Agenda Packet 2003-07-22CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tony M. Ferrara
Jim Dickens
Thomas A. Runels
Sandy Lubin
Joe Costello
Mayor ��
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
C�t� of
�oyo �rand¢
Steven Adams City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel City Attomey
Kelly Wetrnore Director, AdminisVative Services
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE:
C�
INVOCATION:
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIURDA
BOY SCOUT TROOP 26
PASTOR PAUL JONES
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6.a. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and
all further readings be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY — JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the
City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on
matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or
presiding Council Member may:
♦ Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
♦ A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
♦ It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a
future Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
♦ Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not
directed to individual Council members.
♦ Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted. Any Council Member may request
that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change
the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of
the Consent Agenda on one motion.
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS)
Recommended Action: Approve the listings of cash disbursements for the period
July 1, 2003 — July 15, 2003.
8.b. Consideration of Cash Flow Analvsis/Au�roval of Interfund Advance from the
Water Facilitv Fund (SNODGRASS)
Recommended Action: Receive and file the June 2003 cash report and approve
the interfund advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other
funds at June 30, 2003.
8.c. Consideration of Award of Contract to MAXIMUS for Mandated Cost Recoverv
Services (SNODGRASS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into
a binding agreement with MAXIMUS for mandated cost recovery services.
8.d. Consideration of Aaaroval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of
July 8, 2003.
AGENDA SUMMARY — JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (continuedl:
8.e. Consideration of Resolution Adoptinq Pubiic Works Fees and Service Char�es
(SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving the FY 2003-04 Public Works
Field Division Fees and Service Charges.
8.f. Consideration to Authorize the Use of Unailocated Proceeds #rom the Sale of
Land to Fund Unantici ated Construction Costs for the Rancho Grande Park
Proiect, PW-2002-03 (SPAGNOLO/HERNANDEZ) ..
Recommended Action: 1) Authorize the use of unallocated proceeds from the sale
of land to fund additionai expenses during the construction phase nf the project; 2)
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a consultant contract amendment with
RRM Design for additional design services; and 3) Approve additional appropriation
that uses additional revenue to fund additional expenditures.
8.g. Consideration of Authorization to Solicit Bids for Pubtic Works Vehicles
(SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: Authorize staff to solicit bids for the purchase of one'/.-ton
flat bed truck and one'/�-ton pick-up truck as provided for in the FY 2003-04 budget. ,
8.h. Consideration of Aareement with the Economic Vitalitv Coraoration of San
Luis Obispo Countv (ADAMS)
[COUNCIVRDA]
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute the annual Agreement with
the Economic Vitality Corporation (EVCSLOC) of San Luis Obispo County.
8.i. Considerauon vr �► r�����C��. ..�.,, •.•.. -- — - ---
Conference Bureau (ADAMS)
[COUNCIURDA]
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute the annual Agreement with
the San Luis Obispo County Visitors and Conference Bureau (SLOCVCB).
AGENDA SUMMARY — JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 4
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Consideration of a Resolution Initiatins� an Amendment of the General Plan
Land Use Maa to Redesianate Certain Prouertv to As�riculture and to Modifv
Certain Policies of the Land Use Element and the As�ricultural Ooen Suace and
Conservation Element; to Establish As�ricultural Conservation Easement and
Suot�ort Pros�rams: and to initiate an Amendment of Title 16 of the Municival
Code to Modifv Allowable Uses, and Develo�ment Standards. Miti�ation
Measures Buffer Overlav District Text and Manains�. and Im�lementins�
Recommendations from the Reaort on the Conservation of Anr�icultural
Resources for the Cftv of Arrovo Grande (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution to initiate an amendment of the General
Plan Land Use Map to redesignate certain property to agriculture and to modify
certain policies of the land use element; to estabiish agricultural conservation
easement and support programs; and to initiate an amendment of Title 16 of the
Municipal Code to modify allowable uses, and development standards, mitigation
measures and buffer overlay district text and mapping and to implement the policies,
programs and proposed provisions discussed in the Report on the Conservation of
Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande (Agricultural Report).
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Authorization to Solicit Bids for the Fire Station Ex�ansion
Proiect. PW 2003-05(SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: 1) Approve the plans and specifications for the Fire Station
Expansion Project; and, 2) Authorize the Public Works Department to solicit public
construction bids for the Fire Station Expansion project.
11.b.
and Drainas�e Imarovements Proiect. PW-2003-03 (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: 1) Approve the plans and specifications for the Branch Mill
Road Paving and Drainage Improvements project, PW 2003-03; and 2) Authorize
the Public Works Department to solicit public construction bids for the Branch Mill
Road Paving and Drainage Improvements project.
11.c. Consideration of uointment of Votins� Dele�ate and Alternate for the Leas�ue
of California Cities Annual Conference. Se�tember 7-10. 2003 (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Appoint one Council Member as the voting delegate and
one Council Member as the alternate delegate for the League of Califomia Cities
Annual Conference.
AGENDA SUMMARY — JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 5
11. NEW BUSINESS (continued):
11.d. Consideration of Aouointments to the California Joint Powers Insurance
Authoritv (CJPIAI Board (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Appoint one member of the City Council to serve on the
Califomia Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board of Directors and one
member of the City Council, the City Manager and Human Resources Manager to
serve as alternates.
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to
the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects
on which they may be participating.
(a) MAYOR TONY M. FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Govemments/San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA)
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
(3) Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
(4) Other
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Youth Coalition
(2) Other
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(3) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER SANDY LUBIN:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(3) Other
(e) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
(2) Other
13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the Mayor and/or a Council
Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information,
and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future
agenda. No formal action can be taken.
a) Discussion regarding request to change starting time of Council Meetings.
(RUNELS)
AGENDA SUMMARY — JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 6
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
The foliowing item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to
receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No fonnal action can be
taken.
a) None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager.
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that
are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council
from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda.
1� a�Milt r�� MN�d�
18. ADJOURNMENT �"�� - ��j��
bM1���M �_
7lhoiwMt�IM�t �' . M��4
� �j r � !!. �
,
All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to
on the agenda are on file in the Administrative Services Department and are available for
public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made
available in appropriate altemative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or
accommodation, contact the Administrative ServPces Department at 805-473-5414 as soon
as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
* * * * * * *
Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set
for the . meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the
Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information.
www.arrovos�rande.ors�
8.a.
o � pRRO{►0�
� INCORPORATE �
� �
� .a,�� ,o, ,s„ ,�
c4 ��FOaN` P
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
BY: JANET M. HUWALDT, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT:
DATE:
CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
JULY 22, 2003
��
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period July 1— July-15, 2003.
FUNDING:
There is a$1,428,424.50 fiscal impa�t.
DISCUSSION:
The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual
operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT 1— Cash Disbursement Listing
ATTACHMENT 2— July 1, 2003 Accounts Payable Check Register (03/04)
ATTACHMENT 3— July 3, 2003 Payroll Checks-Uniform & Annual Leave Buyback
ATTACHMENT 4— July 4, 2003 Accounts Payable Check Register (02/03)
ATTACHMENT 5— July 10, 2003 Accounts Payable Check Register (02/03)
ATTACHMENT 6— July 11, 2003 Accounts Payable Check Register (03/04)
ATTACHMENT 7— July 11, 2003 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
�on tlre �auod o� � l�Il�zougk � 15, ZA03
july 22, 2003
Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for
the period July 1 to July 15, 2003. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence
and type of payment.
EK TYPE
July 1, 2003
Accounts Payable Cks 111079-111111 (03/04) 2
July 3, 2003
Payroll Checks -Uniform & Annual Leave Buyback 3
July 4, 2003
Accounts Payable Cks 111113-111166 (02/03)
July 10, 2003
Accounts Payable Cks 111185-111220 (02/03)
July 11, 2003
Accounts Payable Cks 111222-111254 (03/04)
Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks
Two Week Total
r�
5
$ 821,049.17
67,704.61
65,492.73
32,376.30
6 105,255.42
7 336,546.27
441,801.69
1,428.424.50
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS
EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM
GENERAL FiJND (010�
Cifiy Government (Fund 010)
4001 - City Council
4002 - Administrative Services
4003 - City Attorney
4101 - City Manager
4102 - Printing/Duplicating
4120 - Financial Services
4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds
4130 - Community Development
4131 - Community Building (CDBG)
4140 - Management Information System
4145 - Non Departmental
Public Safety (Fund O10)
4201 - Police
4211 - Fire
4212 - Building dz Safety
Public Works (Fund 010)
4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering
4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance
4304 - Street Lighting
4305 - Automotive Shop
Parks & Recreation (Fund 010)
4420 - Parks
4421 - Recreation
4422 - General Recreation
4423 - Pre-School Program
4424 - Recreation-Special Programs
4425 - Children in Motion
4426 - Five Cities Youth Basketball
4430 - Soto Sport Complex
4213 - Government Buildings
4460 - Parkway Maintenance
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Park Development Fee Fund (Fund 213)
4550 - Park Development Fee
Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222)
4501 - Traffic Fund
Transportation Fund (Fund 225)
4553 - Public Transit System
Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230)
4556 - Construction Tax
Police Grant Funds
4201 - I,aw Enforcement Equip. (Fd 272)
4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant (Fd 271)
4203 - Federal Universal Hiring (Fd 274)
4208 - Federal Local Law Enforcmt (FD 279)
Redevelopment Agency ( Fund 284)
4103 - Redevelopment Administration
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Sewer Fund (Fund 612)
4610 - Sewer Maintenance
Water Fund (Fund 640)
4710 - Water Administration
4711 - Water Production
4712 - Water Distribution
Lopez Administration (Fund 641)
4750 - Lopez Administration
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (Fund 350�
5501�599 - Park Projects
5601-5699 - Streets Projects
5701�799 - Drainage Projects
5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects
5901-5999 - Water Projects
,Dept Index for Council
N
H
H
�
�
H
�
�
ai
�
a
�t'
O
\
M
0
m
�a
c
w �
H �
J �
� O
t O
7 Q
� O
�
V
Q
M
N
�i
N
O
�
M
O
� N
� �
N
> O
_ �'-� 00 00 O,O 00 00 00
ln �1'! 00 00 00 00 00 00
� a0 CO O O O O O C O O � tp O O
�� M�"� M M M M M M N N M M
Q
� � .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
M
�� o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
O Q N N
a� Z Z Z Z Z z
W > > > > � �
� Za � � � � � �
z z z z z z
� �w � � � � � �
Q W�O C�C�v C�C�v C�C�1v C�C�v C�C�v C9C�v U'
o�W� u�u��? u�u��? ww�? u�u�� u�u�� u�w� w
� � �
w � N J J � J J � J J � J J � J J e- J� I e- J
• a W � ti � � N � � N � � N � � N � � N � � N �
c� !—('� WW� WW� WW� WW� WW`�: WW�: W
d Q W � � � � � � � � � o � � � � � � � � � �
0 ��' c0 lLL. IL o ti. ti O LL LL o ll. LL o lL li o u. li o tL
�I
a
M
v O
•� N
C �
0
Z
O
F=
Q
�
Z
�
0
�
�
�
�
U
� �
o v
� �
� O
M
O
� o
� o �
N
tfl
d
L
� t O
v
�
m � �
M
0
O
�
0
Y
U
�
Z
0
�
�
W
Y
Q
�
v
�
N
O
O
ch
0
0
N
�
�
O
�
O
�
M
0
O
�
O
�
�
O
>
W
�
H
�
a
_
W
�
O
m
�
co
M
O
O
M
0
0
N
�
ti
00
O
�
M
0
O
�
0
J
�
U
�
0
Z
�
m
�
ao
0
O
O
O
M
0
0
N
�
�
N
�
O
�
ch
O
O
�
0
�
W
H
w
a
LL
LL
O
x
�
w
Y
Z
�
m
ti
0
ao
O
O
O
M
0
0
N
�
�
M
�
O
�
ch
0
O
�
0
W
2
a
W
�
�
�
vi
�
w
�
m
v
ti
O
O
O
M
0
0
N
�
�
�
O
�
M
0
O
�
O
Z
2
O
�
�
O
�
U
M
rn
O
O
O
M
0
0
N
�
�
�
�
O
�
ch
0
O
�
0
�
�
W
�
w
�
z
O
z
w
0
�
0
00
O
O
O
ch
0
0
N
�
�
CO
aO
O
�
� e-
I �
rn
c�
a
N
ui
m
�o
a
� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
c'� M M M c� M M M M M M M M M
Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w w w w w w w
z z z z z z z
> > > > � > >
� � � � � � �
Q Q Q Z Z Z Z
Q '
W� W W� W W� W W� W W� W W� W W W
C� � (� C� � C9 Q� (� Q v� Q C� � C� (� � (� C� � C�
' u��? u� u��? t� i w�? u�w�? w u��? u�. u��? u�w�? w
J � J J � J J�— J J � J J � J J e- J J � J
� N � � N � � N � � N � � N � � N � � N �
� � � � 0 � � 0 � � 0 �' � � � � O W W � W
� � �
lL O LL LL O ll. LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL Ll. O LL LL O LL
d
�
�
_
� �
J �
� O
t �
V �
7
� O
�
V
Q
M
N
N
O
r
M
O
� N
� �
N
v m
> O
�I
a
v
a>
m �
V C
. 'c
C O
U
�
�
W
�
W
�
Z
O
H
Z
W
�
� ao
� �
� O
M
O
p ��,, O
�6 N
� � �
�
�
d
a.
� = O
Y v �
m � �
�
ch
O
O
�
O
�
g
�
2
U
Z
W
a
W
�
�
N
O
O
M
O
O
N
a—
�
�
�
CO
O
�
M
O
O
�
O
J
W
�
m
(�
�
J
Q
Z
�
�
ao
l'7
N
O
O
M
O
O
N
e -
�
�
00
�
O
�
M
O
O
�
O
W
O
�
_
H
�
�
�
Z
�
�
N
�O
M
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
M
O
O
�
O
W
Z
Q
2
�
0
Z
�
J
�
C7
(�O
�
N
O
O
M
O
O
N
a--
�
�
O
�
O
�
M
O
O
ti
O
W
Q
�
Q
W
J
�
O
�
�
�D
CO
N
O
O
M
O
O
N
•--
�
�
�
O
e�-
M
O
O
ti
O
�
Z
W
�
�
4.'
W
Q
2
�
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
•--
�
�
�
O
e�-
M
O
O
�
O
J
W
�
U
W
J
�
_
�
�O
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
�
M
�
O
�
N
ci
rn
m
a
M
d
m
a
C 00 � N�C 00 00 00 00 00
o O � 1� tp O O O O O O O O o 0
� � N C7 � M O O O O O O O O O O
� � (O O I� M M M M c'� M M M M M
Q I� (O M
1� O 00
� ��
o J o 0 0 0
F- �p H H �- F- ° H
Q
Z Q Z Z Z Z 2
� a > > > > �
� Z � � � � �
c Q Q Z Q Z Z Z Z
p ? � � � � � �
v W� J W W W W W W W W W W
c W�n H���� QQ� C�C9 QC�� Q(�� QQ�
wW u�u�� , wug�? Wu��? Ww�?
� J� Q �O a O JJ� JJ� JJe- JJ�-- JJe-
a �v w�vUv ��� ��� ��� ��� ���
c+ w �w z ww ww ww ww ww
d �° QZ��� ��a ��o ��o ��o ��o
� �o tn_cflaco ��o u.�o ��o ��o ��o
�I O
m
a
�
_
� �
y L
J � v
� O �
N � v c �
C1 � �� p N
; O c U N
�_ I
�
Q
M
N
N
O
r
M
O
� N
� ti
N
� O
J
}
W
Q
U
LLI
J
�
_
� �
O Cfl
C �
� O
M
O
� +�,, O
R N
� � �
�
�
al
� � c'7
� t O
C 3 �
m � �
�
Y
Z
Q
m
J
Q
Z
�
Q
Z
W
J
J
�
g
N
C�
CO
N
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
O
�
ch
0
O
�
O
�
Z
}
�
W
Z
0
J
�
O
ti
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
ti
�
�
O
�
ch
O
O
�
0
W
Q
�
W
_
Q
�
N
�
O
O
O
M
O
�
N
�
�
�
O
�
M
O
O
�
0
Z
W
Y
Z
Q
W
J
U
�
M
�
M
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
ti
�
�
O
�
M
O
O
�
0
�
Q
�
�
Q
U
Q
z
�
�i'
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
�
O
�
ch
O
O
�
0
�
�
W
2
�
Q
�
W
Z
�
�
m
�
0
N
ti
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
e -
�
�
�
O
�
ch
N
�
m
a
�
d
�
N
a
.�
d
�
= o0 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
� o0 00 00 00 00 00 00
MM ('7M MM MM Meh c'7eh MM
Q
t � � ° F ° - i �°- F �°. °
w w w w w w w
z z z z z z z
� � > > > > �
� � � � � � �
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z �
Q a Q a a ¢
W
ww�, ww�, ww, ww, ww�, ww, ww �
C� C� v C� C� v C� C9 v C� C� v C9 C� v� C� C� v C9 C� � w
u�w�? u�w�? u�u��? u�u��? u�ug�? u�u�. ? u�w�? X
J J � J J � J J e— J J � J J � J J e— J J � U J
� � N � � N � � N g � N � � N � � N � � N N
W W� W W� W W� W W� W W� W W� W W� W
� � O � � O � � O � � O � � O � � O � � O O
LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O LL LL O J
�I �
m
a
�
c
� �°
J �
M f'� M M C7 M M
_�' t�,� O O O O O O O
�� •� � � � � � � �
� O O O O O O O �--
j O C O O O O O O O N
�'. I
�
Q
M
N
N
O
�
eh
0
� N
� �
N
> O
�-
�
Z
�
u.i
H
w
�
�
�
� �
O f�
'O �}'
> o
ch
� O
� e�6 N
� 0 �
�
�
d
�
V = O
�
�
0
m , r
�
�
w
x
�
Q
�
�
J
a
M
�
O
0
0
M
O
O
N
�
�
ti
0
�
�
w
�
�
w
�
Q
Q..'
W
�
�
�
�
N
0
0
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
O
�
�
W
�
O
�
w
�
H
J
�
2
U
�
CO
�
N
0
0
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
ch
0
�
�
�
�
w
�
�
J
�
�
�
�
0
0
0
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
0
�
�
w
O
�
d
�
1
J
�
O
CO
ch
0
0
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
w
O
�
�
�
�
J
�
�
O)
�
0
0
0
M
O
O
N
�
�
ti
0
�
T
�
�
W
W
Z
(7
Z
W
H
a
w
0
�
z
U
0
J
�
t1')
�
�
0
0
0
M
O
O
N
�
ti
�
0
�
r
v
N
�
N
a
�
d
01
a
C 00 00 00 00 00 f� 1�
3
O O O O O O O O O O � a-
O �r 00 00 00 Cptp p� p>
� � � M M M M M M M M � �
Q �� N N O O
�� O N O O
w .. .. .. .. .. .. �
' Z o O O O O o �
c�
X w � W w � o
w Z Z Z m >
�y � � � Q Q o
� a z z z
o Q Q ¢ zz ~
J � � �
v a� W W� W W� W W� �� �
Q U' U' �' U' C�v' C�U' v OoO
o Z� wu��? ww�? u�w�? ���
� Z O J J � J J � J J � X X�
a Q� ��N ��N ��N OO�
� g� ww� ww� ww� mm�
m � ��o �oCo ��o OOo
o cW� u.�o u.�o titio aao
�I
d
a
�
c
r �
� �
J � �
N
3
��' t�,1 C O O O O
V� •0 C � � � e-
� Q O � O O O
; O C V O O O O
_�i (
Q
M
N
N
O
r
M
O
� N
� ^
N
t� �
� 0
�
�
W
W
Z
(�
Z
w
H
a
W
0
�
Z
U
O
J
�
� �
o �n
� O
M
� O
� N N
� 0 �
\
�
�
�
�
R�,> t O
Y t� �
•--
m � �
H
J
W
Z
�
�
Y
U
O
�
�
�
(fl
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
e --
�
�
O
e--
T
}
�
O
C�
W
�
�
_
a
�
�
�
�
•--
N
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
T
�
�
O
�
r�
_
U
H
�
S
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
N
O
O
M
O
O
N
r
�
O
�
�
�
w
H
�
Q
�
H
�
O
a
�
W
Q
H
�
�
W
F-
z
�
N
ti
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
r
�
�
�
ca
0
�
� �
O O
u a
Y �
C �
d t
� w
�O C
t t
V V
`� `�
/ /
M M
M M
1 Et]
I �
�
m
a
ATTACIiP�1E21T 3
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
JULY 2003
UNIFORMS 8� ANNUAL LEAVE CONVERSION
07/03/03 �
FUND 010 67,154.52
FUND 220 -
FUND 284 550.09
FUND 612 -
FUND 640 -
67,704.61
Salaries Full time
Salaries Part-Time - PPT
Salaries Part-Time - TPT
Salaries OverTime
Salaries Standby
Holiday Pay
Sick Pay
Annual Leave By Back
Vacation Buyback
Sick Leave Buyback
Vacation Pay
Comp Pay
Annual Leave Pay
PERS Retirement
Social Security
PARS Retirement
State Disability Ins.
Deferred Compensation
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
Vision Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
Uniform Allowance
Car Allowance
Council Expense
Employee Assistance
Boot Allowance
Motor Pay
40,616.10
4,045.26
4,443.25
18,600.00
67,704.61
�
�
�
U
H
�
�
d
C1
10
a
� ° oo ° , oo ° o ° o �� ° o ° o ��
� �� �� 00 NN �1f! ~A
a � � � � N N
N N
� •• •• .. ..
�
w � � w� � ° a ° F
Qz ww �� �
�� z
�� } w
zw aa �a zz z
w
c �� » �� �� aa
u�U » aa Ww 0� W
° ��c C�C�� �� zZ M J � a
� � u�w� ��v =_� �w ° � a
� a� JJ� o0o aa� LL.� � �
fl. � J J N Z Z O Z Z� J� O �� � f n
� W QQ� LLLL� Q'�'� fnW � 0�� �
� 0 W� m m � W W� W W�
] »O �(no �Q'O ��O �00 (nfn0 �
M
O �
\
o a
d
'v
c
J � �
L O
co
C1 � '� � � p � � M
� Q >� � M � M M M
; O C �"' O O N � N O
� I
Q
t0
M
M
O
a�
M
O
� N
- N
O
V ti
� O
O
W
0
>
a
Q
L �
O �
C �
� O
M
O
� Q N
�
ti
d
O � �''�
V L �
Y C1 �
m � �
�
> `_
LL
L�
W
�
�
O
�
�
¢
�
(O
M
O
O
M
O
O
�
�
�
�
�
m
�
J
U
�
Q
U
}
W
J
J
>
O
0
�
�
¢
�
M
�
N
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
�
�
U
Z
�
>
Q
0
QO
N
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
ti
�O
�
�
Q'
H
Z
O
U
Z
H
�
W
U
�
w
�
H
�
m
�
�
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
. �
�
�
H
�
Q
a
Y
U
�
�
H
W
�
�
�
�
O
J
Y
�
m
N
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
�
a0
�
�
Q
�
Z
W
�
m
O
�
�
Q
m
�
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
�
�
�
�
•-�-
��
�
N
m
c�
a
ATTACF3P1E�iT 7
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
06/20/03 - 07iO3/03
07/11/03
FUND 010 298,000.99
FUND 220 13,982.13
FUND 284 4,912.08
FUND 612 5,826.22
FUND 640 13,824.85
336, 546.27
Salaries Full time
Salaries Part-Time - PPT
Salaries Part-Time - TPT
Salaries OverTime
Salaries Standby
Holiday Pay
Sick Pay
Annual Leave By Back
Vacation Buyback
Sick Leave Buyback
Vacation Pay
Comp Pay
Annual Leave Pay
PERS Retirement
Social Security
PARS Retirement
State Disability Ins.
Deferred Compensation
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
Vision Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
Uniform Allowance
Car Allowance
Council Expense
Employee Assistance
Boot Allowance
Motor Pay
169,216.65
24,569.75
15,059.72
8,643.47
361.50
7,723.15
3,180.19
9,321.13
4,228.61
3,600.01
34,146.15
17,250.94
394.47
819.89
750.00
30,306.46
4,286.20
95423
658.75
600.00
375.00
100.00
336,546.27
S.b.
MEMORANDUM
�
,o, ,s„ �
F ORN�
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
CITY COUNCIL
LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTAN AD ANCES FROM HE WATER
AND APPROVAL OF INTERFUND
FACILITY FUND
JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Councii:
. Accept the June 2003 cash report,
• Approve the interfund advance of $5,660 from the Water Facility Fund to
cover cash deficits in other funds as of June 30, 2003.
FUNDING:
No outside funding is required.
