feasible) it would be considered prime agricultural land. Consultant Strong requested direction from the Council regarding the alternative agricultural for Ag1 and Ag1-1. Council Member Dickens commented that due to the uniqueness of this area it is important to create or define prime agricultural lands in additional terms. He provided a handout to Council with additional proposed wording. He also displayed two graphs depicting soil types from the CASP report for reference purposes and gave a brief overview of the information. Council Member Dickens recommended his proposed additional statement be added to Consultant Strong's proposed language in Ag1-1.1, as follows: "Prime Farmland Soils shall also include farmland of Statewide importance as identified in the USDA, Natural Resources ConseNation SeNices, outlined in the Land Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 4 Inventory and Monitoring (LlM) Project Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, September 1984." Council Member Runels disagreed with a few of Council Member Dickens' statements regarding what prime farmland is. He stated he believed it did not make any difference what the soil classification is, the land is operator driven. He commented that there is urbanization all the way around a lot of the parcels in question. He also stated he believed that property rights were an important consideration, and owners need to have the ability to do what they want with their property. Council Member Runels supported the revised language in Ag1 as revised by the Consultant. Council Member Lubin asked Council Member Dickens if any agricultural zoned land within the City would not be considered prime farmland under this definition. Council Member Dickens responded no and provided clarification. Discussion ensued regarding how the proposed policy could define all the agricultural zoned property as prime farmland. Consultant Strong explained that the proposed wording of the policies do not exempt non-prime land from conservation and preservation, but it does emphasize that the most important focus of preservation should be on prime agricultural land. For consistency, he supported Council Member Dickens' proposed additional wording for Ag1-1.1 which is consistent with the CASP report and does not preclude from converting. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara commented that the Council had skipped through Ag1 and made an assumption that the words "avoid, minimize, or mitigate the loss of prime farmland soils" was something that was appropriate. He disagreed with the proposed alternative for Ag1 and stated he believed that avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating the loss of prime farmland weakens the policy. He strongly supported the original draft language for Ag1 of no net loss of prime farmland soils, and supported changes to Ag1-1.1 as proposed by Council Member Dickens. Mayor Lady asked for each Council Member's position on the revised language for Objective Ag1 - Avoid, minimize and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Council Members Lubin and Runels supported Ag1 as revised. Council Member Dickens stated he preferred to have no net loss of prime farmland so he would go support the original wording of the Objective as drafted. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he would not support Ag1 as revised. Mayor Lady supported Ag1 as revised. Mayor Lady asked for each Council Member's position on the additional language to Ag1-1.1 as proposed by Council Member Dickens. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 5 Council Member Lubin supported the additional language to Ag1-1.1. Council Member Runels did not support the additional language to Ag1-1.1. Council Members Dickens, Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara, and Mayor Lady supported the additional language to Ag 1-1 .1. There was majority consensus of the Council on the wording of Ag1 and Ag1-1.1 as follows: Ag1 - Avoid, minimize and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non- prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Ag1-1.1 - "...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 (LlM) Project Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, September 1984." Consultant Strong referred to Ag1-1 and requested direction from the Council regarding the deletion of the introductory statement, "Except as already committed to County Fringe Area Residential Rural and Suburban Development and the City's established urban land use pattern,". There was consensus of the Council to delete the statement from Ag1-1. Revised Ag1-1 reads as follows: 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 use. Council Member Dickens requested adding a statement under Ag2-1 to read as follows: "Support requests that seek to provide needed surface and/or ground water resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very Low Density and Low Density." Consultant Strong indicated the statement was consistent with the objective. There was some discussion on the definition of "Support requests" as used in the statement. Following discussion, there was a suggestion to change the words "Support requests that seek" to "Support efforts". There was consensus of the Council to add the statement as policy 2-1.2 as follows: Ag 2-1.2 - Support efforts to provide needed surface and/or ground water resources for agricultural irrigation to those properties zoned Agriculture, Very Low Density and Low Density. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Ag2 and wanted to ensure that the Land Use Element also contains supporting language with regard to ensuring sufficient water for sustaining agriculture. Consultant Strong referred to the cover page of the Agriculture, Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 6 Conservation and Open Space Element which states that it is an integral part of the Land Use Element. Consultant Strong referred to alternative wording provided in Ag3-1, Ag3-14, Ag3-14.1, Ag3-14.2 and requested direction from the Council on the proposed revisions. Following discussion, there was consensus of the Council on the policies as follows: Ag3-1 - e)(ssl3t as I3rsvisss in .^.€J 1 1, Designate non-prime farmland soils for all lands currently in agricultural use and vacant lands that have been used for agricultural production at least six months during the past ten (10) years as Agriculture (Ag) unless otherwise classified and partiallv developed for non-Aaricultural uses. Ag3-14 - Consider re-classification into ~rBan ~so of an Ag parcel (or contiguous-set of parcels) witl:iin City BOlJAsariss sr Sl3hsre sf Infl~snss, only if and when the parcel or set of parcels is less than the minimum size (e.g. leaallv non-conformina as to area) and is "isolated" from other agricultural uses. Ag3-14.1 - "Isolated" shall refer to a parcel or set of parcels being predominatelv separated from other nearbv Aariculture areas. or predominatelv surrounded (€In all fe\Jr ~ by existing urban non-aaricultural uses, such that it lacks contiguity with or connection to other areas of existina or potential agricultural use. Ag3-14.2 - In cases considered for conversion re sesi~Aatisn, the parcel(s) shall be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure and any development application shall be subject to environmental analysis as referenced in ACOSE Policy Ag1-4. Consultant Strong referred to Ag5-2.2 and explained the Planning Commission discussed minimum agricultural buffer distance requirements and the need for flexibility to fit existing conditions. The Commission recommended that '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" . Council discussion ensued with regard to minimum agricultural buffer distances. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara suggested addition of wording to include consideration of established or existing farming operations or practices. The Council reached consensus on Ag5-2.2 as follows: 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 existina farmina operations or practices. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 7 Council Member Dickens referred to Ag5-2.3 and requested that the wording be revised to require that the buffer area be "noticed and/or" fenced and landscaped. He also referred to Ag5-2.4 and said that a 20 foot landscape buffer area was not deep enough and proposed it be increased to 30 feet. Following discussion, there was Council consensus on Ag5-2.3 and Ag5-2.4 as follows: Ag5-2.3 - 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 wind-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 existinq farminq operations or practices. Mayor Lady called for a break at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:36 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to C/OS1-1.1 and stated that the definition of what constitutes a "scenic resource" is underdeveloped. He requested the last segment of the sentence read as follows: "...unique to the City, or contribute to the rural, small town character of the City." There was consensus of the Council on C/OS1-1.1 as follows: C/OS1-1.1 - For purposes of this policy, a 'scenic resource' may refer to agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees, woodlands, wetlands, streambeds and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment that are of a historic nature, unique to the City. or contribute to the rural. small town character of the City. Council Member Dickens requested an Implementation Measure be added as Ag/C/OS.21 as follows: "Support the establishment of a local fundinq mechanism. as identified by City Council. which allocates funds toward the voluntarv purchase of aqricultural conservation easements." There was consensus of the Council to add the Implementation Measure as proposed. Consultant Strong referred to a memorandum distributed to the Council dated October 3, 2001 relating to additional policy clarifications regarding density and mixed use projects prior to comprehensive Development Code revisions. He recommended that a policy be included in the Introduction of the 2001 General Plan and repeated as LU5-12 directing staff to initiate at the earliest feasible time a Development Code Amendment including a provision substantially as follows: "Mixed Use developments in current VC, HC, GC, or I zones - Any combination of mixed sues, or any project proposing a residential component in a commercial or industrial district shall be considered pursuant to Conditional Use Permit approval (Development Code Section 9-03-050) or Planned Unit Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 8 Development Permit approval (Development Code Section 9-03-160). In addition, where affordable housing is proposed in a Mixed Use designation, density incentives exceeding 25% may be considered." There was consensus of the Council to approve staff's recommendation. Consultant Strong reviewed responses to public comment and stated that there were no land use designation changes to the Land Use Element Map or substantive changes to the policies. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he had some suggested wording changes in the General Plan Elements, as follows: Take out "an" on Page LUE14, LU9 - "Provide for 8fI appropriate maintenance, development...... . Council concurred. Add "CEQA review" and omit rest of sentence on Page LUE17, LU11-3.3 - .....Any project that would degrade the Level of Service at the peak hour per City circulation policies will require CEQA review a StaleR'1ent ef Ovsr-riein€j Csnsiesratiens er C!;;Q^ finsin€js. Council concurred. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Page CE9, CT5-6.2 and stated he was not sure it needed to remain as a General Plan Policy. Discussion ensued regarding Project Study Reports, funding plans for projects; and the roles of County of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans, and SLOCOG in reviewing regional projects. Following discussion, Council reached consensus on the following revision to CT5-6.2 as follows: CT5-6.2 - Request that the County, Caltrans, and SLOCOG consider proportional participation in LOE QarF0€, EI Car:F1J3s, TFame 'lAtay, Fair Oal{s, Valley QAEf FlalGysA Re:J8 iR'1fJroveR'1ents BeIY/eeR l=Ii€jhway 1 ane Freeway 191 proiects involvinq reqional traffic impacts. Consultant Strong indicated this was the opportunity for the Council to clarify or revisit any other issues. Mayor Lady stated he would like to readdress Land Use Areas 7Eb - East Myrtle, East Cherry and East Cherry Extension East of Noguera Place South of Arroyo Grande Creek, Including Lierly Lane; 7Sb - South of East Cherry Avenue, East of Traffic Way; and the Vanderveen property off of Branch Mill Road. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he would like to readdress Land Use Area 2, Rancho Grande/Noyes Road. Mayor Lady referred to the 10+ acres on East Cherry and suggested an alternative land use. He suggested a changed use from agriculture to a Planned Development with an agricultural buffer, with the agricultural portion to be for non-pesticide farming uses. He Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 9 explained this would allow the zoning change of the 1.3-acre portion owned by the Japanese Welfare Association to be residential; and the Planned Development would allow smaller residential lots. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara agreed that Mixed Use is a good reclassification and the Planned Development would specify uses and result in a good plan. He inquired whether the 2-acre parcel on Traffic Way currently zoned Highway Commercial would be included. Discussion ensued with regard to Mixed Use classifications; Planned Developments; non-pesticide use farming; and clarification regarding the intent of integrating an agricultural related component to the land use designation, rather than referring to it as an agricultural buffer. Council Member Lubin referred to the Planned Development concept and asked if the Council designates the parcel as Planned Development with an Agricultural component, does the Planned Development proposal come back to the Council for approval of specifics with regard to the project? Consultant Strong responded yes. Consultant Strong clarified that the General Plan land use classification is not the zoning; therefore by designating it for a combination of residential and Mixed Use to include agricultural retention on portions of the property, the General Plan designation is complete. He explained the hearing process the property owner would have to complete in order to proceed with rezoning the property from agriculture and receiving Council approval for a Mixed Use Planned Development. City Attorney Carmel explained that due to the unique nature of this proposal, he stated the text change within the General Plan should be very specific with regard to setting parameters for development of the property. He suggested the Council determine roughly what portion of the property should be agricultural and what portion of the property and what lot sizes are preferred for the residential component. Mayor Lady suggested lot sizes of approximately 5,500 square feet. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara summarized the discussion by clarifying that this planning area would be classified as Mixed Use, Planned Development, and would contain a residential component with approximate lot sizes of 5,500 square feet, an agricultural component which may include the operation of an organic farm, a teaching farm, or other agricultural related use, and would also contain a Highway Commercial frontage of approximately 2.5 acres which would border Traffic Way and Cherry Avenue. City Attorney Carmel and Consultant Strong stated this language was specific enough for the General Plan. "-_.,------- Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 10 Following further discussion, there was consensus of the Council regarding Land Use Study Area 7Sb - South of East Cherry Avenue, East of Traffic Way as proposed by Mayor Lady. Council Member Runels referred to the Vanderveen property on Branch Mill Road and gave a brief overview of the area's history. He suggested that it was appropriate to change the land use designation the applicant has requested from Agriculture to Medium Density Single Family Residential. Mayor Lady stated he could support that suggestion. Council Member Dickens asked if it would be appropriate to look at the remaining four parcels the same way. He said if the subject parcel was changed, the other parcels should also be changed. Mayor Lady stated the other parcels should be considered on their own merit at such time that the property owners request a redesignation. Council Member Dickens referred to Ordinance No. 153 C.S. which was adopted in May 1977 and read portions of the Ordinance that said property was rezoned from "A" Agriculture to "A-D" Agriculture District with the "-D" override to provide a basic five (5) acre minimum parcel size. He displayed a map highlighting those areas. He asked City Attorney Carmel if the Council would need to readdress this particular Ordinance. City Attorney Carmel replied that as with all new General Plan designations, ultimately the Council will have to render the zoning consistent with the new General Plan designation. He stated that this property was not any different than rezoning any other property consistent with its General Plan designation. He explained that all ordinances can be amended or repealed. Council Member Dickens stated that the objective of providing the Ordinance was to display the intent of the owners in the area at that particular time, the intent of the Council at that time, and it was part of the conditions of approval of the Greenwood Tract. He suggested that if it were the intent of the Council to look at these smaller parcels with a transition from agriculture to non-agriculture, it would set a precedent. He further discussed some of the agricultural and open space uses surrounding the subject property. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked if the modification to Ag1-1.1 with regard to prime farmland soils would in any way impact this decision. Consultant Strong responded that proposed policies of the General Plan Update do not apply until they're adopted. City Attorney Carmel explained that the policy comes into effect when it is adopted which would be simultaneously with the adoption of the new land designations. Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 11 Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara asked Consultant Strong to display the map depicting the area and expressed concerns with creating a domino effect by converting agricultural land. He stated he did not favor a change in land use designation; however, if the Council was moving in that direction, he would ask there be some consideration for Single Family Low Density. He stated this would be a good compromise. Council Member Lubin stated he had considered both sides of the issue and it appeared that if the Council was moving in the direction of reclassification to residential, one of the things to accomplish was maintaining the City's rural atmosphere. He stated it appeared appropriate to have the beginning of some buffering in terms of residential. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara that it was appropriate to lower the density and supported classifying the property as Low Density (1 unit/acre). Consultant Strong explained the current residential zoning classifications and then gave an overview of the proposed residential zoning classifications. Council Member Dickens referred back to the public workshops in 1998 and stated that the community overwhelmingly opposed the conversion of agriculture to low-density development. He read from an ad the farmers took out in the newspaper opposing development on prime farmlands. He further read a portion of a 1998 letter from Lorraine and Leroy Saratari regarding zoning regulations and restrictions that property owners must comply with and opposing any change in zoning designations. He concluded by stating he could not support conversion of agriculture to residential. Council Member Runels asked the Mayor if the Council was going to move forward to give some direction on the matter. Mayor Lady said yes. Council Member Runels stated he would like to see Medium Density (4.5 units per acre); however, he stated it appeared from the discussion that there was more support for Medium-Low Density which would be 2.5 units per acre. Mayor Lady stated he could support the Medium-Low Density (2.5 units per acre). Council Member Lubin stated he would support Low Density (1 unit per acre). He stated this was a transitional area and it should be built out properly. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated that he could not support the density that the Mayor was proposing. Council Member Runels referred back to the Low Density classification (1 unit per acre) for discussion. Mayor Lady stated that density was not what he had envisioned for the property. - --------..---- Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 12 Council Member Lubin stated it was not a proper location for a higher density classification, and that it was more of a rural area that he did want to see urbanized. He stated that one-acre lots would be more appropriate for this area. Mayor Lady commented that based on the discussion, there was no consensus on either the Low-Medium (2.5 units per acre) or the Low Density (1 unit per acre) classification. Council Member Lubin commented he thought if no consensus was reached, then it would stay, as is, a 5-acre Agriculture parcel. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara stated he would support that. Mayor Lady inquired of Council Member Lubin whether he had made a suggestion of 2 units per acre. Council Member Lubin stated that would still be half acre lots, similar to Rancho Grande, and that would be too much for that area. Mayor Lady commented on the difference in topography between the two locations. Council Member Runels referred back to Council Member Lubin's suggestion of one unit per acre and giving the applicant the option of saying whether he wants to do something with the property or not. Mayor Lady stated he would support it. Following further Council comments, consensus was reached by a majority of the Council Members for conversion of the parcel from Agriculture to Low Density Single Family Residential (1 unit per acre). Mayor Lady referred to Land Use Study Area 7Eb - East Myrtle, East Cherry and East Cherry Extension East of Noguera Place and South of Arroyo Grande Creek, including Lierly Lane. Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to property ownership and stepped down from the dais. Consultant Strong reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to reclassify from Residential Rural to Single Family Residential, Medium Density (SFR-MD), subject to a requirement for a neighborhood plan to coordinate infrastructure improvements and providing for an agriculture buffer to the southeast and Conservation/Open Space along Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east. -----.-.------ Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 13 Mayor Lady stated he could support that recommendation. Following discussion, it was determined that consensus had already been reached on this land use area, and there was no change. Council Member Dickens returned to the dais. Mayor Pro Tem Ferrara referred to Land Use Study Area 2 - Rancho Grande at Noyes Road and requested reducing the density due to potential encroachment on the hillside. He stated he would not favor a retaining wall on Noyes Road and due to the geophysical constraints of the area, 35 units is much too dense. Discussion ensued with regard to Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and the nature and topographical features of the area. Council Member Lubin and Mayor Lady shared concerns expressed by Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara; however, the stated designation allows "up to" a maximum of 35 units and the EIR would address environmental issues with regard to the property and the Council could make a determination with regard to the number of units. Council Member Runels agreed. Following discussion, there was majority consensus to leave the classification as Planned Development (PD) designation allowing up to 35 dwelling units. Council Member Runels referred to the Circulation Element, Objective CT2 and asked for further clarification and explanation. Consultant Strong referred to the first page of the Circulation Element, Objective CT2 and explained that policies CT2-1, CT2-2, CT2-3, and CT2-4 identify future evaluations and considerations and what happens if it is impossible to attain or maintain LOS 'C' in the future. He explained that Policy CT2-4 suggests the City should periodically review the LOS policy and actual system performance to identify model deficiencies and consider programs, mitigation measures and/or policy revision and refinement. 6. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT FOR TELEVISING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER 9. 2001 Staff recommended the Council authorize the City Manager to contract for services and allocate $600 for televising the City Council Meeting on October 9, 2001, if adoption of the General Plan is continued to that meeting. Council Member Lubin moved to authorize the City Manager to contract for services and allocate $600 for televising the City Council Meeting on October 9, 2001, if adoption of the General Plan is continued to that meeting. Mayor Pro Tern Ferrara seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1 by voice vote, with Council Member Runels dissenting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Special City Council Meeting October 3, 2001 Page 14 The meeting was adjourned to the Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, October 9, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 215 East Branch Street. Mayor Lady adjourned the meeting at 11 :55 p.m. in memory of Karl Hogan, a former member of the Arroyo Grande City Council from 1980 to 1984. MI'h=~.~i~ Attest: . 1. 0tiJJ)~ Kelly We or, , Director of Administrative Servicesl Deputy City lerk