Attachment
A— Cash Balance/Interfund Advance Report
_ __
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDB
CASH BALANCE / INTERFUND ADVANCE REPORT
At June 30, 2003
Fund
O10 General Fund
210 Fire Protection Impact Fees
212 Police Protection Impact Fees
213 Park Development
214 Park Improvement
215 Recreation Community Center
217 Landscape Maintenance
220 Street (Gas Tax) Fund
221 Traffic Congestion Relief
222 Traffic Signalization
223 Traffic Circulation
224 Transportation Facility Impact
225 Transportation
22(> Water Neutralization Impact
230 Construction Tax
231 Drainage Facility
232 In-Lieu Affordable Housing
241 Lopez Facility Fund
250 CDBG Fund
271 State COPS Block Grant Fund
272 Calif. Law Enf. Technology Grant
279 00-01 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant
284 Redevelopment Agency
285 Redevelopment Set Aside
350 Capital Projects
612 Sewer Fund
634 Sewer Facility
640 Water Fund
641 Lopez
642 Water Facility
751 Downtown Parkir►g
760 Sanitation District Fund
Total City Wide Cash
14,422,533
Recommended
Advances
5,260
400
(5,660)
0
THE ABOVE LISTING ARE THE CASH BALANCES SHOWN IN THE GENERAL LEDGER
OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS OF JUNE 30, 2003
da K. Sno gras
irector of Fin ial Services
Balance at
06/30/03
2,326,335
165,265
30,763
496,867
91,135
7,174
32,065
112,139
71,443
435,980
485,152
1,807,195
(5,260)
715,348
258,343
26,003
804,755
1,042,448
3,381
28,713
3,722
66
(400)
107,408
53,420
73,223
183,848
2,979,433
637,097
1,290,889
50,478
108,105
Revised
Balance
2,326,335
165,265
30,763
496,867
91,135
7,174
32,065
112,139
71,443
435,980
485,152
1,807,195
0
715,348
258,343
26,003
804,755
1,042,448
3,381
28,713
3,722
66
0
107,408
53,420
73,223
183,848
2,973,773
637,097
1,290,889
50,478
108,105
14,422,533
8.c.
�o
� INCORPORATED �
u �
� JULY 10, 1811 *
`P/
C4 ��FORN/
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL
LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE
CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MAXIMUS
FOR MANDATED COST RECOVERY SERVICES
JUI.Y 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to
enter into a binding agreement with MAXIMUS for mandated cost recovery services.
FUNDING:
Funding of a maximum of $6,130 for mandated cost recovery will be made from the
Non-departmental budget for contract services and from recovered costs.
DISCUSSION:
When the State of California mandates certain actions and procedures of local
government agencies, it is required to reimburse for costs incurred by the local agencies
to comply with these mandates. The firm of MAXIMUS specializes in compiling the
costs to carry out State mandates, completing required forms and documentation, and
filing the actual claims on behalf of local agencies.
The City of Arroyo Grande has contracted with MAXIMUS for mandated cost recovery
services during the last seven years. During this seven-year period, the City has
received approximately $174,000 from the State of California for mandated cost while
paying MAXIMUS approximately $24,300, thus receiving a net benefit of approximately
$149,700.
The contract is divided into finro categories. The first category is called "Annual Fall
Claims", which includes business tax reporting, open meeting law claims, and
investment reporting claims. The cost to file these claims on behalf of the City will be a
fixed fee of $3,090. The second claim category is "New Claims", which will include
claims for new mandates approved by the State and claims previously funded but
unpaid by the State. The cost for new claim reporting will be on a contingent basis of
30% of recovered cost with a maximum fee of $3,040. Should the City not receive
payment from the State for new claims, the City is not obligated to pay MAXIMUS a
contingent fee. For Fiscal Year 2003-04, the City can expect to pay befinreen the $3,090
minimum (Fall Claim fee) and the $6,130 maximum ($3,090 plus $3,040).
,_ ,_......._._. .� _m... � �.�.w._. . �..----..�.r..W.�......Y
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MAXIMUS FOR
MANDATED COST RECOVERY SERVICES
JULY 22, 2003
PAG E 2
The State of California will likely defer payment of mandated cost reimbursement during
FY 2003-04 as a result of budget constraints. Though the City will probably not receive
reimbursements for mandated costs during the coming fiscal year, the State will be
obligated to pay submitted claims when economic conditions improve. Because the
City must file claims during the current fiscal year in order to "get-in-line" for future
payments, it is important to contract at this time with MAXIMUS.
It is likely the City will pay MAXIMUS $3,090 during FY 2003-04 and receive the benefit
in future fiscal years. That benefit will be, at a minimum, approximately $6,000 for open
meeting law claims and business tax reporting claims. Therefore, it is recommended
that the City Council authorize the City Manager to contract with MAXIMUS for
continued mandated cost recovery services.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for the City Council's consideration:
- Approve staff recommendation;
- Do not approve staff recommendation;
- Modify staff recommendation and approve;
- Provide direction to staff.
_. . ... �.. �.. �. _.... _.....
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT
WITH MAXIMUS FOR MANDATED COST RECOVERY
SERVICES
WHEREAS, City of Arroyo Grande ("City") is a duly authorized municipal corporation
existing under the laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, City desires to enter into agreements for the development, submission,
and negotiation of cost claims pertaining to state mandated programs; and
WHEREAS, MAXIMUS ("Corporation") has the resources, skill, and expertise to provide
City with mandated cost recovery services of the highest level.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande that the City Manager is hereby authorized in the name and on behalf of the
City to enter into all necessary agreements with the Corporation for mandated cost
recovery services, upon such terms as deemed to be advisable to said officer.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member
,and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2003.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Contract Number : 03F-233
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 2003, by and
between MAXIMLJS, Incorporated (hereinafter "Consultant") and the City of Arroyo Grande
(hereinafter "City"),
WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California State Constitution provides that local agencies may
recover costs associated with catrying out programs mandated by the State of Califomia; and
WHEREAS, City desires to obtain maximum reimbursement for costs incurred in carrying out
State mandated programs, and has determined that engaging Consultant to assist in the mandated
cost claim preparation process is the most economical and cost effective means for prepaxing
City's state mandated cost claims; and
WHEREAS, Consultant is staffed with personnel knowledgeable and experienced in determining
the costs of governmental programs and in the submission of cost claims to the State of
California; and
WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to assist in developing, submitting, and
negotiating cost claims pertaining to state mandated programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
(1) Emplovment of Consultant. City agrees to engage Consultant and Consultant hereby
agrees to perform the following services.
(2) Scope of Services. Consultant shall do, perform, and carry out in a good and professional
manner the following services subject to the provisions of Section (8) below.
A. Prepare and submit cost claims pursuant to the Controller's 2003 annual claiming
instructions that require claims to be submitted to the State by January 15, 2004.
B. Prepare and submit other new or first-time cost claims pursuant to the Controller's
claiming instructions which are issued in accordance with parameters and
guidelines received from the Commission on State Mandates and mailed to local
agencies during the 2003-2004 fiscal year. For the purposes of this Agreement,
claims covered under this section shall include all claiming instructions issued
with due dates other than January 15, 2004.
C. Monitor the general payment status of all claims submitted on behalf of City
pursuant to this Agreement.
City of Arroyo Grande - 1- June 20, 2003
Contract Number : 03F-233
D. Assist City with any claims filed by Consultant that are audited by the State
Controller's office. Test claims and inconect reduetion claims are not covered
under this Agreement. .
Cost claims submitted by Consultant may consist of both direct and indirect costs.
Consultant may either utilize the ten percent (10%) indirect cost rate allowed by the State
Controller or calculate a higher rate if City records support such a calculation.
Consultant is not required to prepare a central service cost allocation plan or departmental
indirect cost rate proposals for City.
(3) Provision of Services. Consultant s�all commence, carry on, and complete the services
with all practicable dispatch, in a sound, economical, and efficient manner, in accordance
with the provisions herein and all applieable laws. In providing services, Consultant shall
take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved is properly
coordinated with related work being carried on by City.
(4) Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all
personnel required in performing the services under this Agreement. All of the services
required hereunder will be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all
personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified to perform the services described
herein.
(5) Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective on July 1, 2003, and shall
continue in full force and effect until both parties have completed performance as
provided herein.
(6) Time of Performance. The services to be performed hereunder by Consultant shall be
undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion in
order to best carry out the purposes of this Agreement. All claim filing services required
hereunder shall be completed by the required date for each specific claim. Provided
however, Consultant shall not be liable for delays in performance that are caused in
whole or in part by City, third parties over which Consultant does not have the legal right
to control or forces de majeure. The period of Consultant's performance shall be
extended by the period of delay contemplated herein.
(7) Costs and Method of Compensation. For the above services provided pursuant to Section
(2) A, (2) C and D, City agrees to pay Consultant compensation in a fixed fee in the
amount of three thousand ninety dollars ($ 3,090). The fee shall be paid in four equal
installments: Twenty-five percent (25%) or $ 772.50 of the fixed fee shall be due and
payable on September l, 2003, December 1, 2003, March l, 2004, and June 1, 2004.
For the above services provided pursuant to Section (2) B, City agrees to pay Consultant
compensation in the amount of a contingent fee of thirty percent (30%) of the amount
claimed, to a maximum of three thousand ninety dollazs ($ 3,090). Compensation shall
be paid from monies received from the State resulting from the Consultant's efforts and is
due and payable within thirty (30) days of City's receipt of any portion of monies
City of Arroyo Grande - 2- June 20, 2003
Contract Number : 03F-233
received from the State or within thirty (30) days of Consultant's invoice, whichever
occurs last.
For purposes of this Agreement, "monies received from the State" shall include any
amounts recovered, refunded or credited by any means, including but not limited to,
receipt of a block grant, legislative package, off set, purchase option, or agreement for
future monies from any source. Provided further, City's agreement to compromise the
amount due from the State shall not operate to compromise the fee due to Consultant
hereunder.
Any deferment in payment by the State which allows the accrual of interest on monies
due by the State shall inure to the benefit of Consultant to the extent that any amounts
due Consultant by City shall also accrue interest at the same rate. The accrual of such
interest shall not be limited by the above stated maximum dollar amount.
The parties agree that this section applies to all prior contracts between these parties,
either active or terminated, where payment of compensation has not yet been received by
Consultant. �
(8) Waiver of Submission of Claim(s) Pursuant to Section (2) A& B. Notwithstanding any
other provisions of this Agreement, the submission of claims pursuant to Section (2) A
and B may be waived as set forth below. Upon waiver exercised by either party, City
shall pay Consultant far all work performed up to and until the effective date of waiver in
an amount not to exceed the maximum dollar amount indicated in Section (7). Payment
for such services shall be at ConsultanYs current hourly rate. Any monies already paid
by City shall be credited against total hourly rate due.
A. At Citv Option. At the sole discretion of City, City may instruct Consultant to not
file a specific claim or claims pursuant to a specific State claiming instruction. Such
instruction must be in writing and provided to Consultant at least thirty (30) days prior to
the due date of the claim. The effective date of City's waiver shall be the date Consultant
receives City's written instruction.
B. At Consultant Option. At the sole discretion of Consultant, Consultant may notify
City of its intention to not pursue a specific claim and the reasons therefore. Such
notification must be in writing and provided to City not less than thirty (30) days prior to
the due date of the claim. The effective date of Consultant's waiver shall be the date
Consultant mails its notification to City. Should Consultant not so notify City, City may
expect Consultant to pursue the claim if it is above the minimum limit set by the State.
(9) Services and Materials to be Furnished bv Citv. Consultant shall provide guidance to
City in determining the data required for claims submission. Consultant shall assume all
data so provided is correct. Consultant shall make its best effort to file claims timely.
Consultant shall not be liable for claims that cannot be filed as a result of inadequate data,
or data that is provided in an untimely manner.
City of Arroyo Grande - 3- June 20, 2003
Contract Number : 03F-233
For purposes of this Agreement, data that is requested by Consultant must be provided
within three (3) weeks of the request, or three (3) weeks prior to the filing deadline,
whichever comes first, to be deemed to have been received in a timely manner.
(10) Records and Inspections. Consultant shall maintain full and accurate records with respect
to all matters covered under this Agreement. City shall have free access at all proper
times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcripts
therefrom.
(11) T'hird Partv Obligations. City and Consultant are the only parties to this Agreement and
are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement gives, is
intended to give, or shall be construed to give or provide, any right or benefit, whether
directly or indirectly or otherwise, to third persons.
(12) Copvright for Consultant's Proprietary Software. City acknowledges that the
deliverables provided by Consultant to City are generated by Consultant's proprietary
software. Nothing contained herein is intended nor shall it be construed to require
Consultant to provide such software to City. City agrees that all ownership rights thereto
lie with Consultant. City may use the deliverables for and on behalf of its operation.
(13) When Ri�hts and Remedies not Waived. In no event shall the makirig by City of any
payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of
covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making
of any such payment by City while any such breach or default shall exist in no way
impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City in respect to such breach or
default.
(14) Consultant Liability if Audited. Consultant will assume all financial and statistical
information provided to Consultant by City employees or representatives is accurate and
complete. If audited, Consultant shall make workpapers and other records available to
the State auditors. Any subsequent disallowance of funds paid to City under the claim(s)
for whatever reason is the sole responsibility of City. However, if requested by City,
Consultant shall provide assistance to City in defending claims at the desk audit level if
an audit results in a disallowance of at least ten percent (10%). Reductions of less than
ten percent (10%) shall not be contested by Consultant. Nothing in this section or any
part of this Agreement shall be construed to include Incorrect Reduction Claims
preparation.
(15) Independent Contractor. The parties intend that Consultant, in performing the services
specified in this Agreement shall act as an independent contractor and shall have full
control of the work and the manner in which it is performed. Consultant and Consultant's
employees are not to be considered agents or employees of City for any purpose.
(16) Insurance. Consultant shall maintain appropriate general liability insurance, workers'
compensation insurance, automobile insurance, and professional liability insurance.
City of Arroyo Grande - 4- June 20, 2003
Contract Number : 03F-233
(17) Indemnification. City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Consultant and
Consultant's agents, officers, employees, and authorized representatives from any and all
losses, liabilities, charges, damages, claims, liens, causes of action, awards, judgments,
costs, and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees of
Consultant staff counsel and counsel retained by Consultant, expert fees, costs of staff
time, and investigation costs) of whatever kind or nature, which arise out of or are in any
way connected with any act or omission of City or City's officers, agents, employees,
independent contractors, subcontractors of any tier, or authorized representatives.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the same shall include injury or death to
any person or persons; damage to any property, regardless of where located, including the
property of Consultant; and any workers' compensation claim or suit arising from or
connected with ariy performance pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of City by any
person or entity.
(18) Limitation of Liabilitv. In no event shall Consultant be liable for indirect, special,
cons�quential or punitive damages. Consultant's liability to the City, for any reason
whatsoever and whether foreseeable or not, shall not exceed the total amount to be paid
to Consultant under this Agreement. �
(19) Changes. Either party may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of services to
be performed hereunder. Such changes, which are mutually agreed upon by and between
the parties, shall be incorporated in written and mutually executed amendment to this
Agreement.
(20) Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be
sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the address
noted below:
MAXIMLJS, Incorporated
4320 Auburn Blvd., Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95841
Such notice shall be deemed delivered five (5) days after deposit in the U.S. mailbox.
(21) Severabilitv. Should any part, term, portion, section or provision of this Agreement be
decided finally to be in conflict with any law of the United States or the State of
California, or otherwise be unenforceable or ineffectual, the remaining parts, terms,
City of Arroyo Grande - 5- June 20, 2003
Contract Number : 03F-233
portions, sections or provisions shall be deemed severable and shall remain in full force
and effect.
(22) Matters to be Disregarded. The titles of the sections, subsections, and paragraphs set
forth in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be
disregarded in construing or interpreting any of the provisions of this Agreement.
(23) Comnleteness of A�reement. This Agreement and any additional or supplementary
document or documents incorporated herein by specific reference contain all the terms
and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto, and no other agreements, oral or
otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement or any part thereof shall have
any validity or bind any of the parties hereto.
(24) Agreement Receipt. This Agreement must be signed and returned
September 5, 2003. If executed Agreement is not received by that
cann6t warrant that claims will be submitted on a timely basis.
City of Arroyo Grande
-6-
to Consultant by
date, Consultant
June 20, 2003
_ � r .�. �._ .. .�....�..�.....,...,.,..�..
Contract Number : 03F-233
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written below.
:
(City Official)
ATTEST:
Date:
�
Title:
MAXIMtTS, Incorporated
B
Allan Burdick, Vice President
Date: June 20. 2003
City of Arroyo Grande - 7- June 20, 2003
8.d.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council:
Council Member Runels, Mayor Pro Tem Dickens, and Mayor
Ferrara were present. Council Members Lubin and Costello
were absent.
City Staff Present: City Manager Adams, City Attorney Carmel, City Clerk Davis,
Chief of Police TerBorch and Community Development Director
Strong.
3. FLAG SALUTE
A member of Knights of Columbus led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor Norman Somes,
the invocation.
St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, Arroyo Grande, delivered
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Resolutions and Ordinances Read in Title Only
Council Member Runels moved, Mayor Pro Tem Dickens seconded, and the motion
passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting
shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived.
7 CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Runels moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Dickens seconded the motion
to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8 I., with the recommended courses
of action. City Attorney Carmel read the title of the Ordinance in Item 8.k. The motion
carried on the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES: Runels, Dickens, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lubin, Costello
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 8, 2003
PAGE 2
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Approved the listing of cash disbursements for the period June 16,
2003 through June 30, 2003.
8.b. Consideration of Cancellation of September 9, 2003 City Council Meeting
Due to League of California Cities Annual Conference, September 7-10,
2003.
Action: Canceled the regularly scheduled Council meeting of September 9,
2003.
8.c. Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Water
Facility Fund.
Action: Received and filed May 2003 Cash Report and approved the interfund
advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficit in other funds at
5/31 /03.
8.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council
Meetings of June 10, 2003 and the minutes of the Special and Regular City
Council Meetings of June 24, 2003 as submitted.
8.e. Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of
June 30, 2003.
8.f. Consideration of Award of Bid for ADA Improvements to the Woman's
Club and Community Center.
Action: Awarded bid to Anderson Burton Construction for ADA improvements
using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds.
8.g. Consideration of Authorization to Participate in Regional "Remove
Impaired Drivers" Office of Traffic Safety Grant.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3694 authorizing participation by the Police
Department in the Regional "Remove Impaired Drivers" State O�ce of Traffic
Safety (OTS) Grant which will be administered by the San Luis Obispo Office
of the California Highway Patrol.
8.h. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Police Traffic Enforcement
Motorcycte.
Action: Authorized staff to purchase a 2004 BMW motorcycle, Model
R1150RT-P/CHP Version from A& S BMW Motorcycles, for a total cost of
$20,190.
8.i. Consideration of FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05 Memorandum of
Understanding with Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local
620.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3695 approving the FY 2003/04 and FY
2004/05 Memorandum of Understanding with SEIU, Local 620.
8.j. Consideration of Approval of Final Tract Map 2328; S8�S Homes;
Stonecrest Development.
Action: Accepted Final Tract Map 2328 subdividing 4.56 acres into twenty-six
(26) residential lots.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 8, 2003
PAGE 3
8.k. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Arroyo Grande
Zoning Map from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential with
Specific Plan Overlay (SFR-SP) for a 1.6-Acre Portion of Subarea 3 of the
Berry Gardens Specific Plan; Development Code Amendment 02-002;
Applied for by Matsumoto Revocable Trust.
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 543 amending Arroyo Grande Zoning Map for
a 1.6-acre portion of Subarea 3 of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan.
8.1. Consideration of Temporary Use Permit (TUP) 03-018; Authorization to
Close City Streets for Chameleon Fine Furniture's 10 Anniversary
Barbeque and Fundraiser.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3696 approving Temporary Use Permit 03-
018 for Chameleon Fine Furniture's 10 anniversary barbeque and fundraiser
and authorizing the closure of City streets.
9. PUBLIC HEARING:
9.a. Consideration of Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03-003 to
Modify the Site Plan Approved for Conditional Use Permit 01-010; 579
Camino Mercado; Central Coast Real Estate Development.
Community Development Director Strong recommended the Council continue this
public hearing item to August 26, 2003.
Mayor Ferrara opened the Public Hearing.
Ray Abdun-Nur, 955 Via Las Aguilas, said there needs to be weed abatement on the
property in question. He also asked for further details of the site plan.
Mr. Strong said the Fire Department would be informed about the weed abatement
complaint. He said particulars of the Amended Conditional Use Permit application to
modify the site plan for the project would be given at the Continued Public Hearing
August 26, 2003. He invited Mr. Abdun-Nur to attend the meeting.
When no one further came forward to speak, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public
Hearing.
Council Member Runels moved and Mayor Pro Tem Dickens seconded the motion to
continue the public hearing to the August 26, 2003 City Council meeting. The motion
carried on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Runels, Dickens, and Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: Lubin and Costello
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 8, 2003
PAGE 4
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
None.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
None.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Runels thanked Council and Staff for all the well wishes after his
recent surgery.
Mayor Ferrara said Council Member Lubin was away on a business matter, and
Council Member Costello was on vacation.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Chief of Police TerBorch gave an update on the status of the California State Budget.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m.
Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Davis, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Meeting )
8.e.
u �
� .�r io. ,o *
c ' 4 j��oa�'� P
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUIVf
CITY COUNCIL
DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER�
CONSIDERATtON OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC WORKS FEES
AND SERVICE CHARGES
JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the FY 2003-
04 Public Works Field Division Fees and Service Charges.
FUNDING:
Services and equipment provided to other public agencies are charged based on the
attached fee schedule. Last year, these fees and service charges generated
approximately $32,000. This year has continued to be another exceptional year,
generating considerably more than the historic amounts.
DISCUSSION:
The Public Works Department has updated the Schedule of Fee and Service Charges to
assist other agencies with services and equipment and for cost recovery to damaged or
vandalized City property that may occur during the fiscal year. Public Works only provides
assistance to public agencies on a non-priority basis. City work is scheduled ahead of the
work perFormed for other agencies, unless the request is a result of an emergency.
These fees and charges include the City's indirect cost as set forth in the City's adopted
Cost Allocation Plan. This year, the indirect cost rate stayed the same, but fringe benefits,
medical, dental, vision and salaries for Maintenance Personnel have increased. These
changes caused labor to increase to $34 per hour, and the over-time rate to increase to
$43 per hour. Equipment rates will stay the same since there was no change in fuel or
maintenance costs. Material costs for asphalt and concrete increased.
Examples of this service include rental of the paver, roller or other equipment and
manpower by the County or other agencies. When City property is damaged by traffic
accidents or vandalism, charges to replace/repair the property are charged back to the
responsible party based on these fees.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC WORKS FEES AND SERVICE
CHARGES
JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
— Approve staff's recommendation;
— Do not approve staff's recommendation;
— Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or
— Provide direction to staff.
Attachment: Schedule of Fee and Service Charges
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE �ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING SPECIFIED FEES FOR
PUBLIC WORKS FIELD SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council has established fees for services furnished by, or on behalf
of the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, due to the effects of inflation and other factors, some of said fees are no
longer adequate to equitably compensate the City for the costs of providing certain field
services; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to recover the full cost of field services furnished by the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered, at a regularly scheduled public meeting,
the question of whether to increase or establish fees for such services based on the
estimated amount that is required to compensate the City for providing such services; and
WHEREAS, at said meeting the City Council has duly considered all oral and written
presentations that were made regarding the proposed fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
that the schedule of fees entitled "CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT FIELD DIVISION, FEE AND SERVICE CHARGES" attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein is hereby approved and adopted.
On motion of Council Member
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
, seconded by Council Member
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoin� Resolution was passed and adopted this day of July 2003.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Field Division.
Fee and Service Charges
July 2003
Exhibit "A"
I ABOR GOSTS•
Computed =(monthly wage x 12 months = 26 periods = 80 hours = hourly wage)
Hourly wage x 33% (fringe benefits) +$4.66 (medical, dental, vision) = direct labor
cost per hour + 17.63% indirect cost rate = billing rate
�URING WORK HOl1RS
Average Cost = $34.00 per hour
DURING AFTER HO 1RS• (1.5 x hourly wage rate) less benefits
Average Cost = $43.00
MINIMUM GAL -O T RATE• (2 hours at 1.5 hourly wage rate)
EQUIPMENT COST
Pickup Trucks -$8.00 per hour Service Trucks -$35.00 Backhoe -$35.00 per hour
� per hour
PW-4 PW-34 PW-45
PW-16 PW-40 PW-32 PW-41
PW-24 PW-42 PW-33 PW-52
PW-29 PW-44 PW-36 PW-9 P1N-1
CAT Generator - Loader -$55.00 per hour 6" Pump -$16.00 per hour
$75.00 per hour
PW-282 PW-38 PW-140
Dump/Flat Bed Truck Crack Sealer -$40.00 per hour Sewer Vacuum/Jet Truck
5-7 yards $40.00 per hour $95.00 per hour
PW-19 PW-27 PW-50 PW-249 PW-51
Paver -$60.00 per hour Grader -$55.00 per hour Chipper -$40.00 per hour
PW-46 PW-14 PW-111
Paint Striper -$60.00 per hour Concrete Saw -$11.00 per hour Air Compressor
$14.00 per hour
PW-47 PW-103 PW-243
Grinder -$24.00 per hour 5-Ton Roller -$21.00 per hour
PW-154 PW-12
flAATC�IAI /'�/'1nT- i---� --�_ . .
, . � �� .�,,� .......� � . ��va� Niu� �a��
Concrete -$74.00 yard Class II Base -$12.00 ton
Sand - $8.00 ton A/C - $35.75 ton
8 .f.
/pRRO V0
��� C
� INCORPORATE Z
" ^ MEMORANDUM
� JULY /0. 19/1 *
c '���FORN� P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ��
DAN HERNANDEZ, PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO TRANSFER BUDGETED CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR
THE RANCHO GRANDE PARK PROJECT, PROJECT PW-2002-03
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
A. Authorize the transfer of budgeted construction funds into the construction
contingency fund for enhancements and unanticipated expenses during the
construction phase of the project; and,
B. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a consultant contract amendment with
RRM Design for additional design services; and,
C. Authorize the transfer of budgeted construction funds into the design fund for
additional design services.
FUNDING:
The FY 2003/04 Capital Improvement Program budget includes a$1,647,207 appropriation
for Rancho Grande Park construction. On July 9, 2002, the City Council awarded a
contract to Herrera Engineering for the Rancho Grande Park Project in the amount of
$1,082,345.00 and authorized a contingency of $108,235 to be used for unanticipated
costs during the construction phase of the project. The projected construction
contingencies are estimated at $135,000. It is requested that Council authorize a transfer
of $30,000 from the budgeted Construction Funds to the Construction Contingencies Fund
to cover unanticipated expenses and enhancements.
Council previously authorized $78,165 to RRM Design to perform design services for the
project. RRM Design has determined the final costs at $101,789. It is requested that
Council authorize a transfer of $23,624 from the Construction Fund to the Design Fund to
cover the additional design expenses.
No additional appropriations are required.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO TRANSFER BUDGETED CONSTRUCTION FUNDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE RANCHO
GRANDE PARK PROJECT PW-2002-03
J U LY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
DISCUSSION:
The Rancho Grande Park project is nearing completion with the grand opening set for
September 13, 2003. The construction phase of the project will be completed by the end
of July. However, the landscaping establishment period will extend for another 60 days.
Based on limited funding availability, the original project design anticipated constructinn of
the park in distinctly separate phases over a number of years as financing became
available. The bid schedule included three additive alternates for construction of the
playground equipment, restroom building, and the sports areas. Due to the revenue
generated by the sale of land for residential properties at the west end of the park property
and the receipt of a State grant, the Council awarded the entire contract to Herrera
Engineering, including all bid alternates. The Council established a contingency of 10% of
the bid price, $108,235, for unanticipated costs during construction.
The construction contract project contingencies are nearly depleted and staff
conservatively estimates that an additional $30,000 will be required to complete the project.
The major elements that increased the contingencies are as follows:
♦ The original drainage design required the stormwater to flow over the hillside at
the south end of the parking lot and funnel into an existing concrete drainage
swale at the boundary of the Grace Bible Church parking lot. The stormwater
would then proceed westward towards City-owned land west of the Grace Bible
Church property. Staff revised the drainage design to concentrate the
stormwater flows into a central collection facility and positively route the
stQrmwater to an existing City owned drainage facility at the northeast corner of
the Grace Bible Church property. The revisions include additional stormwater
piping, drainage structure placement, and the installation of curb and gutter at
the south end of the parking lot to collect and concentrate the stormwater flow
into the new stormwater pipe. The total cost for the changes is approximately
$40,000.
♦ The existing soil conditions were very poor at the site. The project specification
anticipated the poor conditions. and required extensive soil amendments to
support future plant growth. However, based on agricultural soil tests during
construction, it was determined that the soil over a large area of the park was
incapable of supporting landscape plantings. Staff authorized the delivery and
placement of topsoil for approximately 50% of the planting areas at a cost of
$14,750.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION TO TRANSFER BUDGETED CONSTRUCTION FUNDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE RANCHO
GRANDE PARK PROJECT PW-2002-03
JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 3
♦ Improvements have been added to benefit future park patrons and decrease
future park maintenance costs. These elements include; additional drinking
fountains, white vinyl perimeter fencing, and skateboard resistant channels on
selected concrete areas.
The project designer, RRM Design, also incurred additional expenses during the project
design. The Council authorized the original RRM Design contract for $78,165 on March
28, 2000 and Amendment No. 1 for $15,000 on December 10, 2002 — for a total budget of
$93,165. RRM Design has expended their contract budget and has determined the total
design and construction observation charges at $116,788. Staff reviewed and confirmed
the validity of the request and formally requests authorization for Contract Amendment No.
2 in the amount of $23,624.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendations;
• Do not approve staff's recommendations;
• Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or
• Provide direction to staff.
8 �9•
INCORhOAA
u � m� MEMORANDUIV�
,� .x�ir io, �o» *
�FO
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER „J�j{
�.��.
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR PUBLIC
WORKS VEHICLES
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize staff to solicit bids for the purchase of
one 3/4-ton flat bed truck and one 1/2-ton pick up truck as provided for in the FY 2003/04
budget.
FUNDING:
The approved FY �003/04 budget includes funds for these vehicles in accounts 010-4301-
6301 and 640-4712-6301. The total estimated cost for both vehicles is $54,000.
DISCUSSION:
These trucks will replace a 1990 Dodge Ram 3/4-ton pick-up truck and a 1998 1/2-ton
Ford F-150 pick up truck. The City's adopted Vehicle Replacement Policy C-006 calls for
replacement of a light truck in five (5) years or 80,000 miles. The existing trucks meet the
criteria established in the City's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.
ALTERNATIVES�:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's request and authorize the solicitation of bids;
- Do not approve staff's request;
- Modify staff's request as appropriate and approve; or
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachments: Administrative Policies and Procedures - Policy #C-006
Bid Notice and Specifications
Vehicle Bid List
i
(� CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURES
�
POLICY #: C-006
ISSUED: 9�A�96 �
EFFECTIVE: 86EA�96
CANCELLATION DATE: N/A
SUPERSEDES: �
SUBJECT: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR
� REPLACEMENT OF STANDARD
EQUIPMENT
POLICY
Equipment is currently capitalized if the value of the item at the time of purchase
exceeds $500. Repiacement of capital equipment must be authorized by the City
Council. Criteria for evaluating when replacement should occur is listed below. The
recommendation for replacement should be a composite evaluation utilizing the
criteria listed coupled with the actual condition of the equipment.
PROCEDURE-
CRITERIA FOR A REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT
A.
�
General criteria:
The following criteria will be used when requesting replacement of capital
equipment or other designated equipment.
1. Condition of the equipment
2. Age of equipment
3. Maintenance history of the equipme�t
Specific criteria:
1. Ape — Standardized estimated useful life which may vary depending on
qual�ty and usaqe.
a. Personal Computers — five years
b. Calculators — five years
c. Typewriters — eight years
d. Chairs — five years �
e. Desks — fifteen years
Revised: September 1, 1997
POLICY #: C-006
PAGE 2
,
�
�
h. Tables — fifteen years
i. Files Cabinets — fifteen years �
j. Autos-Light Trucks — five years and/or 80,000 miles
k. Police Emergency (Patrol) Vehicles — three years and/or 100,OQ0
miles .
u- � -�-� = . •.
a. Recommendation by maintenance personnel that equipment is
not economically repairable or able to be updated (as in
computers).
.�. .�
a. Hazardous or dangerous for the employee to use
b. Broken parts that are not adequately repairable
c. Chipped� marked, or damaged veneers, laminates, or exterior that
is not repairable ---�,
d. No longer able to function in accord with its intended use due to
damage, age, or altered requirements
��. a L . t��
ROBERT L. HUNT
CITY MANAGER
.;�
r • � � � • • � � � �
1 � � • � � � II ►
� � � •
11
The City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department is requesting bid proposals for a 1/2-ton,
pick-up truck and a 3/4-ton flat bed truck with the following criteria:
.� . ,
1. V-8 engine (5.4 liter minimum);
2. 8,800 GVWR;
3. Heavy duty automatic transmission;
4. Air Conditioning;
5. AM/FM Radio;
6. Full size spare tire;
7. Trailering wire harness;
8. Cloth Seats;
9. Vinyl Floors Mats;
10. 7 x 8 Flat Bed with Head Board and Hitch;
11. White Paint;
12. Dual Air Bags;
13. 3.73 Limited Slip Rear End;
14. Extended Warranty
• � , • � � = � .
1. V-8 engine;
2. 6050 GVWR (Min.);
3. 4-speed automatic transmission;
4. 4-wheel ABS disc brakes;
5. Regular Cab with 8-foot box;
6. 133" Wheel Base (Min.);
7. Cast aluminum wheels;
8. Tires - P235/70R16 (black walls);
9. Full size spare tire;
10. Chrome front/rear bumpers
11. Body side molding;
12. Air conditioning;
13. AM/FM stereo with C/D player;
14. Power locks and windows;
15. Tilt steering wheel;
16. Driver's side and passenger side air bags;
17. Split bench seat cloth;
18. Deep tint glass;
19. White exterior/Medium Gray interior;
20. Leather wrapped steering wheel;
21. Remote Keyless Entry;
22. Cruise control;
23. Tachometer;
24. Carpet floor covering with floor mats
25. Extended Warranty Package
All proposals shall include applicable taxes and delivery charges. All proposals shall be sealed
and on company letterhead with the envelope marked "Public Works Vehicles". Please bid each
vehicle separately. Please submit your sealed bid to:
Kelly Wetmore
Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk
City of Arroyo Grande
P. O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, California 93421
Bid proposals must be received by 2:00 pm, August 5, 2003. Bids will be opened at that time at
the City of Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers, located at 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo
Grande, CA. The City of Arroyo Grande resenres the right to accept or reject any or all bids upon
recommendation of the Public Works Director.
VEHICLE BID LIST FOR
PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLES
1. Christianson Chevrolet
303 Traffic Way
P. O. Box 488
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
2. Mullahey Ford
330 Traffic Way
P. O. Box 578
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
3. Paso Robles GMC Truck
2345 Golden Hill Road
P. O. Box 1108
Paso Robles, CA 93447
4. Perry Ford
12200 Los Osos Valley Road
P. O. Box 3259
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
5. Rancho Grande Motors
1404 Auto Parkway
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
------�
8.h.
r �o. �o» * MEMORANDUM
� F OR��
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER�jIj�'
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE ECONOMIC
VITALITY CORPORATION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to approve the annual
Agreement with the Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County
(EVCSLOC).
FUNDING:
The annual cost of the Agreement is $5,000, which is charged to the
Redevelopment Agency. This is the same amount paid in previous years, and
funding is included in the FY 2003-04 budget.
DISCUSSION:
The mission of the EVCSLOC is to "stimulate the economic vitality of San Luis
Obispo County, generate jobs, and increase financial investment within the
County by promoting the retention, expansion, and attraction of business and
industry to the area." Council Member Lubin represents the City of Arroyo
Grande on the EVCSLOC Board of Directors and is the past Chair. The
EVCSLOC promotes economic development through a number of programs and
it is cost effective for the City to coordinate these efforts with other agencies and
businesses in the County. The EVCSLOC has provided important tools for the
City's use in its economic development program. The City has been a dues
paying member since 2000.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Authorize the Mayor to execute the annual agreement with the
EVCSLOC;
Modify the agreement and then authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement;
CITY COUNCIL
EVCSLOC AGREEMENT
JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
Do not approve agreement;
Provide staff with other direction.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Agreement with EVCSLOC
ATTACHMENT 1
ECONOMIC VITALITY CORPORATION OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made upon the date of execution, as set forth below, by and between
ECONOMIC VITALITY CORPORATION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COiJNTY, a California
non-profit corporation (hereinafter referred to as "EVCSLOC"), and the CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"). The parties hereto, in
consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, hereby agree to the following terms and
conditions:
1.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.01 TERMS: This Agreement will become effective on the date of execution set forth
below and shall continue in effect until June 30, 2004. This Agreement may be renewed each year
hereafter, for periods of one year, commencing July 1 through June 30 of the succeeding year, by
action of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and EVCSLOC's acceptance of said renewal.
1.02 SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY EVCSLOC: EVCSLOC agrees to
perform or provide the services specified in "Description of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
EVCSLOC shall determine the method, details and means of performing the
above-referenced services.
EVCSLOC may, at EVCSLOC's own expense, employ such assistants as EVCSLOC
deems necessary to perform the services required of EVCSLOC by this Agreement. CITY may
not control, direct or supervise EVCSLOC's assistants or employees in the performance of those
services.
1.03 COMPENSATION: In consideration for the services to be performed by
EVCSLOC, CITY agrees to pay EVCSLOC five thousand dollars ($5,000).
2.00 OBLIGATIONS OF EVCSLOC
2.01 MIIVIMUM AMOUNT OF SERVICE BY EVCSLOC: EVCSLOC agrees to
devote the hours necessary to perform the services set forth in this Agreement in an efficient and
effective manner. EVCSLOC may represent, perform services for and be employed by additional
individuals or entities, in EVCSLOC's sole discretion, as long as the performance of these
extra-contractual services does not interfere with or present a conflict with CITY's business.
When in doubt as to the existence of such a conflict, EVCSLOC shall contact the City's Economic
Development Director and/or the City Manager in advance of providing said services.
2.02 WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
CITY and EVCSLOC intend and agree that EVCSLOC is an independent contractor of CITY
and agrees that EVCSLOC and EVCSLOC's employees and agents have no right to workers'
compensation and other employee benefits from City. If any workers' compensation insurance
protection is desired, EVCSLOC agrees to provide workers' compensation and other employee
benefits, where required by law, for EVCSLOC's employees and agents. EVCSLOC agrees to
hold harmless and indemnify CITY from any and all liability, cost, or damage arising out of any
claim for injury, disability, or death of EVCSLOC and EVCSLOC's employees or agents.
2.03 INDEIVINIFICATION: EVCSLOC hereby agrees to, and shall, hold CITY, its
elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, harmless and shall defend the same
from any liability for damage or claims for damage, or suits or actions at law or in equity which
may allegedly arise from EVCSLOC's or any of EVCSLOC's employees' or agents' operations
under this Agreement, whether such operations be by EVCSLOC or by any one or more persons
directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for, EVCSLOC provided as follows:
a. That CITY does not, and shall not, waive any rights against EVCSLOC
which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement, because of the acceptance
by CITY, or the deposit with CITY by EVCSLOC, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter
described.
b. That the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement by EVCSLOC shall apply to all
damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by
reason of any of the aforesaid operations of EVCSLOC or any agent or employee of EVCSLOC
regazdless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to
any of such damages or claims for damages.
2.04 INSURANCE: EVCSLOC shall not commence work under this Agreement until it
has obtained all insurance required under this section and such insurance shall have been approved
by CITY as to form, amount and carrier:
a. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. EVCSLOC shall take out
and maintain during the life of this Agreement such public liability and property damage insurance
as shall protect CITY, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, and
EVCSLOC and any agents and employees performing work covered by this Agreement from
claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property
damage which may arise under this Agreement, whether such operations be by EVCSLOC or by
anyone directly or indirectly employed by EVCSLOC and the amounts of such insurance shall be
as follows:
(1) Public Liability Insurance. In an amount not less than (One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000) for injuries, including, but not limited to, death to any one person and,
subject to the same limit for each person, in an-amount not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) on account of any one occurrence:
(2) Proper Damage Insurance. In an amount of not less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for damage to the property of each person on account of any one
occurrence.
b. Comprehensive Automobile Liabilitv. Bodily injury liability coverage of
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each person in any one accident and for injuries sustained by
two or more persons in any one accident. Property damage liability of One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) for each accident.
c. Workers' Compensation Insurance. In the amounts required by law as set
forth in Section 2.02 above. �
d. Proof of Insurance. EVCSLOC shall furnish CITY, concurrently with the
execution hereof, with satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required, and adequate legal
assurance that each carrier will give CITY at least thirty (30) days' prior notice of the cancellation
of any policy during the effective period of this Agreement. The certificate or policy of liability of
insurance shall name CITY as an additional insured with EVCSLOC.
3.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
3.01 COOPERATION: CITY agrees to comply with all reasonable requests of
EVCSLOC necessary to the performance of EVCSLOC's duties under this Agreement.
4.00 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
4.01 TERMINATION OF NOTICE. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, any party hereto may terminate this Agreement, at any time, without cause by
giving at least thirty- (30) days' prior written notice to the other party to this Agreement.
4.02 TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS. This Agreement
shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party;
b. The end of the 30 days as set forth in Section 4.01;
c. June 30, 2004, unless extended per Section 1.01, above.
4.03 TERMINATION BY ANY PARTY FOR DEFAULT OF EVCSLOC: Should
any party default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its provisions,
the non-breaching party, at its option, may terminate this Agreement, immediately, by giving
written notice of termination to the breaching party.
_
5.00 MISCELLANEOUS
5.01 REMEDIES: The remedies set forth in this Agreement shall not be exclusive but
shall be cumulative with, and in addition to, all remedies now or hereafter allowed by law or
equity.
5.02 NO WAIVER: The waiver of any breach by any party of any provision of this
Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of this
Agreement.
5.03 ASSIGNMENT: This Agreement is specifically not assignable by EVCSLOC to
any person or entity. Any assignment or attempt to assign by EVCSLOC, whether it be voluntary
or involuntary, by operation of law or otherwise, is void and is a material breach of this
Agreement giving rise to a right to terminate as set forth in Section 4.03.
5.04 ATTORNEY FEES: In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the
parties hereto, arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, the prevailing
party shall be entitled, in addition to other such relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum as
and for attomey fees.
5.05 TIlV� FOR PERFORMANCE: Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this
Agreement, should the performance of any act required by this Agreement to be performed by
either party be prevented or delayed by reason by any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble,
inability to secure materials, or any other cause except financial inability not the fault of the party
required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period of
time equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be
excused; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall exclude the prompt
payment by either party as required by this Agreement or the performance of any act rendered
difficult or impossible solely because of the fmancial condition of the party required to perform the
act.
5.06 NOTICES: Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or
other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given
to any party to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when
personally delivered or in lieu of such personal service when deposited in the United States mail,
first-class postage prepaid to the following address for each respective party:
CITY: Steven Adams
City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550 — 214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
EVCSLOC: Ray Johnson, President/CEO
Economic Vitality Corp. of San Luis Obispo County
P.O. Box 5257
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
5.07 GOVE1tNING LAW: This Agreement and all matters relating to this Agreement
shall be governed by the laws of the State of California in force at the time any need for the
interpretation of this Agreement or any decision or holding concerning this Agreement arises.
5.08 BINDING EFFECT: This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the
benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but
nothing in this section shall be construed as a consent by CITY to any assignment of this
Agreement or any interest in this Agreement.
5.09 SEVERABILITY: Should any provision of this Agreement be held by a court of
competent jurisdiction or by a legislative or rule-making act to be either invalid, void or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect,
unimpaired by the holding, legislation or rule.
5.10 SOLE AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement constitutes the sole and
entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement
correctly sets forth the obligations of the parties hereto to each other as of the date of this
Agreement. All agreements or representations respecting the subject matter of this Agreement not
expressly set forth or referred to in this Agreement are null and void.
5.11 TIME: Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Agreement.
5.12 DUE AUTHORITY: The parties hereby represent that the individuals executing
this Agreement are expressly authorized to do so on and in behalf of the parties.
5.13 AMENDMENTS: Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writin� and shall be
made only with the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement.
Executed on , 2003, at Arroyo Grande, California.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
:
ATTEST:
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative
Services/Deputy City Clerk
EVC OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
:
Ray Johnson, President/CEO
Economic Vitality Corp. of SLO County
:
Missie Hobson, Chair
Economic Vitality Corp. of SLO County
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
:
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
8.i.
� '""'" ,o.1°„ � MEMORANDUM
c ' ° ��FOR�� P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER G�"
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY VISITORS & CONFERENCE BUREAU
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the annual
Agreement with the San Luis Obispo County Visitors and Conference Bureau
(SLOCVCB).
FUNDING:
The annual cost of the Agreement is $6,500, which is charged to the
Redevelopment Agency. This is the same amount paid in previous years, and
funding is included in the FY 2003-04 budget.
DISCUSSION:
The mission of the SLOCVCB is to "promote the County's economic
opportunities through its primary industry — tourism." The SLOCVCB promotes
tourism through a number of programs and it is cost effective for the City to
coordinate these efforts with other agencies and businesses in the County. The
City has been a dues paying member since 2000.
The City's Economic Development Strategy includes a section on tourism, and
one of the specific goals is "to become an active participant in the San Luis
Obispo Countywide tourism programs." Therefore, this item forwards the goals
of the Economic Development program. The City's funds will assist the
SLOCVCB to expand their outreach efforts. Existing programs of the SLOCVCB
have been successful. At this time, the City Manager is proposed to serve as the
City's representative on the SLOVCB Board of Directors.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Authorize the Mayor to execute the annual agreement with the
SLOCVCB;
CITY COUNCIL
SLOCVCB AGREEMENT
J U LY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
Modify the agreement and then execute the Mayor to approve the
agreement;
Do not approve agreement;
Provide staff with other direction.
Attachments:
Proposed Agreement with SLOCVCB
ATTACHMENT 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY VISITORS
& CONFERENCE BUREAU AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made upon the date of execution, as set forth below, by and
between SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY VISITORS & CONFERENCE BUREAU, a
California non-profit organization (hereinafter referred to as "SLOCVCB"), and the CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"). The
parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, hereby agree to
the following terms and conditions:
1.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.01 TERMS: This Agreement will become effective on the date of execution set
forth below and shall continue in effect until June 30, 2003. This Agreement may be
renewed each year hereafter, for periods of one year, commencing July 1 through June 30
of the succeeding year, by action of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and
SLOCVCB's acceptance of said renewal.
1.02 SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY SLOCVCB: SLOCVCB agrees to
perform or provide the services specified in "Description of Services" attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
SLOCVCB shall determine the method, details and means of performing the
above-referenced services.
SLOCVCB may, at SLOCVCB's own expense, employ such assistants as
SLOCVCB deems necessary to perform the services required of SLOCVCB by this
Agreement. CITY may not control, direct or supervise SLOCVCB's assistants or
employees in the performance of those services.
1.03 COMPENSATION: In consideration for the services to be performed by
SLOCVCB, CITY agrees to pay SLOCVCB six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500).
2.00 OBLIGATIONS OF SLOCVCB
2.01 MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SERVICE BY SLOCVCB: SLOCVCB agrees to
devote the hours necessary to perform the services set forth in this Agreement in an
efficient and effective manner. SLOCVCB may represent, perform services for and be
employed by additional individuals or entities, in SLOCVCB's sole discretion, as long as
the performance of these extra-contractual services does not interfere with or present a
conflict with CITY's business.
2.02 WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CITY
and SLOCVCB intend and agree that SLOCVCB is an independent contractor of CITY and
agrees that SLOCVCB and SLOCVCB's employees and agents have no right to CITY
Workers' Compensation and other employee benefits. If any worker insurance protection
is desired, SLOCVCB agrees to provide Workers' Compensation and other employee
benefits, where required by law, for SLOCVCB's employees and agents SLOCVCB agrees
to hold harmless and indemnify CITY from any and all liability, cost, or damage arising out
of any claim for injury, disability, or death of SLOCVCB and SLOCVCB's employees or
agents.
2.03 INDEMNIFICATION: SLOCVCB hereby agrees to, and shall, hold CITY, its
elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, harmless and shall defend
the same from any liability for damage or claims for damage, or suits or actions at law or in
equity which may allegedly arise from SLOCVCB's or any of SLOCVCB's employees' or
agents' operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by SLOCVCB or by
any one or more persons directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for,
SLOCVCB provided as follows
a. That CITY does not, and shall not, waive any rights against SLOCVCB
which it may have by reason of the afore�said hold-harmless agreement, because of the
acceptance by CITY, or the deposit with CITY by SLOCVCB, of any of the insurance
policies hereinafter described.
b. That the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement by SLOCVCB shall apply
to all damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been
suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations of SLOCVCB or any agent or
employee of SLOCVCB regardless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have
been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
2.04 INSURANCE: SLOCVCB shall not commence work under this Agreement
until it has obtained all insurance required underthis section and such insurance shall have
been approved by CITY as to form, amount and carrier:
a. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. SLOCVCB shall take
out and maintain during the life of this Agreement such public liability and property damage
insurance as shall protect CITY, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and
employees, and SLOCVCB and any agents and employees perForming work covered by
this Agreement from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as
from claims for property damage which may arise from SLOCVCB's or any SLOCVCB's
operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by SLOCVCB or by anyone
directly or indirectly employed by SLOCVCB and the amounts of such insurance shall be
as follows:
(1) Public Liability Insurance. In an amount not less than (One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for injuries, including, but not limited to, death to any one
person and, subject to the same limit for each person, in an amount not less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) on account of any one occurrence:
(2) Property Damage Insurance. In an amount of not less than
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for damage to the property of each person on account of
any one occurrence.
b. Comprehensive Automobile Liabilitv. Bodily injury liability coverage of
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each person in any one accident and for injuries
sustained by two or more persons in any one accident. Property damage liability of One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each accident.
c. Workers' Com�ensation Insurance. In the amounts required by law as
set forth in Section 2.02 above.
d. Proof of Insurance. SLOCVCB shall furnish CITY, concurrently with
the execution hereof, with satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required, and
adequate legal assurance that each carrier will give CITY at least thirty (30) days' prior
notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of this Agreement. The
certificate or policy of liability of insurance shall name CITY as an additional insured with
SLOCVCB.
3.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
3.01 COOPERATION: CITY agrees to comply with all reasonable requests of
SLOCVCB necessary to the performance of SLOCVCB's duties under this Agreement.
4.00 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
4.01 TERMINATION OF NOTICE. Nofinrithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, any party hereto may terminate this Agreement, at any time, without cause
by giving at least thirty- (30) days' prior written notice to the other party to this Agreement.
4.02 TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS. This Agreement
shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party;
b. The end of the 30 days as set forth in Section 4.01;
c. June 30, 2004, unless extended per Section 1.01, above.
4.03 TERMINATION BY ANY PARTY FOR DEFAULT OF SLOCVCB: Should
any party default in the perFormance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its
provisions, a non-breaching party, at its option, may terminate this Agreement,
immediately, by giving written notice of termination to the breaching party.
5.00 MISCELLANEOUS
5.01 REMEDIES: The remedies set forth in this Agreement shall not be exclusive
but shall be cumulative with, and in addition to, all remedies now or hereafter allowed by
law or equity.
5.02 NO WAIVER: The waiver of any breach by any party of any provision of this
Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach
of this Agreement.
5.03 ASSIGNMENT: This Agreement is specifically not assignable by SLOCVCB
to any person or entity. Any assignment or attempt to assign by SLOCVCB, whether it be
voluntary or involuntary, by operation of law or otherwise, is void and is a material breach
of this Agreement giving rise to a right to terminate as set forth in Section 4.03.
5.04 ATTORNEY FEES: In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute
between the parties hereto, arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach
thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to other such relief as may be
granted, to a reasonable sum as and for attorney fees.
5.05 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE: Except as otherwise expressly provided for in
this Agreement, should the performance of any act required by this Agreement to be
performed by either party be prevented or delayed by reason by any act of God, strike,
lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure �materials, or any other cause except financial
inability not the fault of the party required to perForm the act, the time for performance of
the act will be extended for a period of time equivalent to the period of delay and
perFormance of the act during the period of delay will be excused; provided, however, that
nothing contained in this section shall exclude the prompt payment by either party as
required by this Agreement or the perFormance of any act rendered difficult or impossible
solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act.
5.06 NOTICES: Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all
notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be
served on or given to any party to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed
duly served and given when personally delivered or in lieu of such personal service when
deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid to the following address for
each respective party:
CITY: Steven Adams
City Manager
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550 — 214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
SLOCVCB: Jonni S. Biaggini
Executive Director
SLO County Visitors & Conference Bureau
1037 Mill Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
5.07 GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement and all matters relating to this
Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California in force at the time any
need for the interpretation of this Agreement or any decision or holding concerning this
Agreement arises.
5.08 BINDING EFFECT: This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to
the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties
hereto, but nothing in this section shall be construed as a consent by CITY to any
assignment of this Agreement or any interest in this Agreement.
5.09 SEVERABILITY: Should any provision of this Agreement be held by a court
of competent jurisdiction or by a legislative or rule-making act to be either invalid, void or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect, unimpaired by the holding, legislation or rule.
5.10 SOLE AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement constitutes the sole
and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This
Agreement correctly sets forth the obligations of the parties hereto to each other as of the
date of this Agreement. All agreements or representations respecting the subject matter of
this Agreement not expressly set forth or referred to in this Agreement are null and void.
5.11 TIME: Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Agreement.
5.12 DUE AUTHORITY: The parties hereby represent that the individuals
executing this Agreemer�t are expressly authorized to do so on and in behalf
of the parties.
5.13 AMENDMENTS: Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writinq and
shall be made only with the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this
Agreement.
Executed on , 2003, at Arroyo Grande, California.
�
ATTEST:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative
Services/Deputy City Clerk
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY VISITORS
& CONFERENCE BUREAU
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
c
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
:
�
Jonni S. Biaggini, Executive Director
SLO County Visitors & Conference
Bureau
Nipool Patel, President
SLO County Visitors & Conference
Bureau
councilagendaitems/vcbageementfy0203.doc
9.a.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission and the City Council of the
City of Arroyo Grande will hold Public Hearings on the following project:
WHO: City of Arroyo Grande
WHAT: Agricultural Conservation Staff Project 03-004
WHERE: City of Arroyo Grande
WHY: The Planning Commission will review . a report addressing policy
recommendations, altematives, and incentives for the conservation of
prime agricultural resources in Arroyo Grande
WHEN: PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 - C:OO P.M.
. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, Califomia 93420
CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003 - 7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, Califomia 93420
Any person affected or concemed by this application may submit written comments to the
Community Development Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, Califomia,
during normal business hours (8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.) before the Planning Commission
hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project and the
environmental impa�ts at the time of hearing.
If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Lyn Reardon-Smith, Planning Commission Secretary
o � pRROyp\
� INCORPORATE �
C� R
* JULY /0, 19/1 *
c '���FORN� P
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL ,
FRO
M: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO REDESIGNATE CERTAIN
PROPERTY TO AGRICULTURE AND TO MODIFY CERTAIN
POLICIES OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE
AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
ELEMENT; TO ESTABLISH AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS; AND TO INITIATE AN
AMENDMENT OF TITLE 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
MODIFY ALLOWABLE USES AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, MITIGATION MEASURES, BUFFER OVERLAY
DISTRICT TEXT AND MAPPING, IMPLEMENTING
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REPORT ON THE
CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the Council adopt the attached
resolution to initiate an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map to
redesignate certain property to agriculture and to modify certain policies of the
Land Use Element; to establish agricultural conservation easement and support
programs; and to initiate an amendment of Title 16 of the Municipal Code to
modify allowable uses and development standards, mitigation measures and
buffer overlay district text and mapping to implement the policies, programs and
proposed provisions discussed in the Report on the Conservation of Agricultural
Resources for fhe City Of Arroyo Grande (Agricultural Report).
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION(S)
CONCERNING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING REPORT ON CONSERVATION OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL
RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
JULY 22, 2003 �
PAGE 2
FUNDING:
No additional costs to the City are projected at this time. However,
implementation of many of the tasks outlined in the proposed resolution will result
in a substantial commitment of staff resources, particularly the Agricultural
Conservation Easement and Agriculture Enterprise programs. It is proposed to
accomplish these tasks with in house staff as staffing is available over the next
finro-year period.
DISCUSSION:
On February 14, 2003, Ordinance No. 536 became effective, which enacted a six
(6) month moratorium on the processing of land use applications proposing to
develop parcels containing prime farmland soils, to allow time for planning
studies to better assess and understand the impacts of potential conversion of
prime farmland resources. After preliminary studies and compilation of
alternatives, the City conducted a public workshop on May 28, 2003, which was
advertised and noticed to all owners of property within a 300 foot radius of
Agriculture designate�d or zoned areas within the City. On June 13, 2003, staff
published the first draft of the Agricultural Report. Subsequently, the Agricultural
Report has been modified based on public input and Planning Commission
direction. The final Agricultural Report is Attachment 1.
On June 17, July 1 and July 15, the Planning Commission held public hearings,
and, after substantial discussion and consideration of alternatives, concluded its
Resolution recommending certain General Plan Amendments and Development
Code Amendments to implement the policies, programs and proposed provisions
it considers important and appropriate to the expressed intent and purposes of
the Agricultural Report. Minutes of these Commission meetings are enclosed as
Attachment 2. The Commission's Resolution is Attachment 3.
Although there are many alternatives and possible policy revisions, as well as
additional programs and differing proposals that could be considered now or in
the future, the priority and focus of the Planning Commission's recommendations
to the City Council are two concurrent follow-up actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution to initiate consideration of certain General Plan
Amendments and other implementation programs that:
a. Change back to Agriculture the General Plan designation of four
properties, containing prime farmland soils that are currently zoned
Agriculture (See map, Attachment 4).
b. Develop an Agriculture Consenration Easement (ACE) program
and identify funding sources and a process for acquisition.
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION(S)
CONCERNING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING REPORT ON CONSERVATION OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL
RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 3
c. Work with other organizations to develop Agricultural Enterprise
incentive programs to promote and benefit local agriculture.
2. Preparations and consideration of specific Municipal Code Amendments
that:
a. Create and apply a 100 foot Agricultural Buffer Overlay District that
extends from all Agriculture zoned properties, and
b. Expand the findings for development rezoning and/or subdivision
applications involving the conversion of prime farmland soils to non-
agricultural use, and
c. Revise allowable uses and property development standards in the
Agriculture districts, and
d. Establish mitigation requirements and additional buffer
requirements for proposed developments in Agriculture districts,
and
If the Council determines to proceed with the Planning Commission
recommendations, staff proposes the following tentative schedule:
1. Planning Commission public hearing on the General Plan Amendments
and Development Code Amendments on August 19, 2003; and
2. City Council public hearing on General Plan Amendments and
Development Code Amendments on August 26, 2003.
Based on this timeline, the initiation and proper notice of these proposed actions
to affected property owners and other interested parties will allow the City to
resolve inconsistencies and apply the results of these proceedings to subsequent
development proposals.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following altematives are provided for Council's consideration:
1. Adopt the resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Modify and adopt the resolution and direct staff to pursue the preferred
policies, programs and proposals identified by Council.
3. Continue or defer action and instead introduce an ordinance to extend the
provision Ordinance No. 536 to allow further study.
4. Take no further action and allow case by case development consideration
to resume under current General Plan and Development Code provisions.
-_ ___
CITY COIJNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION(S)
CONCERNING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING REPORT ON CONSERVATION OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL
RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 4
Attachments:
Resolution implementing Recommendations from the Report on the
Conservation of Agricultural Resources for the City Of Arroyo Grande
Exhibit "A" - Report on Conservation of Prime Agricu/fura/ Resources for the
City Of Arroyo Grande
1. Draft minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of June 17, July 1,
and July 15, 2003.
2. Planning Commission Resolution.
3. Map of the four "inconsistency" parcels containing prime soils.
4. Letter received since the July 15, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
_ _ __ _ ___
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP TO REDESIGNATE CERTAIN PROPERTY TO
AGRICULTURE AND TO MODIFY CERTAIN POLICIES OF THE LAND
USE ELEMENT AND THE AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE AND
CONSERVATION ELEMENT; TO ESTABLISH AGRICULTURAL
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS; AND TO
INITIATE AN AMENDMENT OF TITLE 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
MODIFY ALLOWABLE USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
MITIGATION MEASURES, BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TEXT AND
MAPPING, IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REPORT
ON THE CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2003, #he City Council adopted Ordinance 536 which
established a moratorium on the acceptance of land use applications that seek to develop
parcels containing prime farmland soils and directed staff to prepare a study to determine
and assess the impacts of such conversion; and
WHEREAS, a public workshop was held on May 28, 2003 to solicit public input on the
preparation of the study; and �
WHEREAS, June 17, July 1, and July 15, 2003, public hearings were held bythe Planning
Commission to receive public input on the Report on the Conservation of Agricultural
Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande (Agricultural Report) attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council initia#e the preparation of an amendment of
the General Plan Land Use Map for four (4) prime agricultural properties; to establish
agricultural conservation easement and support programs; and to amend the portions of
Title 16 of the Municipal Code to establish allowable uses, mitigation measures and
development standards in order to implement recommendations from the Agricultural
Report; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing on the Agricultural
Report to receive additional testimony and evidence; and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE20F9
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the
Agricultural Report, and other evidence presented at the heacings and contained in the
record of this matter and make the following findings
A. Proximate prime agriculture within the City of Arroyo Grande is integral to the
character of the community and directly affects the City's economic and historical
significance; ,
B. The City has demonstrated a long term commitment to agricultural preservation
through long-range planning, general plan policy, zoning, the right to farm ordinance
— 419 C.S., commission of the Coordinated Agricu/ture Support Program (CASP)
study and ordinance 536;
C. Permitted conversion of prime farmlands have historically and consistently caused
detriment and eventual conversion of nearby or adjacent parcels to non agricultural
uses which in turn effect development pressure on other agricultural lands;
D. Operating farms have not been consistently or adequately protected through the
dedication or maintenance of agricultural buffers;
E. The 2001 General Plan requires Municipal Code revisions to implement relevant
policies in the Agricultural and Open Space Element, the Economic Development
Element, and the Land Use Element , and further requires the adequate review of
land use proposals, the appropriate findings of fact and necessary conditions and
specific mitigations to effect long term preservation and to protect agriculture as a
significant and irreplaceable resource of the City;
F. Successful agricultural conservation easement programs exist in comparable
communities whereby state and federal funding was made available and secured,
and agricultural conservation easements for long term preservation acquired and
maintained and the establishment of such programs would be supported by state
agencies including the San Luis Coastal Resource Conservation District and the
California Coastal Conservancy in that an agricultural easement program can
benefit long term protect�on of agricultural lands in Arroyo Grande through the use
of linked easements;
G. Successful programs exist in comparable communities that promote agri-tourism
and agri-enterprise operations in both private and public sectors that demonstrate
an economic benefit for agriculture in urban and suburban areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
hereby directs the following:
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE30F9
I. Preparation of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate to Agriculture
certain property and to modify Land Use Element policy statement LU5-13 and
Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation Element Implementation Policy
AG1-4.2.
A. The specific property to be redesignated is referenced in Tabie 3 and
on Map 13 of the Agricultural Report and identified as:
Approximately 7.4 acres, APN 007-621-023, owned by Edward
Dorfman, zoned Agriculture, redesignate on Land Use Map from
Mixed Use/Planned Development to Agriculture
2. Approximately 2.8 acres as a portion of APN 007-621-073, owned
by Edward DorFinan, zoned Agriculture; redesignate on Land Use
Map from Mixed Use%Planned Development to Agriculture (Note:
the remaining portion of this parcel is currently zoned Highway
Commercial and is not recommended for redesignation)
3. 1.64 acres, APN 007-621-001, owned by the Japanese Welfare
Association, zoned Agriculture; redesignate on Land Use Map from
Mixed Use/Planned Development to Agriculture
4. 4.92 acres, APN 007-761-022, owned by Bruce Vanderveen,
zoned Agriculture; redesignate on Land Use Map from Rural
Residential to Agriculture
B. 1. Land Use Element Policy Statement LU5-13 shall be deleted in its
entirety. �
2. Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Implementation Policy AG1-4.2 shall be amended as follows:
AG1-4.2 Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime
farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime
farmland soils at a ratio of up to �:a- 2:1 with regard to the
acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural
use as determined bv the City Council. Permanent
protection may involve, but is not limited to, dedication of a
perpetual agriculture or conservation easement or other
effective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen as
mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime farmland
soils. Suitability of the land chosen as mitigation �esa#+s�►
shall be approved by the City Council. The aim
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE40F9
shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils
primarily within and contiguous to City boundaries, secondly
within the Urban Land Use Element area, and thirdly within
the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La Cienega Valley
within the Area of Environmental Concern. Other potential
mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland
soils include payment of in-lieu fees or such other mitigation
acceptable to the City CounciL
3. ACO/SE Policy Ag6-1 shall be amended as follows:
Ag6-1 Ag zoning classifications shall prescribe minimum parcel
sizes of 20-acres for cultivated, irrigated and/pr prime agricultural
land and 4A 20 acres�for non-cultivated, non-irrigate and/or non-
prime agricultural lands.
I1. Preparation of a resolution to:
A. Develop an Agriculture Conservation Easement program and direct staff to
outline potential funding and the process for acquiring Agriculture
Conservation Easements as outlined in the Agricultural Report, Section VI.J
and as follows:
To implement General Plan Policy AG1-3 AG/C/OS.15-21, ED3, and CASP Action
Plan Alternative 5.3, create an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
(ACEP) to address the predominant agricultural parcels within the City that do not
meet minimum criteria and are not eligible for Williamson Act contracts. The
program should provide for "linked" easements to create larger areas for protection
and agricultural operations. Components of the program should include:
1. Apply for funding from the California Coastal Conservancy or the California
Conservation Department to set up the ACEP and develop a model agricultural
conservation easement, determine funding mechanisms including mitigation
funds and special taxes or assessments, and determine if there is a benefit for
easements limited to 10, 20 or 30 years.
2. Develop an Arroyo Grande chapter of the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo
County or partner with the San Luis Coastal Resource Conservation District,
including policies for organization and management.
3. Develop an education and outreach workshop for local farmers to individually
meet with American Farmland Trust or ofher qualified consultants to discuss and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5 OF 9
calculate the costs and benefits of placing agricultural conservation easements
on their land.
4. Develop a mechanism in conjunction w.ith the County Assessor to identify and
describe tax relief or other incentives for farmers to provide more acceptable
terms and conditions for voluntary agricultural conservation easements.
B. Work with local Farm Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, Cal Poly and other
organizations to develop an Agricultural Enterprise program to promote and
benefit local agriculture as outlined in the Agricultural Report, Section V1.5.G.
1. Create a program that provides for cooperative produce sales at a common
location.
2. Host a small-parcels farming workshop in conjunction with the University of
California Small Farm Center and Cal Poly's Sustainable Ag Program.
3. Allow agri-tourism and agricultural related directional signage such as farm-stay
or winery location sign provisions. Work with the County's Farm Bureau in
exploring ways and means of implementing an agri-tourism program.
4. Develop an education and outreach program aimed at heightening public
awareness of the cost-benefits of agriculture preservation.
III. Preparation of an ordinance to amend Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code (AGMC) as follows:
A. Amend AGMC Section16.24.020 creating a agricultural buffer overlay
district of 100 feet around all parcels designated and zoned agriculture as
outlined in the Agricultural Report, Section VI.C, and per the example
ordinance contained in Appendix E. as follows:
Establish a zoning overlay implementing a 100 foot minimum buffer around all
Agricufture property as depicted on the map in E-1 to implement General Plan
Policy AG5-2, applicable to all new development or redevelopment that is
adjacent to Agricultural property. The buffer shall include a 20 foot landscaped
strip as described in the 2001 General Plan. Greater buffers may also be
required upon the recommendation of the San Luis County Agricultural
Commissioner. A partial exception may be allowed if it can be demonstrated
that an adequate physical buffer (such as Arroyo Grande Creek) exists between
the agricultural use �nd the non-agricultural use if approved by the County
Agricultural Commissioner.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE60F9
B. Amend AGMC Section 16.28.16.040 and 16.20.060 to incorporate expanded
findings for rezoning applications and subdivisions as outlined in the �
Agricuitural Report, Section VI.A.1 and VI.A.2 as follows:
To implement General Plan Policy AG 3-14 and 3-15, include additional findings
specific to approving rezoning applications in Agriculture districts in
Development Code Section 16.16.040 (Amendments to zoning districts and
other provisions), which are derived in part from the Williamson Act:
a. That the uneconomic nature of the agricultural use is primarily attributable to
circumstances beyond the control of the landowner and the City, and there
are no other reasonable or comparable agricultural uses to which the land
may be put, either individually or in combination with other adjacent prime
farmland parcels; and �
b. The proposed change in zone (or revision to this title) is for a parcel, or for a
contiguous set of parcels, that is legally nonconforming as to minimum area
in the Agriculture district; and
c. The proposed change in zone (or revision to this title) will not result in,
intensify, or contribute to discontiguous patterns of urban development; and
d. The proposed change in zone (or revision to this title) will not likely result in
the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use; and
e. The proposed change in zone (or revision to this title) is for an alternative
use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City General
Plan; and
f. That there is no proximate land, which is both available and suitable that
would provide more contiguous pattems of urban development than
development of proximate non-prime farmland.
2. To implement General Plan Policy AG5-2, revise AGMC Section 16.20.060
(Land Divisions) to include the following finding necessary for proposals to
subdivide prime farmfand and/or lands adjoining an Agriculture district: For a
proposed subdivision that includes, or is adjacent to, prime farmland, or is within
an Agriculture district; that the design of the tentative map or proposed
improvements provides an adequate buffer as determined through
environmental review under CEQA to minimize potential conflicts befinreen
agricultural and nonagricultural land uses and to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE70F9
C. Amend AGMC Section 16.28.030 to revise allowable uses in Agricultural
districts as outlined in the Agricultural Report, Section VI.A.3 and VI.A.4 as
foliows:
1. To implement General Plan Policy AG3-1 and AG3-7, revise AGMC Section
16.28.030-A No. B1 to include: Ranch and Farm dwellings appurtenant to a
principal agricultural use as permitted. Single Family detached dwellings on
conforming lots as permitted. Single Family detached dwellings on legal non-
conforming lots as permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to
Section 16.16.050. (AGMC Section 16.16.050-D.2 requires the approving body
to make the finding that the proposed use would not impair the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be established or located.)
2. To implement General Plan Policy AG1-1.2, AG3-4, and AG4-4 revise AGMC
Table 16.28.030-A No. C. (Commercial Uses) to include the foflowing subject to
Conditional Use Permits: greenhouses (with specific performance criteria),
wholesale nurseries, guest ranches, and large animal veterinary offices; and No.
E. (Public/Quasi-Public Uses� include public facilities when required by health,
safety, or public welfare, and community gardens as conditionally permitted.
D. Amend AGMC Section 16.28.040 to revise standards as outlined in
Agricultural Report, Section VI.A.S as follows:
1. To implement General Plan Policy AG3-10, revise AGMC Table 16.28.040-A
to include a Maximum Building Site Area of 1 acre.
2. To implement General Plan Policy AG3-10, revise AGMC Section 16.28.040B. to
include the following language: Accessory buildings and structures shall be
sited to minimize disruption of agricultural operations, avoid conversions of
productive farmland and take maximum advantage of existing infrastructure.
3. To implement General Plan Policy AG3-11, revise AGMC Section16.28.040B to
include a Maximum Density of 2 dwelling units for parcels equal or larger than
20 acres and 1 dwelling per parcel for parcels less than 20 acres.
4. To implement General Plan Policy AG6-1, revise AGMC Section 16.28.040B to
reduce the minimum parcel size of 20 acres.
E. Amend AGMC Section 16.28 to include mitigation requirements and
additional buffer requirements for proposed development in agriculture
districts as outlined in Agricultural Report, Section VI.B and per the
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 8 OF 9
example ordinance contained in Appendix F. as follows:
To implement General Plan Policy A1-4, adopt a prime farmland conversion
mitigation ordinance that provides for permanent agricultural conservation
easements on prime farmland at a ratio of 2 to 1 with regard to acreage of land
converted from the capability for agricultural use.
On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2003.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE90F9
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT A
Report on Conservation of Prime Agricultural Resources for
the City Of Arroyo Grande.
CONTENTS
IBACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 3
2001 GENERAL PLAN - AGRICULTCJRE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ................ 3
COORDINAT'ED AGRICiJI.,TURAL SUPPORT PROGRAM ................................................................... 4
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 16.28 - AGRICLJI..TURAL ZONING ..................................................... 5
II INVENTORY OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................... 6
GIS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 6
Map 1— Arroyo Grande Agriculture by Zoning (1991) and Land Use Element (2001) ........ 8
Map 2— Arroyo Grande Agriculture by Parcel Size (Zoning, 1991) ..................................... 9
Map 3— Arroyo Grande Agriculture by Parcel Size (Land Use Element, 2001) ................. 1 D
Map 4— Class I, II and III Soils within the City ................................................................... 11
Map S— Parcels with Class I and II Soils by Parcel Size .............................:....................... 12
Map 6— Class I, II and III Soils Classified Agriculture (Zoning, 1991) .............................. 13
Map 7— Class I, II and III Soils Designated Agriculture (Land Use, 2001) ........................ 14
Map 8— Arroyo Grande Agriculture by Parcel Size (Zoning, 1991) ................................... 1 S
Map 9— Active Agriculture Zoning (1991) and Land Use Element (2001) .......................... 16
Map 10 — Zoning and Open Space Contract Status of County Land South of the City........ 17
Map 11— Zoning and Open Space Contract Status of County Land Northeast of the City . 18
III PUBLIC COMMENT .....................................................................................................19
REVIEW OF PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE CASP STUDY AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE .....:.. 19
AGRICULTURAL wORKSHOP; MAY 28, 20�3 ............................................................................. 19
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1 �, 2��3 ..................................................................... 20
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'I'ING TULY 1, 2003 ....................................................................... ZO
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS (SEE APPENDIX C FOR COPIES) ...................................................... 2O
IV GROWTH AND CHANGE ........................................................................................... 22
HISTORICAL .............................................................................................................. 22
ECONOMIC BENEFIT ................................................................................................................... 22
SMALL AGRICULTURE ........................................................................................................ 23
EDGE ISSUES .............................................................................................................................. 24
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE AGRICULTURAL ST'CJDY ................ 24
V AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION / PREVENTION OF URBAN
CONVERSIONS......................................................................................................................... 25
WHEN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSTITUTES A CONVERSION OF PRIME FARMLAND............ 25
LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA� ................................................................. 25
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ....................................................:.................................................... 26
MITIGATION 1VIEASURES ............................................................................................................ 2fi
Buffers .... ...... .. .. . ... .... ....... .. .. .... ..... ...:. ...... ... .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . ... . .. .. ... .. .. ...... .. .. 26
Mitigation ordinances and policies ...................................................................................... 29
InLieu Fees ...............................................:........:.................................................................. 29
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS ...................................................................................... 30
PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ..................................................... 3O
WILLIAMSON ...................................................................................................................... 31
Potential Conversions in the City of Arroyo Grande ............................................................ 32
Inconsistencies Between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map ................. 32
Reconsider General Plan Classiftcations ............................................................................. 35
VI ��INSIDE TI3E BOX" ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 36
I. ZONING �RDINANCE REVISIONS ............................................................................................ 36
Rezoning of Agriculturally Zoned Lands .............................................................................. 36
II Subdivisions in Agriculture Districts .............................................................................. 36
III. Allowed Incompatible Development on Agriculturally Zoned Parcels ......................... 37
IV. Allowed Uses in Agricultural Districts .......................................................................... 37
V. Agricultural Site Development Standards ....................................................................... 38
MI 'I'IGATION �RDINANCE ........................................................................................................... 38
Example Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 38
for Subdivision and Rezoning ofAgricultural Land ............................................................. 38
BiJFFERS .................................................................................................................................... 39
I. Ordinance for new or re-development ............................................................................... 39
II. Zoning Overlay for Buffers ........................................................................................... 39
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDIT ORDINANCE ................................................................... 39
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................ 40
SUPPORT LOCAL AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE .......................................................................... 41
VII "OUTSIDE THE BOX" ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. 41
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 43
✓.
REPORT ON THE
CONSERVATION OF PRIME AGRIGULTURAL RESOURCES
IN THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2003 the City Council Adopted Ordinance 536 which implemented a
moratorium on the acceptance of land use applications that. seek to develop parcels
containing prime farmland soils. This moratorium has been in effect since February 14,
2003 and will expire on August 13, 2003, unless extended.
2001 General Plan — A_Ariculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Under the 1990 and 2001 General Plans, most of the Class I, II, and adjoining Class III
soils within the City were designated as "Agricultural." The Open Space and
Conservation Element, as well as the Land Use Element of the 1990 General Plan,
contained goals and policies to "preserve and protect" viable agricultural uses within
and adjacent to the City. This included prevention of continued conversion of
agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, particularly involving prime soils. The
concepts of "transfer of development rights" or credits (TDR or TDC) and separation or
"buffer areas" befinreen agricultural and urban uses were introduced as possible
implementation actions that the City and County might utilize.
The 2001 General Plan reinforced these goals and policies and emphasized the
importance of agriculture by the adoption of an optional Agricultural, Conservation and
Open �Space Element. The agriculture portion of the element contains six (6) objectives,
each with several policies intended to preserve and protect prime farmland and
conserve other agriculture, open space, and natural resource lands. Loss of prime
farmland soils was determined to be a significant adverse environmental impact per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requiring consideration of an
Environmental lmpact Report (EIR). Possible mitigation for loss of prime farmland soils
includes, but is not limited to, permanent protection at a 1:1 ratio of prime agricultural
soil within and contiguous to the City boundaries. Other potential mitigation measures
mentioned include payment of in-lieu fees or other mitigation acceptable to the City. The
basic objective, however, is to avoid conversion or "fragmentation" of areas with prime
farmland soils by directing potential growth to more suitable locations. To emphasize
this strategy, adopted General Plan policy Ag 1-4.3 specifically states:
"Only after the imposition of available mitigation and consideration of
alternatives to avoid the proposed action (conversion or loss) may the City
Council approve development on prime farmland soils subject to
overridinq considerations as permitted by CEQA section 15093."
Another adopted General Plan policy Ag 3-6, encourages lot mergers and
consolidations to qualify for conservation easements or Williamson Act contracts
3
,.,.��.... � .� �... �, . . . _ ,_._,�_��_._.�....
generally requiring ten (10.) acres of prime farmland to qualify for tax retief. To prevent
excessive building on prime farmland soils, Ag 3-10.4 restricts building sites to no more
than 1 acre per parcel. Ag 5-2 outlines several specific criteria for "buffers" between
agriculture land use and non-agricultural land use designations, including at least 100
feet from agricultural operations to any new residential structure with a minimum of 20
feet of landscaping screen. Greater distances may be required based on site-specific
circumstances, including type of farming practices, building orientation, wind direction,
or other factors.
The purpose of this study is to further evaluate cumulative impacts and alternatives to
agricultural conversion and propose additional alternative agricultural preservation
strategies. The study divides the agricultural designated districts into a northeast area
and southeast area, each discussed and mapped in finro sectors. In addition, finro
smaller isolated agricultural use properties surrounded by urban developments are
considered potential conservation or conversion study sub areas, one near East Cherry
and Traffic Way and the other near The Pike and South Elm Street.
Coordinated Agricultural Support Program
The Coordinated Agricultural Support Program (CASP) report created by "Perspective
Planning" for the City of Arroyo Grande and the State Coastal Conservancy in 1994
(Updated 1996 and 1997) is a thorough study and excellent reference that serves as a
starting point for this current study. In addition to agriculture within the City limits, the
CASP study included unincorporated land to the northeast of the City between Branch
Mill Road and Huasna Road and large tracts of land south of the City that extend into
the unincorporated parts of the Cienega Valley.
The agricultural trends and land use data from the CASP project is an invaluable
reference for this current study. Table 1 illustrates the more specific nature of this
current study as related to the City of Arroyo Grande and the CASP study of the Greater
Arroyo Grande Valley.
Table 1
CASP CASP Current Study
(includes areas (within City limlts) (within City limits)
� outslde of Ci limits)
Applicable agricultural parcels 168 61 61 or 67*
Parcels with active agriculture 106 27 27
Different land owners 51 36 32
Acres of agriculturat lands 2,157 357 339 or 355*
Acres of land in agricultural 1,967 274 213
production
* The number of parcels designated as agriculture varies due to differences between the 1991 Zoning
Map and the Land Use Map from the 2001 General Plan Update.
�
The current study also serves to update CASP study data. For instance, the CASP
study states that there were 28 agriculture parcels in the City of Arroyo Grande, while
the current study has identified 61 or 67 depending upon either the Zoning Map of 1991
or the Land Use Map from the 2001 General Plan. In addition, the total number of acres
of agriculture land varies greatly from the CASP study (282) and the current study (339
or 355). This difference in the numbers of agriculture parcels and agricultural acreage is
due to defintions used in each study, not by the addition of parcels to agriculture land
use.
The CASP study was also used to provide baseline numbers about Arroyo Grande
agriculture in general. For instance the CASP study stresses the importance and rarity
of the year-round growing conditions combined with the presence of prime farmland
soils within the Arroyo Grande Valley. Surveys of farmers about crop production are
clearly beyond the scope of the current study. However, using the CASP study, it was
possible to roughly estimate the value of agriculture crops produced within the City of
Arroyo Grande. This task was accomplished by multiplying the average crop value per
acre per year ($4,000) given in the CASP study by the number of acres of active
farming operations estimated by this cur�'ent study (213). The result of this formula is an
estimated annual crop value of $852,000 for products grown within the City of Arroyo
Grande.
Municipal Code Section 16.28 — Agricultural Zoninq
Municipal Code Section 16.28 defines allowable uses, regulations and development
standards for agricultural zones within the City of Arroyo Grande. Section 16.28.020
defines finro agricultural zones within the City of Arroyo Grande — General Agriculture
(AG) and Agricultural Preserve (AP). Section 16.28.020 (A) states, "The primary
purpose of the AG district is to provide for and protect lands for agricultural crop
production, grazing, limited sales of agricultural products, and limited agricultural
support industries and services." Section 16.28.020 (B) states that the primary purpose
of the AP district is to provide for and protect lands for which Williamson Act contracts
have been or should be signed. Both agriculture zones allow for single-family detached
residential dwellings at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 10.0 gross acres as
well as accessory housing for farm workers. There are several 2001 General Plan
policies that require revisions to the Development Code to implement new policy.
N7
il INVENTORY OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
GIS Anaivsis
An analysis of agriculture lands within the City of Arroyo Grande was performed using a
Geographic Information system (GIS). A geographic information system is computerized
mapping software that allows for the storage and graphic retrieval of spatial information
about a place.
Map one was created using parcel, land use, and zoning data compiled by Applied
Geodetics for the City of Arroyo Grande. This map illustrates the difference befinreen
parcels designated as Agriculture under the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element and
the 1991-zoning map. According to the zoning map there are 355 acres of Agriculture
land within the City of Arroyo Grande while the new land use map indicates 329 acres.
The difference illustrated in Map one represents a potential reduction of 26 acres of
Agriculture zoned lands within the City of Arroyo Grande.. This potential reduction does
not include non-agriculturally zoned properties containing agricultural uses that were
converted during this time period. �
Maps two and three illustrate land zoned or designated in the Land Use Element as
Agriculture by parcel size. These maps indicate that large agricultural parcels within the
City of Arroyo Grande are to the south of the 101 Freeway and immediately adjacent to
the northeast edge of the Village, while the Agriculture parcels in the far northeast
section of the City have been fragmented into smaller lots.
Map four uses soil data from the County of San Luis Obispo in conjunction with the
City's parcel data to iltustrate the location, type, and amount of Class I, II, and III soils
within the City of Arroyo Grande. The GIS analysis indicates that there are
approximately 500 acres of soils within the City of Arroyo Grande that are considered
prime agriculture soils (Class I or Class II). Geologically, these soils are associated with
the Arroyo Grande and Corbett Canyon (Tally Ho) Creeks, which in the past have
overflowed their banks and deposited fertile soils onto the flat lands. It is easy to see
that a substantial portion of the City of Arroyo Grande, including most of the Village, was
built upon prime agricultural land. There are several linear bands of Class III soils within
the City limits. Although not considered "prime" soils, two patches of Class III soils are
present in the lands zoned "Agriculture" and have been, according to one source,
producing at seemingly comparable rates as its neighboring Class I and II soils.
Map five was generated to evaluate the relationship between Class I and II soils and
parcel size. The patterns presented indicate that there are large parcels (10 acres or
larger) that contain Class I and II soils south of the 101 Freeway and in a limited number
adjacent to northeast edge of the Village. Additionally, the patterns indicate a
fragmentation of Class I and II soils into small parcels throughout the Village and more
recently (1960 on) in the historically agricultural dominated northeastern and
southeastern sections of the City.
Maps six and seven utilized the geographic information system to isolate and display
Class I, II, and III soils that are zoned or designated in the Land Use Element as
C�
�_�....__ �. _ �.,..---�--......._
Agriculture. These two maps indicate that there are 253 acres of Class I and II soils
zoned for Agriculture and 235 acres designated as Agriculture in the Land Use Element.
The difference of land in these finro maps indicates a potential reduction of 18 acres of
prime agricultural soils.
Map eight is very similar to maps two and three in that it shows Agriculture parcels by
size. However, map eight shows that there are only four Agriculture parcels that are
targer than 20 acres.
Map nine indicates the presence of active growing operations on parcels designated or
zoned for Agriculture. This data was generated from the review of high-resolution aerial
photographs. Most farming operations such as the growing of row crops and green
houses are easily identified, but operations such as cattle grazing are not and could not
be included. It is also important to realize that the aerial photographs provide a
momentary snapshot of farming that takes place over seasons and years. It is possible
that some fields may be lying fallow and have not been identified. This map atso
illustrates a correlation between small lot size in the northeast Agriculture lands and the
fack of active growing operations. �
When viewed together, these maps illustrate the cumulative potential reduction of prime
agricultural soils over the history of the City of Arroyo Grande. This started with the
founding of the original commercial center of the City, the Village, on prime agricultural
land and continues today in the form of incremental conversions of land to non-
agriculture uses. In quantitative terms, the GIS analysis shows the cumulative effects of
time and land use decisions in the fact that the City of Arroyo Grande at one time had
the potential use of over 500 acres of prime agricultural land (Class I and II soils) but
today it has 235 acres of prime soils designated Agricultural.
Maps ten and eleven indicate the zoning and Open Space contract status of land within
the County but adjacent to the City of Arroyo Grande. These maps indicate that land
zoned as Agriculture continues north through the Arroyo Grande Valley and south into
the Cienega Valley. These map also indicate the prevalence of land contracted to open
space or Agriculture use through programs such as the Williamson Act.
7
�
C J lJ
`
/� ..
-�
�
��
' ���;�-:
.
!II
I � «'L ��/,
.7►�3�?=�
i� ����
' ;; a�
� �i
� �.��.-',c,'.
� �u�.e
' � I/V � ' �Y✓ ,'
��4►�' •
� � • � �\� �-� `
� �� `��� i.. ��.��
� Tf� .�ni .t� �iv
�
�
- :� . �, .
" , �� a �`'°' f
� • s---�
.
III
U � rr+� l L i-� �! I � r� i r� � �I (�
`�.!' � / • .,
. •��, ����_:
III
r! �
k
----ti
��.It� f � �+^^' .
......... ....u..• u.�..�,.. �
1 T
i�r� • - ' �
� /fN� � �I1]\ �
�iu : j ��'•+• :J:_ , �` �!�
- - ►� ��.
_ � �-.._......�
Map 11
Zoningand .
Open Space ContractStatus
of County Land Northeastof the
City of Arroyo Grande .
�' ..
0
.
AG =Agriculture a +
OSC = Open Space Contract•-- S� a �
Base map from CASP study. Zoning and cantract status from the +l+ .tAG � AG �. oSC
Office of the County Asse"ssor � a ,� A � OSC
!/1a. .. a�'�� AG ..wy"�'. ,�,
0
i
E
,
HWY 101��
�
0
III PUBLIC COMMENT
Review of Pubiic Comment Durinq the CASP Study and General Plan Update
CASP study interviews and the survey done for the 2001 General Plan Update indicate
strong community support for agriculture and strong concern among farmers that
protection will be at their expense and to the detriment of their property rights.
Agricultural Workshop; May 28, 2003
On May 28, 2003, the Community Development Department hosted and moderated an
agricultural workshop that served to introduce staff studies and seek participants' views,
concerns, and ideas about the future of agriculture on prime soils within the City of
Arroyo Grande. This meeting was noticed to the general public in the Times Press
Recorder and flyers advertising the workshop were sent to all owners of land zoned as
"Agriculture," to all owners of property that is within 300 feet of land zoned "Agriculture"
and to interested organizations and individuals. In addition, a press release announcing
the workshop was sent to various news organizations. A copy of the press release, a list
of the organizations noticed and workshop attendees are in Appendix B.
The initial presentation at the workshop was delivered by Community Development staff
members and served #o inform the audience of the provisions of Ordinance 536, review
information from the CASP report, and to introduce agricultural preservation programs
that are currently in use by other municipalities.
Jeff Garcia and Jenny Lester of the American Farmland Trust informed Community
Development staff and the audience about the use and effectiveness of conservation
easements in the preservation of agricultural land. An example in Madera County was
presented where agricultural easements placed over multiple properties effected a
"Farmland Security" area at the west edge of the city.
Before, during, and after the formal presentations, the audience members asked
questions and provided input about the preservation of prime soils. Important ideas and
issues discussed included the preservation and improvement of the agriculture industry
in general, the marketing of crops to the local area, overall tax implications for
agricultural easements, lack of local agribusiness and water issues. Also discussed by
the participants were the issues of property rights in general, the validity of conservation
easements, and the need for sustainable farming programs. Participants emphasized
that benefits of agriculture are community-wide, but that often the burdens are placed
solely upon farmers and ranchers.
19
Planninq Commission Meetinq June 17, 2003
Public comments from the June 17, 2003 Planning Commission meeting ranged from
procedural criticism of the Agricultural study in general to specific comments and
suggestions about the use of agricultural buffers, conservation easements, and
discouragement of the use of clustered developments on prime farm land as a
mitigation tool. Collectively, the public comment session reinforced the realization that
the conservation of agricultural lands is a complicated process, with many variables,
and any decisions made can have negative or positive effects in the fabric of the
community. Closely related to this realization was the concept that the conservation of
prime farmlands goes beyond and is affected by variables outside of the City's
jurisdiction. Examples include the national and statewide conversion of prime soils for
urban uses, the projected population growth of the State of Califomia, and Central
Coast Region's current shortage of affordable housing.
Probably the most important suggestions that came from this public comment session
was the request for more opportunities for public discussion and comment and any
agricultural conservation measures that are implemented require broad community
support to avoid agricultural policy changes with every election cycle.
Planninq Commission Meeting July 1, 2003
Public comments from the July 1, 2003 Planning Commission meeting consisted of
many concepts including that the City continue to take a leadership role in the protection
of prime agricultural lands; the economics of agriculture including the difficulties
associated with keeping small parcels of farm land viable and a concern that
preservation of agricultural lands may help those with a slow growth agenda; the
encouragement of staff to investigate the possibility of agricultural public relations
programs and to look to the efforts of other municipalities for examples; and the warning
that the City needs to create agricultural conservation policies that are reasonable or
else they will be undone by subsequent City Councils.
Public Comment Letters (See appendix C for copies)
Two members of the public submitted letters to the Community Development
Department stating their views about agriculture consenration. The Saruwatari Family
stated that churches, schools, and housing developments are not compatible uses
adjacent to farmlands, buffer zones with deed restrictions should be created on lands
adjacent to farming operations, and that the City of Arroyo Grande should stand behind
its Right to Farm Ordinance.
Mr. Otis Page of Arroyo Grande wrote two letters stating the power of perpetuity
associated with conservation easements. Mr. Page states, "Conservation easement[s]
wipes out any future change in the possible use of that land through changes in culture,
changes in people's needs, or even dynamic natural changes in the land itself." Mr.
Page suggests that if conservation easements are employed over his strenuous
objections, realistic time periods of 10 to 30 years should be used.
20
In addition, the Community Development Department received a letter from a Mr. Nick
Alter regarding the June 17, 2003 draft report, suggesting clarification and corrections
and recommending reference to the General Plan's Economic Element - ED3 policy
statement which states, "Encourage and support the retention and expansion of
Agriculture business activities." Mr. Alter also suggested that the City develop an
education and outreach program aimed at heightening public awareness of the cost-
benefits of Agriculture conservation.
21
IV GROWTH AND CHANGE
Historical Heritaqe
Farming in what is today the City of Arroyo Grande began well over a century ago with
the earliest settlers clearing the lands of brush and trees. The turn of the Twentieth
Century saw prize winning vegetables coming from the fertile soils of the Arroyo Grande
Valley. The late teens saw the success of Japanese berry farmers and World War II era
effects on agriculture in Arroyo Grande through the internment of Japanese Americans
who farmed the land. Other historically important agricultural events include the
changes involved in the shipping of locally grown crops from horse drawn wagons to
trains after the arrival of the railroad at Pismo Beach in 1881 and finally by trucks
starting in the 1920's.
Agriculture is viewed as a time-honored and vital part of community identity that
perpetuates the City's social and economic significance. However, some view
agriculture in Arroyo Grande as endangered; soon to become a historical reflection of
the City's past. This can affect the way� farmers plan their future. Farms in urbanized
areas are subject to an impermanence syndrome" where farmers perceive conversion
��•
is inevitable, cease long-term investments and farm for the short term (Institute for Local
Self Governments, 2002).
While the City has historically demonstrated agricultural preservation goals through
long-range planning, general plan policies, zoning, and a right to farm ordinance, a
historical review of aerial photos depicts that there have been several land use
approvals that have contributed to either the dire�t or cumulative decline of qc�ality and
quantity of Arroyo Grande Agriculture. However, recent efforts, including the
commission of the CASP study, the addition of the optional Agricultural Element (and
the community commitment apparent in surveys conducted for these documents), and
voluntary participation in Williamson Act contracts, are evidence of a strong commitment
to sustain the City's agricultural heritage.
Economic Benefit
The CASP study estimated that the 2,500 agricultural acres of the Arroyo Grande Valley
yielded an estimated $10 million of produce. As mentioned earlier in this study, it is
estimated that the value of crops grown on the 213 acres of active agriculture lands
within the City of Arroyo Grande total over $850,000 annually. The financial impact and
power of this money is increased in the local economy by an economic multiplier effect.
Reportedly, however farmers need to yield $3,000 -$5,000/acre in order to contribute to
this economic benefit. Smaller farms struggle to compete with larger agricultural
operations. There are some intangible or indirect economic benefits of urban farming
including providing nearby residents with locally grown produce, providing jobs without
commute, and food security. Some urban farms document more food per acre than
larger, more "industrial" farms due to strategic planting (Goleta Valley Urban Agricultural
newsletter).
22
Small Lot Aqriculture
The northeast agricultural section of the City contains many small parcels (under 5
acres) that feature prime soils that are not currently used for active agriculture. This lack
of active farming may be due to the fact. that smaller lot sizes and non-contiguous
agriculture parcels make it difficult for large farm equipment to operate, thereby
reducing a farmer's economy of scale and profit margin. Although difficult, small lot
farming can be successful if operated and marketed wisely. A general rule of small lot
farming is that as the parcel size decreases the more intense the land must be farmed
or crops that bring higher market prices must be grown. In addition to this general
technique, small lot farmers can sell to niche markets by growing specialty crops or
utilize organic growing methods.�Another successful technique of small lot farming is to
sell products when demand is high and supply is low. This can be done if small lot
farmers can harvest their crops earlier or later in the growing season by utilizing
temporary greenhouses, also known as field tunnels. Lastly, owners of small lot
agriculture parcels may be interested in becoming part-time farmers or leasing their land
to part-time farmers. One way to accommodate part time and small lot farming would be
for the City to lease portions of small agriculture parcels to create a community garden
program. A community garden program would serve to increase public awareness of
agriculture in the City.
Another important aspect of profitable small lot farming is the ability to sell produce to
retail customers. Currenfly, the Farmer's Markets that exist on the Central Coast are
unable to accommodate new sellers and have established waiting lists. Preference or
priority could be assigned to local farmers, including small lot growers.
Public Relations Campaiqns
Many communities have programs in place that help to annually celebrate local
agriculture and the success of the local harvest. Examples of these programs include
our own Strawberry and Harvest Festivals; the California Strawberry Festival held in
Oxnard, California, and the Gilroy Garlic Festival. The continuation and support of these
programs help to reinforce the tradition of agriculture in the local community. It has been
suggested that the City of Arroyo Grande and its � people can go even further by
developing programs that educate the public about the operations of agriculture in
general and more specifically about the economic benefits of a healthy local agriculture
industry. The City of Arroyo Grande and its citizens have several important resources to
help in these types of efforts including the Sustainable Agriculture Program at Cal Poly
and the University of California' s Small Farm Project, which has offices in the City of
San Luis Obispo.
Other educational and public relations efforts include agri-tourism operations and
roadside signage of crops. Many successful agri-tourism operations have been started
in surrounding communities and include private businesses in the Salinas Valley and an
association of wineries in Paso Robles. One example of agricultural public relations is
the Washington State University program in which signs identifying crops are given to
farmers to place in their fields in an effort to educate residents and visitors of the
successful regional crops.
23
EdAe Issues
Many issues have been identified in areas where agricultural operations and housing
meet. It is important to note that these negative aspects are felt by farmers and
res'idents alike. Issues identified by farmers include: trespassing, theft, vandalism, litter,
legal liability, food safety, pests, restrictions, work interFerence, and water/erosion.
Conversely, issues identified by residents who live adjacent to agricultural operations
include: pesticides, pollen, dust, smoke, noise, bees, flies, odors, trucks, lights, and
rodents (Great Valley Center, p. 10).
Edge issues throughout the County of San Luis Obispo and specifically in the Arroyo
Grande/Halcyon areas have generated a handful of newspaper articles. These articles
tell of possible pesticide related medical problems. (Tribune, January 15, 2002, The
Newtimes, May 9, 2002)
Newspaper reports have also illustrated the fact that edge issues may affect the type of
crops and the methods in which they are produced. Specifically, the Tribune and the
Times Press Recorder both reported that The Temple of the People, which owns the 30
acre strawberry field adjacent to the City of Arroyo Grande and currently farmed by
Obayashi Farms, is attempting to identify farmers who would like to plant different crops
(The Tribune, December 25, 2002, Times Press Recorder, December 27, 2002).
Relationship Between the Housinq Element and the Agricultural Study
The population in Arroyo Grande has increased from 3,291 in 1960 to 16,523 today,
with fluctuating annual rates from less than 2% since the 1980s to a rate exceeding
12% in the 1960's. The City experienced growth of 10.2% during the period of 1990 to
2000. The City is currently updating the Housing Element of the General Plan to
address residential growth issues. Many goals of the Housing Element update and this
study are related. Both efforts aim to direct infill development and better define and
defend the City's urban boundaries to avoid sprawl and preserve open space and
agricultural lands. The focus of the Housing Element update includes increasing
allowable densities in infill areas and addressing regional housing needs despite local
resource, service and environmental constraints. Part of the Housing Element update
consists of a housing opportunity sites inventory, which has been considered in this
study for a possible Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) program discussed in
sections V and VI. Both the Housing Element update and this study propose policies to
provide urban agricultural protection for rural community character preservation.
�
V AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION / PREVENTION OF URBAN CONVERSIONS
When Proposed Development Constitutes a Conversion of Prime Farmland
A Conversion of prime farmland in urban areas occurs numerous ways, some more
obvious than others. Land rezoned for non-agricultural use or approved subdivisions
are two apparent conversion processes rapidly occurring throughout California. A third,
less apparent, practice is a recognized division of land without a rezone or subdivision
by an issued certificate of compliance. Residential development of antiquated
subdivisions can occur in the middle of agriculturally zoned areas without public notice
or discretionary review. Lastly, conversion of farmland also happens incrementally
when non-agricultural development encroaches, in the vicinity or adjacent to prime
farmland operations. The conversion generally occurs through a combination of factors
including conflicts over incompatible uses limiting agricultural production, cessation of
farming operations and irrigation, and increased land prices leading to eventual sales
and use depicting that of a rural residential district.
Historically, the City has allowed conversions, applying typical conditions of approval
which has led to increased pressure on remaining acreages of farmland within the City
See Map 12). An example of this is the approval of Tract Map 2217, the Walnut View
subdivision project on East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. The City requested
comments from other agencies during environmental review. Comments from County's
Department of Agriculture included the loss of prime agricultural soil, non-agricultural
land use conversion pressure, and suggested mitigations, including the provision of a
350 foot buffer. However the approvals did not include a buffer and it has been
demonstrated that this action has increased development pressure on both Branch Mill
Road area and Cherry Avenue/Traffic Way agricultural parcels that were redesignated
in the 2001 General Plan from Agriculture.
Right to Farm Provisions
Section 16.12.170 of the Development Code serves to implement the City's Right to
Farm Provisions. These policies help to ensure the continuation of agricultural
operations by reducing the opportunity for newly transplanted urban neighbors to file
nuisance complaints against farmers. The policy also serves as a reminder to those
who wish to move to areas adjacent to active farm operations of the inconveniences
frequently associated with modern agriculture.
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA)
The LESA system was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and is used by state and local planners,
landholders, developers and government officials to make land use decisions regarding
to use, protection or potential conversion of farmland. The LESA consists of two main
components: a land evaluation component used to rate soils based on their suitability of
agricultural use based on data from the National Cooperative Soils Survey, and the Site
Assessment which involves non-soil factors related to agricultural use of a site, factors
related to development pressures, and factors related to other public values of a site.
25
C�
0
�
�
�
�� ��
� N
CD
O
�
�
�
C�
—
Cn,
O
�
�
O
�
�
�
� �
�
�
■ ■
�
�
r
�
�
,�
��
�
�
� z
r�
� . : , ti � �.,-
Z � �L�
� �,.
. ���. E ;.� ^..., ;� :
...�.�. g ' .,:. � � .,<. �
A LESA rating is developed to determine the suitability for long term agricultural
protection. A LESA system can provide a defensible consistent method to determine
the conditions under which agricultural land should or should not be converted to
nonagricultural uses. LESA information can also be used to identify important farmland
and for environmental analysis. The development of a LESA system may be facilitated
with assistance from NRCS and should involve the establishment of local work group.
Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires agencies to consider the
environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or
committing to a course of action on a project. Any impacts to agricultural land must be
a part of CEQA review An environmental impae# report (EIR) is the most
comprehensive type of environmental document. A project may not be approved as
submitted if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are able to substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects of the project. However, even a project with
significant and unavoidable.impacts can be approved if the decision makers can find
that it has an overriding public benefit. CEQA is not truly a tool to protect agricultural
resources, however the public information that environmental documents provide can
help alert interested parties to threats to urban agriculture.
Currently, the City uses the following criteria for the initial study to determine impacts to
agricultural resources:
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or
impacts from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a
low-income or minority community)?
Agricultural Resources - Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Mitigation Measures
Buffers
Buffers are a land use technique used to separate agricultural operations from non-
agricultural areas. They can be considered another aspect of infrastructure needed to
26
make a site suitable for development. Buffers can take the form of spatial setbacks or
as physical structures of human or natural origin.
1. Physical
Physical buffers include trees, roads, and naturally occurring features such as
creeks, rivers, or hills. Installed barriers, such as fences and walls are another type
of physical buffer. The Arroyo Grande Creek serves as a very effective natural
agricultural buffer. Fences or walls may not be completely effective in mitigating all
agriculture/housing conflicts but they do work well at obstructing visual externalities
and reduce crop pilferage. However, fences and walls also bring with them issues
over ownership and upkeep responsibilities, graffiti, aesthetics, and view sheds
(Great Valley Center, p. 11).
2. Spatial
Spatial buffers are created through ordinances and are essentially linear strips of
land between agricultural uses and Fiousing. The depths of agricultural buffers vary
greatly by municipality (Great Valley Center, 2002). The County of San Luis
Obispo's buffers range from 400-800 feet for vineyards, 300 to 800 feet for irrigated
orchards and 100 to 400 feet for field crops. The buffer distance is usually
determined on a case-by-case basis depending upon variables, such as prevailing
wind direction, type of crop, surrounding zoning, and topography. (American
Farmland Trust, 1997, p. 121). In San Luis Obispo County, one person currently
implements this case-by-case system and a primary criterion is past experience.
The City of Davis requires agricultural buffers of 150 feet with public uses being
discouraged in the 100 feet closest to the agricultural operation, while the last 50
feet can used as a transitional area that can support uses such as bike trails and
paths (American Farmland Trust, 1997, p. 121).
Organic farming can address urban concerns over pesticides, but other by-products
of farming, such as dust and smells would continue. It is important to note that there
have been very few scientific studies that have looked at the effectiveness of buffer
distances. With this fact in mind, every buffer can be viewed as subjective or
generally based upon common sense and agency judgment. A major study by finro
respected researchers, Alvin D. Sokolow and Sony Varea-Hammond is currently
underway and "seeks to accomplish two interrelated goals: (1) evaluate existing city
and county agricultural buffer policies and their implementation, and (2) use these
findings and other data to establish a research base for developing a guidebook and
other educational materials on the design and execution of buffers." The completion
of this study will be of great interest to the City of Arroyo Grande and staff will
attempt to acquire a copy as soon as it is available.
Although the efficacy of spatial and physical buffers may be in question due the fact
that they attempt to solve many diverse problems such as spread of noise, dust,
smells, and chemicals as well as attempt to control human intrusions and pilferage,
they have a long history of use as a tool to control agricultural runoff into streams
27
and to mitigate wind driven erosion. The Connecticut River Joint Commissions of
New Ftampshire and Vermont reports that an agricultural buffer of willows and other
live woody shrubs and tree stakes along the water's edge, native trees and shrubs in
the 50-75 foot zone, and a 25 foot buffer of dense-stiff grass will trap 95 percent of
sediment, 75-80 percent of nitrogen, and 80 percent of phosphorus before it enters a
river (Buffers for Agriculture). This and similar data helps to establish a precedent of
public benefit from the creation of buffers.
Maintenance is one issue that needs to be addressed regarding buffers. For
example, open land can provide areas for pests to thrive and harm adjacent
agricultural production.
3. Buffers in the City of Arroyo Grande
The 2001 General Plan (Ag5-2) requires the City to establish criteria for buffers
befinreen agriculture land use designations and non-agriculture land uses. Staff
analyzed the creation and enforcement of a buffer system of 100', 200' or 300'
around all parcels zoned or designated in the Land Use Element as Agriculture. Due
to the fact that the wind patterns in the agricultural areas shift from the prevailing
direction, the buffers should extend an equal distance from the outer edges of areas
designated as Agriculture. The construction of new inhabited buildings is not
permitted within the buffer zone on non-agriculture properties. In essence, the buffer
zone defines the minimum residential building setback on adjacent properties. In
certain cases, where there is a substantial existing physical buffer or vegetation of
100 feet in width or more on the perimeter or on the Agriculture side of a parcel, an
additional spatial buffer need not exist.
4. Potential number of homes within buffer zones
Using aerial photographs of the City of Arroyo Grande and a geographic information
system, it was possible to identify parcels zoned or designated Agriculture and draw
buffers of varying distances around them. This technique allowed for an accurate
estimation of the number of houses that would fall within buffer zones if they were
established. Existing houses within buffer zones would become legally non-
conforming. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Buffer Size Homes Within Buffer
100 Feet 95
200 Feet 156
300 Feet 247
Areas where new development is possible in the'foreseeable future on or adjacent to
prime Agricultural lands includes:
28
• The area between Cherry Avenue extended and Myrtle Drive designated NP —
Neighborhood Plan on the 2001 General Plan Land Use Map.
• Residential parcels north of Huasna Road and east of Stagecoach.
• Three parcels on E. Cherry near Traffic Way designated PD-Mixed Use in the
2001 General Plan.
• The hillside church property adjacent to the Cherry/Traffic Way property off
Trinity Lane.
• The Arroyo Grande High School property.
• St. Patrick's Catholic Church property on Fair Oaks.
• Agriculture zoned parcel adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, owned by the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
• The property northeast of the residential subdivision on Branch Mill Road near
Coach Road.
• The ALC/Frederick and Williams properties at the southern boarder of the City
limits.
Mitigation ordinances and policies
Mitigation ordinances are a recent technique to protect farmland. The City of Davis and
Brentwood uses mitigation to require that developers permanently protect one acre of
farmland for every acre of agricultural land that is proposed for conversion. The County
of Monterey is currently discussing the requirement that for every acre of agriculture
land converted to urban uses, finro acres would have to be permanently preserved.
Generally, developers place an agricultural conservation easement on farmland in
another part of the city or pay an "in-lieu" fee.
In Lieu Fees
As authorized by the Map Act and Cal. Gov't Code section 66000, in lieu fees may be
imposed as a condition for allowing a subdivision to occur when it reasonably offsets the
impact of development and furthers the purposes of the General Plan. Mitigation fees
can be required for the protection of one or more acre(s) of farmland of equal or greater
quality for each acre of farmland that is converted to non-farm uses (American
Farmland Trust, 1997). It should be recognized that in Arroyo Grande, the price of a
small lot home site is five times the price of an Agricultural acre: thus an acre converted
to single family residential use can yield its owner 25 times the value of an acre
designated Agriculture. This conversion "windfall" can provide mitigation fees that can
reasonably provide funds to purchase equal or greater areas for conservation
easements to help offset areas allowed to convert.
29
Transfer of Development Credits
Transfer of Development Credits (TDC's) programs are an attempt to separate
development rights from a parcei and transfer them to another unrelated parcel. TDC
programs are .generally used to preserve environmentally sensitive areas from
development, while still allowing the property owners to utilize the development potential
associated with their fand. TDC programs work by first identifying development rights
"sending" districts, which are in need of preservation. The development potential in the
sending districts are reduced and property owners are given development credits .based
upon an approved formula, such as one single-family house per ten undeveloped acres.
Next, the City identifies areas to act as "receiver" sites where the development credits
can be applied above and beyond the established or approved development density.
Variations of TDC programs either allow for the selling of the development credits to
others or require that the owner of the development credits must own property in both
the sending and receiving areas.
Purchase of Aqricultural Conservation Easements
The purchase of agricultural conservation easements, in simple terms, is a purchase of
the development rights of a property by a private individual, a non-profit group, or a
government agency. When purchased, the development rights to a property are
separated from the land itself. The property owner still holds possession of the land, but
its use is limited by a binding contract. An independent appraiser establishes the value
of the development rights to a property. Although agricultural conservation easements
may be limited to terms of 10, 20, and 30 years, most preservation organizations and
agencies seek permanent easements to accomplish long-range community goals.
Many agriculturally based communities are pursuing easement acquisition because it is
designed to achieve continued active production on agricultural property (the cities of
Madera and Half Moon Bay are examples). Individual tailoring of agriculture
conservation easements can address other community-wide impact issues such as
flood control in addition to preserving farming opportunity without placing unfair burdens
on property owners. Organizations that can assist in facilitating, securing or holding
agricultural easements or funding other aspects of agricultural protection including
grants to facilitate buffers, and preliminary actions like funding appraisals, include the
California Coastal Conservancy, American Farmland Trust, and the San Luis Coastal
Resource Conservation District. The formation of a local land trust is an important
consideration in any easement program. The City of Livermore and the City of
Brentwood have formed their own land trusts and act as a third-party beneficiary for
easements. The CASP study's Action Plan implementation measure 5.3 discussed this
possibility in depth. Recent conversations with the staff of the Land Conservancy of
San Luis Obispo indicate a good potential to form a local chapter for agricultural issues
in the Arroyo Grande Valley. This could achieve local control to deal with a wide range
of agricultural issues without the shouldering the entire financial burden and
implementation.
General funding mechanisms for acquiring agricultural easements include:
�
• Farmland Protection Program, created by the 1996 Farm Bill, provides matching
grants from the California Department of Conservation Farmland Program of 50
% of final negotiated sales price of conservation easements. Funding may also
be available for the temporary purchase of agricultural lands pending placement
of a conservation easement, restoration and improvement of land already under
easement, and agricultural land conservation planning and policy projects.
• Mitigation fees.
Mello Roos district — a special district created under the state's Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982 to collect an annual tax. This finance
mechanism can be utilized for open space and farmland acquisition (Solano
County example is $16-$33 per undeveloped acre and $80 per unit after
construction.) The formation of a district to enable this type of tax requires a two-
thirds vote of registered voters, which is difficult but may be achievable with
public outreach. .
• Special Sales tax approval - such as in Sonoma County where a quarter-cent
sales tax increase to fund their land conservation district was approved. A local
sales tax increase requires both State enabling legislation and a vote of the
public.
Assessments levied on real property to finance improvement and maintenance
Probably not feasible for the City since Prop. 218.
• General bond measure
Agricultural conservation easements can also be used to mitigate potential agricultural
conversions. Several counties and a couple of cities (Davis and Brentwood) implement
mitigation ordinances that require additional agricultural lands to be secured with a
permanent easement to offset loss of agriculture due to conversion. However, it should
be noted that State funds are not available for purchasing easements required for
mitigation.
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965--commonly referred to as the Williamson
Act--enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the
purpose of restricting speci.fic parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use.
In return, landowners receive property tax assessments, which are much lower than
normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full
market value. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax
revenues from the State via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971. Over one-half of
the CASP study area (over 1,000 acres) is currently enrolled in the Williamson Act.
However, due to parcel size requirements (minimum 10 acres), only seven parcels are
eligible within the City's limits (not counting the two that are in contracts now).
31
Potential Conversions in the City of Arroyo Grande
Inconsistencies Befinreen the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map
There are five parcels of land zoned as Agriculture on the 1991 Zoning Map that have
been designated for urban uses on the Land Use Map of the 2001 General Plan
Update. The following map and table identifies the properties and various attributes.
32
W
z �
��
n �.
� � a�
�� � �
�
�U
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
Vr
�
■�
O
N
�
�
ca
�
c�
�
a`�
�
�
�
�
LI')
0
—
�� o
�. �
�
m
v �.,
� y �
u� °' 3
o a c i � ° �
� � V c °� Z
� .�
�� d u R ai �
ti c N � ++ � �n ' N � c
rn • 10' O � �
° o > � a` � a � z a` z } _ �
m u
•� a
� O y
d - p N
fA M � L
._ � � � C � Z
� y o � 3� `
.`
v ti � � � _ � � Y 0 � �
� 0 2 � Z 2 W y Z � a Z Z 2 c�i
C
•= t C
O � '''' o
N � '; � o,
b
_�� H� * '�
tv o 'S o � ` !� � �
C 4 ��. C� � o - a c� c
a��'o a� ea � o �� E
c�'o � £ � �
� p � N � H'� 7 0 C� O O O
� o�Q� a �a a tit� � �o. zz U
d
C
� � p
3 C
� - O
� �"� y � � .*�
� N � � �
� � c C) � `O v
� •+•,- fA c
O N � d�p d � d
�+ �'t � E� +r � N q! rn N C
� p O '� �'a: � 3 41 41 N � O O
Z o o a� a u. c� � �>- ?= z z
d
H
�
Q
C) N
� Q �
L � H
� � N s
1 '
N �
O V
V � C � U C
N
.`� � .� °' � ° c
� � � N fA tA NJ
a o m n`. u: cn � �� i z z
N L (0 �
v `� ��'' w� �
N
� O Z � � .� � � y
.a, vr V v� N
Z � � Q � p� n. � � t ��
Q N v 1� � � Q c a? ,��, � 3� a�i
lC O
N N � V �>��.. U C m�°Q �� y�
L c v� ...
C � � � (�0 � • lC �N N � � "-� t� U � �
a`o v� v� c���Qao3�i3�Q�`v�
C'7
N
�
�
H
N
'm
L
�
Q.
L
�
7
V
.�
ca
C
d
t�
10
�
�
L
d
�
N
C
0
�
«
H
d
L
�
C.
c
d
t�
�
'�
�
N
�
d
N
i
O.
�
�
C
'
�
t
�
0
t y
� �a
r+ d
� �
�L �
R �
>
y - C
d
v �
'a 'C
C a' �
� Y �
p {C L
m � �
N
��-.
�
�
�'+ y
� y
d
� � �
V
� R �
'C C. �
C y r-
rr � U�
+ d + Y G1
� � R
L
` +.' 'y
O � y
Z � 'C
Reconsider General Plan Classifications
As previously noted, there were five parcels involving four property owners, that were
reclassified from Agriculture to non-agricultural designations as part of the 2001 General
Plan Update to the 1990 General Plan. One of these, the Hayes property, is a hillside
parcel not containing prime soils or used agriculturally. The zoning map of the
Development Code has not yet been amended for those properties nor have any
specific conversion project applications been accepted for parcel specific rezoning and
development (but one PUD and Tract Map application was suspended by Ordinance
Number 536).
Adopted General Plan Policy Ag 1-4 and the referenced provisions of CEQA Section
16064.7 regarding Thresholds of Significance intend that any conversions of prime
farmland soils shall require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to address
this significant adverse environmental impact.
Before an individual or parcel specific conversion proposal provides an EIR addressing
impacts and alternatives, however, the City may initiate reconsideration of some or all of
these reclassifications. (One of the reclassification parcels involves a non-prime hillside
residential property, while another has been an institutional non-agricultural use for
more than 30 years.) In any event, it should be understood that adopted General Plan
policy would require EIR preparation, findings, and overriding considerations to rezone
and develop prime farmland soils. It would be more appropriate to reconsider a General
Plan reclassification if the City is opposed to such rezoning and conversions.
35
VI "INSIDE THE BOX" ALTERNATIVES
Below are alternatives presented for Planning Commission and public discussion.
These alternatives range from regulatory to voluntary and combinations thereof to effect
agricultural conservation. Each of the following alternative recommendations includes a
corresponding policy from the 2001 General Plan and/or a recommended
implementation measure from the CASP study.
A. Zoninq Ordinance Revisions
1. Rezoning of Agriculturally Zoned Lands
To implement General Plan Policy Ag 3-14 and 3-15, include additional findings specific
to approving rezoning applications in Agriculture districts in Development Code Section
16.16.040 (Amendments to zoning districts and other provisions), which are derived in
part from the Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51297):
a. That the uneconomic nature of fhe agricultural use is primarily attributable to
circumstances beyond the control of the landowner and the City, and there are
no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put,
either individually or in combination with other adjacent prime farmland parcels;
and
b. The proposed change in zone (or revision to this title) is for a parcel, or for a
contiguous set of parcels, that is legally nonconforming as to minimum area in
the Agriculture district; and
c. The proposed change in zone (or revision to this title) will not result in, intensify,
or contribute to discontiguous patterns of urban development; and
d. The proposed change in zone (or revision to this title) will not likely result in the
removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use; and
e. The proposed change in zone (or revision to this title) is for an altemative use
which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city general plan; and
f. That there is no proximate land, which is both available and suitable for the use
to which it is proposed the prime farmland be put, or, that development of the
prime farmland would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development
than development of proximate non-prime farmland.
2. Subdivisions in Agriculture Districts
To imptement General Plan Policy Ag5-2, revise Development Code Section 16.20.060
(Land Divisions) to include the following finding necessary for proposals to subdivide
prime farmland and/or lands adjoining an Agriculture district:
36
For a proposed subdivision that includes, or is adjacent to, prime farmland, or is
within an Agriculture district; that the design of the tentative map or proposed
improvements provide an adequate buffer as determined through environmental
review under CEQA to minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and
nonagricultural land uses and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
3. Allowed Incompatible Development on Agriculturally Zoned Parcels
To implement General Plan Policy Ag 3-1 and Ag3-7, revise Development Code Section
16.28.030-A No. B1 to include: Ranch and Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal
agricultural use as permitted. Single Family detached dwellings on conforming lots as
permitted. Single Family detached dwellings on legal non-conforming lots as permitted
subject to a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 16.16.050. (Development Code
Section 16.16.050-D.2 requires the approving body to make the finding that the
proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to
be established or located.)
The purpose of this revision would be to address potential residential development of
antiquated subdivisions and discourage additional single family dwellings on prime
farmland that are not in conjunction with an agricultural operation, which is otherwise
provided for in the Rural Residential and Residential Suburban districts.
4. Allowed Uses in Agricultural Districts
To implement General Plan Policy Ag1-1.2, Ag3-4, and Ag4-4 revise Development
Code Table 16.28.030-A No. C. (Commercial Uses) to include the following subject to
Conditional Use Permits: greenhouses (with specific perFormance criteria), wholesale
nurseries, guest ranches, and large animal veterinary offices; and No. E. (Public/Quasi-
Public Uses) include public facilities when required by health, safety, or public welfare,
and community gardens as conditionally permitted.
37
5. Agricultural Site Development Standards
a. To implement General Plan Policy Ag3-10, revise Development Code
Table 16.28.040-A to include a Maximum Building Site Area of 1 acre.
b. To implement General Plan Policy Ag3-10, revise Development Code
Section 16.28.040B. to include the following language: Accessory buildings
and structures shall be sited to minimize disruption of agricultural
operations, avoid conversions of productive farmland and take maximum
advantage of existing infrastructure.
c. To implement General Plan Policy Ag3-11, revise Development Code
Section16.28.0408 to include a Maximum Density of 2 dwelling units for
parcels equal or larger than 20 acres and 1 dwelling per parcel for parcels
less than 20 acres.
d. To implement General Plan Policy Ag6-1, revise Development Code
Section 16.28.040B to indicate a�minimum parcel size of 20 acres. (The
2001 General Plan calls for 40 acre parcel sizes on property with non-
irrigated, non-cultivated and/or non-prime soils, however, there are no
Agricultural zoned properties with Class I or II soil over 40 acres within the
City.)
B. Mitiqation Ordinance
1. To implement and amend General Plan Policy A1-4, introduce a prime farmland
conversion mitigation ordinance that provides for permanent conservation easements
on prime farmland at a ratio of at least 2 to 1(2001 General Plar� Update indicates 1 to
1) with regard to acreage of land converted from the capability for agricultural use within
the City and at least 2 to 1 with regard to acreage of land converted from the capability
for agricultural use outside the City but within the City's Area of Environmental Concern.
Appendix F includes an example ordinance. A General Plan Amendment to policy A1-4
would be considered concurrent with this Development Code Amendment to assure that
the mitigation ratios are consistent.
Example Mitigation
for Subdivision and Rezoning of Agricultural Land
Ag zoned parcel of 10 acres with prime farmland soil - designated Ag on
the General Plan.
Owner wants to rezone residential and subdivide into single-family lots
(4.5 dwelling units/acre).
EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA would determine impact of conversion
and identify possible alternatives and mitigation measures.
m
Mitigation would require 20 acres of prime farmland within city limits to be
permanently preserved with an agricultural conservation easement or 20
acres of prime soil to be permanently preserved with a agricultural
conservation easement outside the City limits within the Area of
Environmental Concern. Mitigation includes fees from the owner to cover
the costs of appraisals and costs associated with securing the easements
(approx. $3,000 appraisal, approx. $5,000 easement fee to be used for
monitoring, approx. $3000-$8,000 easement draw-up fee).
• -7
An in lieu fee would require the owner give the city a fee that would enable
the purchase of a conservation easement of 20 acres of prime farmland
with a minimum amount based on a previous purchase within the City and
fees to cover all appraisals and fees associated with determination of
easement value. .
If it can be adequately demonstrated that alternatives and/or mitigation
can be accomplished and the required findings and overriding
considerations justified then the project could be approved.
C. Buffers
1. Ordinance for new or re-development
To implement General Plan Policy Ag5-2, introduce a buffer ordinance applicable to all
new development or redevelopment that is adjacent to Agricultural property (an
example ordinance is in Appendix E). The proposed minimum buffer is 100 feet,
including a 20 foot landscaped strip as described in the 2001 General Plan. Greater
buffers may also be required upon the recommendation of the San Luis County
Agricultural Commissioner. Conversely, the ordinance allows for a partial exception if it
can be demonstrated that an adequate physical buffer (such as Arroyo Grande creek)
exists befinreen the agricultural use and the non-agricultural use if approved by the
County Agricultur.al Commissioner. Although varied buffer distances were analyzed, 100
feet appears adequate as a minimum distance to protect both agricultural operations
and the community.
2. Zoning Overlay for Buffers
Establish a zoning overlay implementing a buffer around all Agriculture property as
depicted on the map in E-1.
D Transfer of Development Credit Ordinance
To implement General Plan Policy A1-4 and
introduce a Transfer of Development Credit
protection, incentive to property owners and
CASP Action
Ordinance to
a mechanism
Plan Alternative 5.5,
achieve agricultural
to direct growth to
�
appropriate areas. Appendix F contains an example ordinance language. It would be
beneficial if the County would also adopt the ordinance. Additionally, the following
actions should be implemented in conjunction with ordinance adoption (these actions
are more thoroughly discussed in the CASP study): .
• Develop a joint powers agreement or pass-though agreement with the County.
• Designate appropriate receiving sites in the Housing Element Update study.
• Continue consultation with the County Assessor's office.
• Create a local chapter of the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo including
policy for organization and management.
E. General Plan Amendment to revise the land use map
If consideration is given to the first 5"Inside the Box" alternatives, in order to maintain
consistency, it would be advantages to reconsider the General Plan designation of the
four pro�erties involving prime farmland soils that are currently zoned Agriculture (see
map 13 and Table 3).
F. Agricultural Conservation Easement Proqram
To implement General Plan Policy AG1-3 AG/C/OS.15-21, ED3, and CASP Action Plan
Alternative 5.3, create an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) to
address the predominant parcels within the City that do not meet minimum criteria and
are not eligible for Williamson Act contracts. The program should pro�ide for "linked"
easements to create larger areas for protection and agricultural operations.
Components of the program should include:
Apply for funding from the California Coastal Conservancy or the California
Conservation Department to set up the ACEP and develop a model agricultural
conservation easement, determine funding mechanisms including mitigation
funds and special taxes or assessements, and determine if there is a benefit for
easements limited to 10, 20 or 30 years.
• Develop an Arroyo Grande chapter of the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo
County or partner with the Resource Conservation District as per Division 9 of
the Public Resources Code, including policies for organization and management.
• Develop an education and outreach workshop for local farmers to individually
meet with American Farmland Trust consultants to discuss and calculate the
costs and benefits of placing agricultural conservation easements on their land.
' Map 13, unlike Maps 1-9, indicates the most recent location of boundary lines of the Dorfman property
that is zoned for Agriculture and excludes the portion zoned HC D2.11.
40
Develop a mechanism in conjunction with the County Assessor to describe tax
relief or other incentives for farmers to provide more acceptable terms and
conditions for voluntary conservation easements.
G. Support Local Agricultural Enterprise
• Allow and encourage the use of permanent and temporary greenhouses in
agricultural zones (this is included in proposed zoning revisions in No. 1).
• Create a program that provides for cooperative produce sales at a common
location.
• Host a small-parcels farming workshop in conjunction with the University of
California Small Farm Center and Cal Poly's Sustainable Ag Program.
• Allow agri-tourism and agricultural related directional signage such as farm-stay
or winery location sign provisions. Work with the County's Farm Bureau in
exploring ways and means of implementing an agri-tourism program.
• Develop an education and outreach program aimed at heightening public
awareness of the cost-benefits of agriculture preservation.
H Environmental Review — Thresholds of Significance usinq the LESA svstem or a
similar system
General Plan AG1-4 requires development of thresholds of significance for CEQA
analysis as provided for by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, that considers loss of
prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact. CEQA appendix G
states that a project will normally have a significant impact on the environment if it will a)
conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is
located. b) convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the
agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land.
Point systems are sometimes used as methodology in determining agricultural suitability
and productivity. A weighting system can be developed for use in the initial study
process and in determining thresholds of significance. The point system would provide
for a known, clear and consistent basis to identify potentially significant impacts. If such
impacts are identified, site-specific evaluation is considered in an EIR.
VII "OUTSIDE THE BOX" ALTERNATIVES
Below are additional alternatives presented for Planning Commission and public
discussion.
A. Shared or City agricultural irrigation wells or other assisted water supplies/
reclamation:
41
1. Allow agricultural irrigation wells inside the City to provide a more
economical water supply to small-lot or adjacent conservation areas.
2. Assist with the development of strategic City wells to provide for irrigation of
particularly small lot or conservation easement priority areas or properties.
3. Consider storm water retention and/or sanitary sewer reclamation and reuse
by storage and distribution system development to recycle former
wastewater "effluent" or "runoff' as supplemental sources for agricultural
irrigation.
4. Consider developing upstream retention and recharge basins and reservoirs
to enhance ground and surface water supply.
B. Compromise or combine preservation and conversion concepts into several
Planned Residential Clusters (PRCs) enabled at edges or infill locations as a
means of avoiding Ag-land fragmentation or facilitating prime Ag-land
conservation and consolidation: �
1. Create small clusters or combined PRC and conservation easements
utilizing current infrastructure and strategic linked conservation easements
to create buffers and stabilize urban/agricultural edges.
2. Allow conversions of non-prime portions of internal or annex external non-
prime portions of properties to concentrate limited urban expansions as a
"trade off' for prime-land preservation agreements. For example, Hillside
PRCs might fund conservation easements in the Arroyo Grande Valley.
Other concept examples include property development north of Lopez
Drive/Huasna Road, which may assist strategic agriculture conservation
easement acquisition. Hillside annexation southeast of the City may also be
considered. Other TDC areas linked for partial preservation or related
conservation easements include Hollywood and Ellsworth, High School and
EI Campo areas.
C. Specialized housing or cooperative Farm/Agricultural-Residential Mixed Use farm
developments:
1. Assisted or non-profit development of farmworker housing and service
complexes (such as day care), in or near production crop cooperative
produce sales or processing locations. Possible locations include:
■ Branch Mill and Coach Road
■ Halcyon Road
■ Valley Road/Los Berros
■ Lopez and Huasna
D. Negotiated conservation and conversion agreements:
42
1. Link limited conversions to acquisition of conservation easements. For
example, Dorfman Planned Development versus internal agricultural
component.
APPENDICES
A. Definitions
B. Agricultural Workshop Press Release, Notices, Organizations and Attendees
C. Public Comment Letters
D. Press reports
E. Example Buffer Ordinance
F. Example Mitigation Requirement Ordinance
G. Example Transfer Development Credit Ordinance
H. Agriculture Study Meeting Log
I. Synopsis of Meeting with Air Pollution Control District
43
i � - � .� ` ' ?' '' " . � -'
;;z=� :; ,;; �;�.����' �:�1 �Z ��° .�: ��-� _ .-:�
�{ � ; ��, , ; - , < �,, ::. �,:;• ,�
� . �-�% -� .��!. ,,. ;� �9 � � ��.�:� E••v '.,-t•.1
,,lh _ .�'. \ _�:. •\:� - ! � � '
`• ��. i t • �� • 1 f� �� .7� i ti
1 �!!� � _; ���. ���..,`..:_. �.;l..:t .3�`
� � � ~ .�.� � �^� ♦ �. t. •. � ` �
'1 , ,...Jy . 1�� �.` �
��y.�� ••' �.y.S1`_ r..�:f ��:•.''.. L.�:
`,(,�; , �-�`%��, .�,;; �'� �`•-- � . ;j �`"� :
�y ;,�� �� � � ; �- � �
, � ��:. fo��/ � -;i `.,_, • � � .�.�
�`w��� �� .�� r �� �' ,. ��� •
_`V�'ad ` � _ ":7 ~` ����i�`0� I ':+�" - �t 'a,` �
�� �.,�' � � �. '� � �� � I r� �� � � 1 �� �,:�
��'� y` ,,.� ���• �•� ���
�.��� ��� ��-� � � '�; � �. , �- ..:t:
.!� ���,. �' .��.� � � .ti `� ( � '�.
i �- .1�.' '�'' ' ~� �� � `� `'
�� 1
��� J' . �� `=� ' . `' '� � ,� S ' •
� i 4 � � � ' • �,
'��'r�..! r��� I ♦ • �� . �. �. � 1 \
ir. . �``. ' v�„ �� i ry�
"�'P� r � ' � . ? �..:;• � � f _
( 1% i � ` ': _:. :..' 't:
'..i� .i���. �_' �/r'/lJ�)r ! � _ •� ..,/� �/\
�
__. _. ,_
.. ,_. _ _ �
�. 'r � ` �_ ���.•��')� � +,- - • t 1'
�.� ,^� •�" ��•1,�:�.1%�� /•'c v `: � f,Xi J
��:�';� �-,��:�:�'��',r r_ �„��_: ..��� �
� '`=:�� .� . . .' , _, ,� . .1`�....
� � '�.,.�l � ; � •. .. . :.. '� l�.' � ' J� f ' � `�
i^ ��. � ��� �` .%'� � ° •��Z
�..��. ,.��.•�• „ :• "�� :y�;��... 1 '�,::. .
. � : v' . +�
.._a...: v"` r ..r��1 ,` � `i- � - ��V Q -.� ^ '1.�• , v � t�,�\
. C � ���,> >�: • (.. • n ti 3' `: � I
���.� j�} . �c`'���i"�� ) ( �� ��• � l. � �� `';
�:r�: �'��. ' ..,. ��J ;, � � � : ;���
� . �S� /.J�� ...�`�'��. (�`� � :�"r�.'�� �'y"jC
� , z � .``'' ? ./. f: _ y �� � �. i •�" r "• �'i1
� _,.�? Y �1, � .�-�'- � � �, . 1 �� 1:�, )v \) .`•�'(., f.c�'>
• ^� �` �� , �, , • ��. '�
• i 1 �_' �Z ll� -��.�». �j � �l � � ��•�� 's
•�.�� r .
. �-�` , ,,'C:.�� t .� ; t�� • ,•, i � > � ; ' • � -
/� . � ��� � 1' ; .�.•..��:
, '` i � �;• .� � � ��1�� ��j'.. } .� ^ � r��' .�' �.�"' � �•���l�
� �, _ '•� , c � .
, .4-,t . � �'; J\v ' : '.; ?�
� ' ' �.�;� r • . r ' �:,
.�', •`� ' � • �� , ��� �, /�� '/ •'+ ,.
' l :<<�; � , ='t `. v � � , •. �i-
K . /�: ,,� s :�� �. � �, � ` . � � '�;�s %j -�',�.r.�•;'::
! � t ( ` '' 't ��. / •� '•-:• ( "'>_'� }:.i2�
t✓� �� � 1;� T '\��� l � t� ' I
l �1 }:�i �y �-� '/, ' •:..J J � �' • ��;
�f r ' -`'� ` .�. . ���. J
C�,� �F ., �r �, ��' ,�. � . � . , �.� �:
:�� ; ` ' l � , '. •• o�' : � i` � 1.'�.,,,.: 5 :
� '., .1f f 1 `�•'`�• c* . � . , : Y,.i,,, :�,.
i ���� �, 'L t .:.:%'_�•`s.!:�. ,�;s
C '�'��� �ti �'� `�; � � ��'i!._.. �:�:' �.: . .
�' '�,�\� •�� 4 l, e •..•.:_ ':.� : _ ;
. . ) ./ ' � �, ' `.•, .'Z' � ��; • � ;
o .o��` - _, ��.
11 ?_ � % .. .�-�. .. • ":. . �s; +:_ � i
���C►►\_Ci�`'� '��[a�s'.ltt- t � w � . � . � • • �- �t�"2�' �c-
�c� � r�t� ,�Q
� Cii��..-.�StL+'."'' �=i ���±� ��i�t''�I
���ra��a ,�y���` � +..�_',� `� ��
� ■a�n�sr+.�� d�i:.. ���+�►1 c,
■aae�
������ ���; � ������� . � �
am�c�� 0 :
.��� ��.��� .
.G:���.. �.� '�-�
;� -�..E. �. �� «, �
<<„ �6:�_ a �" \ t
� �����.� ��-. '�
�� ` �:`�: s� `a�` � �..- _
� �„� � � ��� r ., �
" ' _�- � -�� �- .��� =�
t �
�:�_ - - =�: ,-�.� �� . t i� .�
s'-���= T�r r'--' 'f. -•;�_:..,� a � �
:� `��:����!��:-. � 'a=`��-� �
'�����'---'`='�.za��_ ` ,,
� �. �.� �,� � �
{ '!a •tlC�''�a'.�iR� � =
t �' ��.�a�lrca�ir2fi ° �,�;:�.•'•�` -�'
�- �.�i�7��l�e�s r -Gt��
'ti. �ia�'�9c-• _ � �1��}l\
� ���� o �
� _z `� � - � � .
a � : � ;
*�a �
_�� ° /y - '
�
� • i � ,� ��,
� r
_ � � -- � ,.� �,�;
: d. � -.. 1 �� c.� �..
�-���� `��j� �
,�� � ���` ;� ����r�_ � � ��
�_ jj
g �..�:�;, ' �- �
_�. � o--.�,,,�.. ,
•- j�, ,•,'�e
_ � x-�n.� . , � �' '�`� .n� �� \
\ ` � � : �� -� � �.��� � �7
'� �' �— ' � -
- �` - � L
_-- - • •�- � �
-- �� � �
-- -- . --� • •... -. �
• - - • - • � :- �-�
� ,. �� � -- O -,;�� �; •.: .
j �• ; J. . ,� - ` _ J ' ',
- �.:
�� T. . � 7)� �.C'�, .
` � �
L
j � •�;; •. ,.; _�� l.�i ) `� �
��J' � y . •'' �� '�� `
j��.''',�,�. � d ti , : ,^ � ;�� :z =�`�=�
�"�, - r ^�� \1
Map-1 \�e �-
�•;c...�� • '' � �:�.. '�
; � 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDAT�
�c PLANNING AREA and ARFA ��
,
� ENVIRONh1ENTAL CONCERN (A�C1
.
_ �..� �.�;���� -,— �.
o S � ' ��' - �` �-� --��. �
?� -, '�' �: `! ':`.. :�� �
o� •>` % . . ,
� � ���, r..� ��� o. �� ,ll � i
_�.E*� %: �.:� :.�'..
�.-.=�—�.-•r � �''•;�- -
_T.. ,,.�._., .. .� ,_....,,.,,,,,,,
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS
�
�
�
APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS
Buffer Zone - An area designed to separate potentially incompatible land uses. For
example, agricultural uses will sometimes be buffered from nearby residential uses to
enable the two to peacefully coexist. � �
Compatibility - The chazacteristics of different uses or.activities that allow them to be
located near each other without creating conflict. Some elements that affect
compatibility include: intensity of occupancy as measured by dwelling units per acre;
pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic generated•, volume of. goods handled; and such
environmental effects as noise, vibration, glare, air pollution and radiation.
�
Conditions - Under some circumstances, an agency can require a project proponent to
perform certain acts or meet certain requirements as part of the agency's approval of the
proj ect.
Conservation — The wise or sustainable use of a renewable resource. See preservation.
Conversion .— The zone change of a property from agriculture to any other land use
category in order to allow for the construction of� urban infrastructure or buildings.
Cumulative impact - The overall effect on the environment or the functioning of a city
from various land use projects that have been implemented or are planned.
Development -
Development rights — The ability to develop a property for specific uses. Also
development rights can be considered the speculative real-estate value of a property if
developmen# occurs.
Economic use of property -"uneconomic chazacter" no other reasonable or
comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put either individually or in
combination with other adjacent prime fazmland parcels.
Eminent Domain - The process by which public agencies acquire private propeaty for .
public use, when the owner of that property is unwilling to sell.
Esaction - An exaction is a specific form of condition on a public agency's approval of a
development proposal. There are typically nvo kinds of exactions required by public
agencies: 1) dedications and 2) fees. A dedication typically involves the provision of a
benefit to the public as mitigation for the impact of a proposed project on public facilities.
An example of one kind of dedication is a condition requiring the applicant to dedicate
(and perhaps improve) roadways, provide easements or public greenbelts. Alternatively,
the a�ency may require the o�vner to pay fees to finance public improvements (sometimes
referred io as "monetary exaciions").
r_.__,w _ _. ...._�_. ._ �._._�,�.-_�_..._..�
Fees - Also known as monetary exactions, fees require a project proponent to pay certain
amounts in order to have their applications processed (the fees reimburse the agency for
the expenses of processing the application). Fees also may be assessed� to help mitigate
the impact of a proposed development on the community (for example, school facilities
fees to help expand the schools to assure they have enough capacity for the demand
created by a new housing development), State law closely regulates the adoption, levy,
collection and challen�e to development fees imposed by a local public agency. It
applies to both fees imposed on a broad class of projects by. legislation of general
applicability and fees imposed on a project-specific basis.
Finding - A determination or conclusion based on the evidence presented to the� public
hearing body, such as the plannin� commission, in support of its decision. Findings
ezplain and justify th� agency's decision to the public and to the courts.
Mitigation Measures - In the context of the California Environmental Quality Act,
measures that modify a project to reduce or eliminate a significant environmental impact.
Moratorium - Usually a freeze on new development pending the completion and
adoption of certain planning and zoning ordinance requirements (for example, general
plan, zoning ordinance amendment, sewer line installations or growth management
programs.) Voters have also approved moratoria, for example when schools and other
public facilities have been overwhelmed by rapid growth.
Permitted Use — A use by right that is specifically authorized in a particular zoning
district. Contrast �vith conditional uses that are authorized only if certain requirements
are met and after review and approval by the planning commission.
Police Power - The legal basis for planning and land use regulation is the "police power"
of the city to protect the public's health, safety and welfare. The California Constitution
gives cities and counties the power to make and enforce all � local police, sanitary and
other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.
Preservation — Complete protection of a unique or non-rene�vable resource. See
conservation.
Rezone - If a landowner proposes a use that is not allowed in a zone, then a change of
zone must be obtained.
Sprativl — Dispersed, irresponsible development outside of compact urban and village
centers along high�vays and in rural countryside that destroys green space, increases
traffic and air pollution, and negatively impacts the ability to provide public services.
Subdivision - The division of land, lot, tract, or parcel into two or more lots, parcels,
plats, or sites, or �other divisions of land for the purpose of sale, lease, offer, or
development.
Subdivision Map Act -- A subdivision vemed b the Ca fornia Subd vi on Act�
lease or financing. Subdivisions are go y
Generally, a subdivision requires a tente ti of he land filed with the rec der.
final map (based on the qualified surv y )
Local agencies regulate and control the design and improvement of the subdivision; many
local agencies have adopted ordinances speeifying the agency's requirements for
subdivisions.
Takin — One of the most contentious areas of land use law, involv' he of takings
g
what type of public agency action constitutes a regulatory talcing.
derives from the Sth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: ". .. nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation." Simply defined, a taking occurs
when a public agenc}��either condemns property to build public proj The ( Takings e Cl use
as eminent domain) or physically occupies or damages property.
does not prohibit these activities; it merely requires that the public agency pay property
owners "just compensation."
Zone - Zones are geographic areas where a spec'ii lc typ � type of use wi hin a 2one
existing buildings and land as well as future deve p
is govemed by that zone's "zoning regulations." These regulations govem si Zonind
shapes of buildings, the number of dwelling units that can exists on a property. g
regulations may govern other activities as well, such as tree planting or car parking.
�
APPENDIX B
AGRICULTURAL WORKSHOP
PRESS RELEASE
NOTICES
ORGANIZATIONS
ATTENDEES
�
PRESS RELEASE
ISSUE DATE: IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
AGRICULTURE WORKSHOP
WHO: The Community Development Department of the City of Arroyo Graride
• invites you to participate in an informal workshop in an effort to better
understand development pressures on Arroyo Grande's agricultural
resourc�s. •
WHAT: information . and ideas gathered will be incorporated into a report
addressing policy recommendations, alternatives, and incentives for the
conservation of prime agricuitural resources in Arroyo Grande. The final
version of this report will be presented to the Planning Commission on
June 17, 2003 and to the City Council on July 22, 2003.
If you are unable to attend, writte.n comments will be gladly accepted at
the Community Development Department or via e-mail at
tmcclishCa�arrovoqrande.org
In addition, a representative of the American Farmland Trust will present
information about available and emerging agriculture protection
techniques.
WHERE
& WHEN: This workshop will be held on Mc I Chambe3sb 215 East Branch St eet�,
and 8.00 p.m. at the City Coun
Arroyo Grande.
In an effort to better facilitate the�workshop, please R.S.V.P. by May 26,
2003, to the Community Development Department at (805) 473-5420.
For further information contact:
Teresa McClish .
Community Development Department � �
(805) 473-5420 ✓���� .
KEL HE ERNON, ACTING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
- �ATE: //-� 6
APPROVED:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE �
PLANNING COMMISSION & C1TY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission and the City Councii of the
City of Arroyo Grande will hold Pubiic Hearings on the following project:
WHO: City of.Ar�oyo Grande
WHAT: Agricultural Conservation Staff Project 03-004
WHERE: City of Arroyo Grande
WHY: The Planning Commission will review a final version of a report addressing
policy recommendations, alternatives, and incentives for the conservation
of prime agricultural resources in Arroyo Grande
WHEN: PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECiAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 - 6:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street �
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
CITY COUNCIL .
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003 - 7:00 P.M. �
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420�
Any person affected or concerned by this application may submit written comments to the
Community Development Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California,
during normal business hours (8:00 A.M. to 5;00 P.M.) before the Planning Commission
hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project and the
environmental impacts at the time of hearing.
If you challenge an item in court, .you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing 'described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Mr. John War�ick
Department of Agricuiture
2156 Sierra Way, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Sorrel Marks
CA Regional Water Quality Control
Central Coast Region
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA ,93401
Raymond K. Belknap _.
The Land Conservancy
San Luis Obispo County
P.O. Box 12206
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Bob Hill
The Land Conservancy
San Luis Obispo County
P.O. Box 12206
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Ella Honeycutt, Director
Coastal San Luis Resource
Conservation District
545 Main Street, Suite B-1
Morro Bay, CA 93442
Malcolm McEwen, Coordinator
Coastal San Luis Resource
Conservation District
545 Main Street, Suite B-1
Morro Bay, CA 93442
Timothy Duff �
The Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway 11 `h Floor
Oakland CA 94612-2530
Paul Allen �
San Luis Obispo County
Air Poilution Control District
3433 Roberto Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Joel Craig
San Luis Obispo County
Air Pollution Control District
3433 Roberto Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Melissa Guise
San Luis Obispo County
Air Pollution Control District
3433 Roberto Court
San Luis Obispo; CA 93401
Jackie Crabb, Executive Director
San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau
651 Tank Farm Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Sarah Wilcoxson
San Luis Obispo County
Environmental Health Department
P.O. Box 1489
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Warren Hoag, AICP
Planning & Building
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo,. CA 93408
AGRICULTURAL WORKSHOP
MAY 28, 2003
Voluntarv Sign !n Sheet
(Piease Print)
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS
. � 'r
61
�
�; ���'���1'��;:
P�IAY 2 7 2�03 /-�rro�o �resti �v�c.
512 Launa Lane .
1;17Y U� AFsROYU Gi�r�NDE Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
COMMUNlTY OE�/ELOPM�NT DEPT.
May 24, 2003
Teresa McCtish, Associate Planner
Community Devetopment Dept.
City of Arroyo Grande --
Re: ideas for the future of preserving Arroyo Grande's agricultural resources.
Unfortunately, we wiil not be able to attend your workshop due to other
commitments, but we wanted to contribute our ideas to you workshop.
The foilowing are important ways for Arroyo Grande City to protect agricuiture:
1. Churches, schools, and housing developments are not compatible elements
adjacent to commercial farming, so the city should not allow them on lands
adjacent to agriculture. It is a common practice for a church to incorporate a
school that is used on a daily basis, therefore churches should be in the
same category as schools. The issue of pesticides usage becomes a real
probiem with churches� schools, and housing developments.
2. In any type of building or division of lands adjacent to an agricultural
operation, it is imperative to preserve or create buffer zones: Those buffer
zones must have deed restrictive tags placed on the properties in order to be
divided at all, as it was not done in the case of the properties adjacent to
Greenwood. Those smaller acreage lots originaily had a density override� but
that in no way restricts the present landowners from attempting to subdivide
properties that were supposed to be restricted from further division. It is the
city's responsibility to see thatthe creation of smailer acreage properties like
the ones adjacent to Greenwood are restricted by deed if division is ailowed,
zoning does not really restrict since eacli new.council can change the zoning
to circumvent that which was not intended to be circumvented.
3. The city shouid stand behind the right to farm provisions already invoked, "
and too often ignored by successive counclis until the community has had to
remind the city of its desire to preserve agriculture in Arroyo Grande.
Sincerely, �
���,�'
� �
Leroy Saruwatari,
Lorene Saruwatari
Adam Saruwatari
�
�
������j�� . �
MA � 2 7 2G03
c�n oE .4RFiUY�J Gl3ANDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOP�IENT DEPT.�
�
�rPCa
S� �03
The Absurdity of Conservation Easements Yes, it's true. The construction of
conservation easements is absurd!
Is this what this city -- Arroyo Grande -- wishes to impose on the farmers? Conservation
Easements(CE) take away the rights of all future owners of the land, take away all future control
of the land by the community, take away all future control of the land by the county, take away
all future control of the land by the state. The conservation easement wipes out any future change
in the possible use of that land through changes in culture, changes in people's needs, or even
dynamic natural changes in the land itself.
The rules for CEs vary from state to state. But in general most states have simply elected to use
the "Uniforen Easement Act", a document•that was created by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. UCEA was reviewed by several law
schools and received a final stamp of approval from the U.S.Department of Interior.
In part, the CE states that all owners of the lands that are encumbered by a CE must forever
continue to execute the contractual conservation practices to the satisfaction of the Holder of the
CE." The word "forever" is the absurdity. In California law, the word used is "perpetuity".
It is difficult for the average mind to grasp the enormity of the concept of perpetuity. We are
expected to deal with "perpetuity" in a legal document such as the conservation easement. The
concept isn't onty monstrously absurd, it isn't even real or practical. And it certainly isn't useful.
Legal systems change, peoples' needs change, so how can we realistically use the concept of
perpetuity in defining the extent and control of a legal document?
Realistic time periods shoutd be used, perhaps 10 years, or 30 years, or whatever is useful and
real to the land owners and easement holders. This permits use changes that may occur over time,
due to need changes in our culture or need changes in our society. The easement may have a
clause that permits extension for another agreed-upon time period. Ignoring the price paid or
value of the CE, the time period should have reasonable flexibility if it is to make sense.
A basic reason that the use of "perpetuity" is so accepted is that the feds have tied tax laws and
federal fund authorization to the use of the word, and concept. If the CE isn't for perpetuity then
you won't get a federal tax break, nor can federal agencies authorize purchase funds. This cor�cept
must be changed, so as not to deep freeze the future use of land for our posterity!
Otis Page of Arroyo Grande
Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online
s
�eresa McClis - Part.000 . Fage 1-�
- ��3 ��03
It is obvious that the objective of the proposed new Ag policy being devised by the City of
Anoyo Grande is to constrain the freedom of farmers to do what they wish with their land -- to
control and subordninate their property rights. The city's power to control zoning would be
combined with a strategy to force, a fazmer to use a conservation easement to discourage the
farmers choice to change the use of their property --when farming becomes unviable or if speciai
development opportunities exist.
Two major objections to conservation easements is that they divert most of the farmer's equity
and that they are perpetual. Because conservation easements are inflexible, there is no allowance
for future changesin circumstances. Besides this fact, the Uniform Conservation Easement Act
can be enforced by third parties. This is a real problem.
Even in the simplest type of conservation easement transaction, the two original parties to the
easement—the landowner farmer, known in legal terms as the "grantor," and the land
trusVgovernment, or "grantee,"— may be placed in a position that is not ordinarily sanctioned in
our traditional system of contract law.
In contract law, only the parties to the contract can enforce it. There are generally two parties.
But when the state has enacted the important parts of the Uniform Conservation Easement Act, a
third party, non-profit organization that is not the land trust that holds the easement can also
enforce the terms if the grantee, the usual author of the easement, guts the third party's name in
the easement.
This means that both the landowner and the land trust or government agency may be satisfied
with the way the conservation easement is working out so far, but another party with whom the
landowner has no dealings except to note the party's name in the complex easement language for
some purpose; can bring the landowner to court.>
The topic of this feature of the Uniform Conservation Easement Act is avoided by land trusts
when they promote conservation easements. In fact, the seeming good faith relationship between
the landowner and the particular land trust with whom he is dealing is important to facilitate the
sealing of the transaction.
Because third pacty enforcement is buried in the body of state law and the easement's fine print,
the farmer may not realize that another organization with which he has never had any dealings
can go to court to enforce the e�sement.
Is there any wonder why those on the City Cauncit -- such as Jim Dickens -- are trying to
make the conservation easement a city policy? The citizens should understand the game being
played here, for it is dangerous and unfair to the farmer. Agricultural extremists are fanatics in
trying to use any legal vehicle to stop the conversion of farmlands to other uses. A farme�s
freedom and property rights must be protected.
Otis Page Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805-489-5811
__ _
86/30/2003 21:34 8054748083 NICK ALTER
Nicholas A. Alter
354 Corbett Canyon Road
14rroyo Grande, C,A 93410
(805) 474-8062 Voice
� (80S) 474-8083 Fax
nickaltetfa�mindsvrinx co�rr
Junc 34, 2003
Teresa McClish, Associate Planner
Community Development Depaztment
City of Arroyo Cnand� "�
214 E. Branch Street
,A,z�royo Grande, �CA 93420
PAGE 01 `•
Re: Dra�t Report on the Consezvation of Prime Agncultural Resources �or the City of Arroyo
Grande �
Deaz Teresa,
I first wish to express my appreciation for the quality of wozk on the Draft Report along with my
support of the alterhatives proposed in Section VI: �have the following brief comments to offer.
1. IN L1EU FEES (p. 26). The thi�rd sentence is confusing and I hope can be sianplified. The
explanation of the 25x multiple for estimating the speculative value of converted agland
is clear enough. What isn't cleax is how th�is point relates to mitigation fees. Is the point
here that mitigation fees would be well within reasonable and affordable limits because
of a property's gzeatly increased specularive value?
2. N�X'�GATION ORDINANCE (p. 32). A 5:1 ratio is proposed as policy, yet the example
shown uses a 2:1 ratio for cvnserving fazmland within Citty �uzits, and a 4:1 ratio for
conserving outside City limits. This is confusing.
3. AG�CUI..TURAL CONSERVATZON EASEMENT PROGR.AM (�. 34}. Two
comments here: .
a. In addition to referring to the GP's Ag Element in the opening sentcnce, I suggest you
also refer to the Economic Element's ED3 poliey statement.
b. I also suggest you add a proposed implemeatation measure on the development of an
education and outreach pmgram [a PR campaign, if you will] aimed at heightening
public awareness of the cost-benefits of ag conservation. Ttus would be especially
relcvant in anticipation of a possible bond issue somewhere down the road..
- __ _ _ _
06/38/2003 21:34
8054748083
page Two
Tcresa IvicClish
Junc 30, 2003
NICK ALTER
4. SUPPORT LOCAI. AGRICLZ..TUKAL ENTERPRISE (p. 34). These proposed
implemention measures also support the G�''s ED3 policy statement, which I think
should be re�'erenced here as �vell. Two other commcnts:
a.
b.
a
PAGE 82
To the tlaird bullet X suggest adding the words "... and Cal Poly's Sustainable Ag
Program." This is a valuable resouuroe that can help show how transitional fanoaing
can measurably impmve profit max�ns on sma11 pazccls while also addressing edge
issues. (7�u�nter Francis runs the progam.}
To the fourth and final bullet I suggest adding a sentcnce to the effect, "Work with
the County's Farm Bureau in exploring ways and means of implementing an agri-
tourism pzogram: ' The Farm Buureau has such a progra.m up and ruruiing for thc
County. Joy Fitzhugh is the contact.
Sincerel}+,
�.
�
� - .�
June 11, 2003
Rob Strong, A.I.C.P.
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
AlR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SUBJECT: Arroyo Grande's Agriculture Resources
�
�����V��
+JU�� � 2 Zu�3
CI7Y GF kRR0Y0 GFWNDE
COMMUNITY DEVEIOPi�(ENT DEP?.
The District staff commends the City of Arroyo Grande's planning staff on their hard
work and efforts in evaluating methods to conserve prime agricultural resources in the
Arroyo Grande area.
.
District palicy regarding a�icultur�l las�d is to greser.�z zD.icu2tu.*al land and prevent
urban spra�vl in rural area outside the urban reserve line (CTRL). The District views and
evaluates development of agriculture land located inside the URL on a case by case basis
since many complex issues including compatibility often influence these decisions.
The District encourages the City to deny requests to annex and rezone agricultural land
located outside of the existing URI�. Subdivision of agricultural land outside the URL is
precedent setting and may be used as justification for similar conversion by other
property owners wishing to develop agricultural land adjacent to the City. We aze
concerned with the cumulative effects resulting from the ongoing fracturing of rural land
and increasing residential development in areas far removed from commercia�l services
and employment centers. Such development fosters continued dependency of private
auto use as the only viable means of access to essential services and other destinations.
This is �inconsistent with the land use planning strategies recommended in the Clean Air
Plan, which promote the concept of compact development by directing growth to areas
within existing urban and village reserve lines. The CAP recommends that areas outside
the urban/village reserve lines be retained as open space, a�riculture and very low-density
residential development.
We believe it is important to emphasize to decision makers that subdivision and future
development on agricultural land outside the URL allows a pattem of development to
continue that is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. Such development cumulatively
contributes to existing stresses on air quality, circulation and other natural and physical
resources and infrastructure that cannot be easily mitigated. We commend the City on
their efforts to protect agricultural land and urge them to deny request to subdivide
agricultural land outside the URL.
Sincerely,
�.�< � �-
Melissa Guise .
Air Quality Specia�ist
MAG/sll
x:�omeurn�sroxs�s� i•s.a«
3433 Roberco Court • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX: 805-781-1002
info@siocleanair.ora •3 wwwslocleanair.org
_S� e.' . .�I n e _idpd nane�
�
�
APPENDIX D
PRESS REPORTS
_ ___
�
..--.-'.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2003 � TIMES-PRESS-RECORDER •.: PAGEA7'
. � . , . �,,; >.
� .............
Work:sho . , . . � :-- ::.:.
. athers o �ons
pg . .
. p .. ..
on f a�rmdland conv � � •. . . . . .
ersion .
� BOB BEHME
Siaff Wrtter .
ARROYO GRANDE — The
six-month moratorium that
blocks the of
prime farmland into housing
tracts will end on Aug.14.
But before it dies, city offi-
cials want to know if resi-
dents want to continue pro-
tecting the city's farmland
and, if they do. how the city
should go about it.
A two-hour agricultural
workshop last Wednesday
�vas the city's attempt to find
some answers.
Supporters of city Ordi-
nance 536, which created the
moratorium, critics and sev-
eral local farmers, including
Howard Mankins, Tom Run-
nels and Jim Dickens, met in
council chambers for a
workshop titled "Impact of
Conversions of Agricultural
Lands," moderated by Tere-
sa McClish, assistant city
planner, and Jim Ber�nan,
planning .intern.
During the meeting Jeff
Garcia, field representative
for the nonprofit American
Farmland Trust, described
the trust's buy-out program.
Since it began in Febru-
ary, the moratorium has
been one of the tocvn's more
controversial issues.
Critics chazge that it �vas
designed to block two hous-
ing projects then in preper-
mit stages, something three
of five City Council mem-
bers and Community Devel-
opment Director Rob Strong
deny. � '
Strong told workshop par-
ticipants that mariy resi-
dents feel it is the open space
and some 300 acres of farm-
land that give Arroyo
Grande its unique character.
A survey, taken prior to�im-
plementing the moratorium
indicated many residents
would like to keep the land
. in the hands of farmers �who
want to farm. .
But there aze problems.
Land prices aze high and
farmers are often tempted to
sell to developers.
The �vorkshop outlined
ways preservationists can
compete — if voters are will-
ing to pay the price, Str�ong
said. �
Farmland can be removed
from the market by legisla-
tion or can be purchased by
the city. Farmers can sell de-
� velopment rights only ' � '
through such pro�rams as
. the American Fannland
TYust, and such programs as
the Williamson Act can pro-
tect land with tax incentives.
The basic premise of •
Wednesday's meeting was
that the city is eager to pre-
serve the fazmland within
its boundaries. •
The question is ho�v to go
about it.
McClish said that com-
ments from those who �
packed the council cham-
bers will provide guidance.
Oti's Page, a community
watchdog who has opposed
the moratorium since its be-
giruiing, said with the high
cost of farmland, the settle-
ment paid by private trusts
could not compens�te land
owners. Fazmers ivho want
to sell to�developeis should
have that right, he added.
Howard Mankins, who � �
owns 350 acres behind Chu-
mash Park in Pismo Beach,
said he prepared his land for
avocados, but even with a. �.
buffer, housing on his . .
b0undary presented prob- �
lems for his use of sprays
and wind rriachines.
"I've watched this valley
disappear acre by acre,'' he .
said. .
Conservation tools such as
right-to-farm ordinances
(Arroyo Grande lias one),
subdivision regu�lations, � .
buffer zones aiid 2oning
were described. .
"As a conservation tool,
zoning is ineffe�tive," said ;,
Ella Honeycutt, a lo�al envi-
rorimental.activist � �
The city's interest in pre- �
serving its ru'ral image ante- •,
dates the moratorium. FY-
nanced by a grant from the •
California State Coastal Con-
servancy, in 1991 the city de-
veloped a Coordinated Agri-
cultural Support Pro�ram, •
updating it in'96 ar:d'97: .
CASP continues to pro'vide �
back�ound for the city's ef-
forts.
�Vorkshop fmdings will be
discussed again at a Plan-
ning Commission meeting at
6 p.m. June 17 in the City
Council Chambers. �
Stafj'writer Bob Behme cnrc be
reached at 48�4206, Ex� 501�
or by eanail at �
bbehmeCQpul itzer. rce�
�ry to the South County to help children read
By the middle of the month, "This adds to the quality of For more information about �
Sears shouid have the infor- life for the whole South Coun- Project Educate, or to donate
, ___� _. . . . .., ��,_ _ . .. _______�, . . ... .
---- �sL „ ••�---
Ryan Talley is president of the SLO County Agricultural Task Force. Karen Mansfield is the exec�tive manager. Behfnd them
is housinq built about 25 years aqo at Talley Farms for laborers. Their orqanization is a farmer/rancher watchdog aqency. ..
,?
� `•:
- -�� ;.�>-
= .� ; ;. �-c�"�;
.. :..; +.��F,
SLO COUNTY GROUP PROVIDES
DATA FOR DECISION NIAI�ING
BY LESLIE E. STE�'E\S
TFIE TFtBC�E
o to just about any public meeting deating «Z[h issues af-
Gfecting agriculture and you « likely find Iiaren �fans-
field quiedv listening and taking notes.
As e�ecutive manager of the SLO County Agricultural
Task Force, it is `Iansheld's job to be the eyes and ears of
the local ag industry, sending out reports via monthly
newsletters. �
Her boss, Ryan Talley, ser� a� the group's president,
drawing on his background as part of the Talle}• fami!}' farm-
ing operation and as a longtime countr resident
`'►�ie are seen �.nd no: heard," Talley sa��s of the nonprof-
it organization. "jtie don't ta�:e sides on issues.
Rather, the task force ferrets out the facts and dissemi-
nates information to its local members to allo�v them to dra«•
their o« conclusions.
'Iheir audience includes major farm groups W:e avocado
and «Zne grape grow•ers and politician� «•hose decisions af-
fect agriculture, one of the top ri�'o econnmic engines in the
SLO County Aqricultural Task Force �� q �,��
Who: Karen Mansfieid, executive manager, Ryan Talley ;,_.;�M'�=
r,.. rf � er .
president . ,
Orqanization: SLO County Agricultural Task Force ;�,,.�: �_
Mission: Th2 task force was form2d in t993 to deal with the �,�:
• x�*.
impacts of incrzased reguiation a�d urban pressures �.
impinging on locai agriculture. In the past decade, the task'
fo;ce has workzd to dravr farmers and ranchers into the �� �'�``,•:.
d2cision-making loop on issu�s lik2 th2 SOAR land-use � :
initiativz, Coastal Commission recomm��dations a'�ecting`:z:-��;.;
agriculture operations, 'right to farm' oriinances, pesticide»�;;::.j_:
regulations and rural-urban con�licts. U�like the Farm Burea'it;';-
wr�icn communicates vrith organizations sucn as the county`}_�;;:,;
6oard of Supervisors and speaks out on isw�s ���e the �, ��;;
'r....r �r _ :
4Vili�amson Act, tne task force simoly ga`he�� e�d �'���:,'
., .
�..:
G�{$�°('l�r.�.:2$ {'110�f'?C7fit�ii. ":"s�':'r''
Telephone: 5 :7-lOZ4
` �-' �-.
��3 �� /;� .
Budqet: About 55.000 a montn, vrhich com2s from the .,�;_--;a;:;
organization's dozen ag industry board members and �::
sponsors, as well as an annual June barbecu2 and auct�on�;�,.
� :�;t +_:
fundraiser. ;';:a�.;sz
% ,'��.��2 �/L�/�-� .
�►?SX��; ��TSiN�SS: A DISCUSSION ABOUT AGRI��TURAI� ISSUES
�
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2I,` 2003 . ' • BUSI1,\
Farm
From Page D1
county. In 2002, it produced
$479 million worth of crops and
contributed almost $1 billion to
the San Luis Obispo County
economy.
Recently, Mansfield and Tal-
ley met with The.Tribune at
Talley Farms in Arroyo Grande
to discuss key issues affecting
local agriculture.
Wtlllamson Act .
Talley; The tiVilliamson.Act
(which reduces tax rates for
farmers who agree to�preserve
land for farming instead of'de-
velopment) is really a tax issue.
Every time there is a(state)
budget crisis, they look to cut
thak That concerns farmers be-
cause it would significantly in-
crease our property taxes.
Housinq costs
Talley: Locally. we are most
concerned about housing costs
for employees. If they haven't �
purchased homes already, it is ;
virtually impossible for them to
do so now Especialty in the last
five years, we have lost a lot of '
employees who go to fields in
the Central Valley where hous-
ing is cheaper. tiYe have hous-
ing for about 80 workers who
live out here — both mobile
homes for families and
bunkhouses for the single
males with a kitchen they can
work out of.
We have been expanding
housing out here since the
1970s. tiYe are trying to add
more units, but stricter housing
regulations are making it diffi-
cult to do.
Aq/urban �interface
Mansfield: The cost of hous-
ing goes up because people find
this is a desirable area to live.
That also encroaches on agri-
culture. Nlore people are will-
ing to pay for hornes on
aaeage in the counhy, but they
are not always pleased with ag
practices like pesticide applica-
tions and boom guns (to scare
off pesky birds). �
It's ironic that the rural char-
acter is what draws people
is because long-term families
have farmed here for genera-
tions and taken good care of
the land.
Pesticide use
Mansfieid: It seems like ag
is an easy target for complaints
about peshcide use, since it is
very apparent when ag opera-
tions spray. Some people will
just assume if they have prol�
lems, it is automatically pesti-
cide exposure: .
At meetings, I have asked
people where they want their
food to come from, since most
other countries do not regulate
pesticide use like we do. Some
people tell me they don't care
what was put on it, they are on-
ly concerned that it is not a�
plied in their own backyards.
Talley: Actually, the biggest
misuse of pesticides is from
homeowners, who don't need a
permit and often double or
triple the recommended con-
centraEions and then dump the
unused portion down the drain.
California is the most regulated
state as far as pesticide use.
Everything we spray we have
to document. In a lot of othe'r
states it is voluntary for some
things.
Pesticides aze getting more
expensive and less effective as
they get diluted with water. For
instance, the pesticide we use
on lettuce used to last 10 days.
Now it lasts only three days, so
we have to spray more fre-
quentty.
Critical habitat desiqnation
Mansfield: In March, the
Board of Supervisors approyed
a resolution by Supervisor•
Mike Ryan oppos'mg the desig-
nation of 85,000 acres of critical
species habitat in San Luis
Obispo County. (Public com-
ment period ended in March.
The proposal current2y is under
review by the U.S. Fish &
�Vildlife Service.)
The big co.icern is the eco-
nomic uripact new restrictions
would put .on ranchers and
farriiers.
Say you have a road that
crosses a creek to get you from
one field to another that was
put in 30 years ago. If it gets
_-�__ _.t... . . .. .. ._1.�L1. . _ ' _'7�
not put it back in under the new
standards. Same thing with a
new well. Also, we aze not sure
you could continue to do oper-
ations like grading. It can make
it more restrictive to change
crops to meet changing eco-
nomic conditions.
Public perceptions
Mansffeld: The urban/rural
conflict and added regulations
as byproducts of that (are a
threat to county agriculture).
Take tfie winery accessories
use section of the R.ight to
Farm Ordinance, for example.
A lot of that came out of com-
plaints from neighbors about
events going on at wineries in
addition to agriculture —
things they do to promote their
wines. There's a lot of in5ring�
ment on property rights by peo-
ple who see farmland as their
personal view site.
Talley: There's a lack of un=
derstanding by the general pub-
lic of �vhat is really invo2ved in
agriculture and what it takes to
successfully produce a particu-
lar product. The bottom line is
if farmers can't make a living,
they will be out of business.
SOAR (Save Open Space
and Aqricultural
Resources was a defeated
2000 local land use
initiative that would have
required a public vote to
rezone aq lands for more •
intensive use.) �
Talley: It•�xould have taken
away our rights as private land
users to do what we can do on
our own property. It would be
like us going to your house and
saying I don't want your new
addition. It's tal:ing away land
rights to preserve open space:
Ic is a great lifestyle and I love
it, but you have to"be able to
ma�:e money doing it ��
Mansfield: I don't ttunk any-
one in agriculture is against
preserving open space if it is fi
nancially feasible. But y ou can't
keep someone as a pepper
farmer if he can't"make a living.
You need alternatives. ,;-
Leslie E. Steuens writes about
business and agrieulture fos �e
Tribune. Reaeh her at
lestevens�tthetri6uneneuxcom
__ �e • aneo ___.
�
d
c
�
r�
c
�
u
s
ti
a
s
t�
i
��. .
c
I�
C
APPENDIX E
EXAMPLE BUFFER ORDINANCE
�
APPENDIX E- EXAMPLE BUFFER ORDINANCE
16.28.50 � Agricultural buffer requirement.
A. In addition to the City's right to farm deed policy, the City has determined that the
use of property for agricultural operations is a high priority. To minimize potential
conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural land uses and to protect the public
health, all new development or redevelopment adj acent to designated agricultural or
agricultural reserve districts or any land used for farming, shall be required to provide an
agricultural buffer. The agricultural buffer area shall be a minimum of one hundred feet,
measured from the edge of the agricultural area. Optimally, to achieve a maximum
separation, a buffer wider than one hundred feet is encouraged and may be required if it
is recommended ,b}+�'the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner. A
decreased buffer distance may be allowed if it can be demonstrated that an adequate
physical buff�r exists (eg. Arroyo Grande Creek) that is approved by the San Luis Obispo
County Agricultural Commissioner. �
B. The minimum one hundred foot agricultural buffer area shall be comprised of two
components: a twenty foot wide agricultural landscaped transition area located
contiguous to an eighty foot wide �agricultural buffer located contiguous to the
a� area. The combined one hundred foot agricultural buffer shall not qualify as
farmland mitigation.
C. The following uses shall be permitted in the one hundred foot agricultural buffer:
native plants, tree or hedge rows, draina�e channels, storm retention ponds, natural azeas
such as creeks or drainage swales, railroad tracks or other utility comdors and any other
use, including agricultural uses, determined by the planning commission to be consistent
with the use of the property as an agricultural buffer. There shall be no public access to
the one hundred foot agricultural buffer unless otherwise permitted due to the nature of
the area (e.g., railroad tracks). The one hundred foot agricultural buffer shall be
developed by the developer pursuant to a plan approved by the Parks and Recreation
Community Facilities Director. The plan shall include provision for the establishment,
management and maintenance of the area. The plan shall include the use of integrated
pest management techniques. An easement in favor of the city shall be recorded against
the property, which shall include the requirements of this article or, at the Director's
discretion, the property shall be dedicated to the city in fee title.
�
�e�_____W___..�.,
APPENDIX E-1
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
:
�
�
��
:
� �
a�
� �
'' ° o
�. �
� �-
� o
0
+r� o
y �
�
,� o
o °
�
�
Q
0
�
a�
�
�
oQ
0
0
�
0
0
�
APPENDIX E-2
�
0
- -- - -
- -- - -
. --_ _ � _ _ - _ - - -- -- I
�— _ -- — -- -^-_- . I ,
_ ,
- -- � �i
- -- ----- -- --- -- - - ---�
-- --- - � - - - - _ . _ ---,
- -- �
--. - --- __-_ _ -- _ _-� _ -- - - - --! �
--- -- - -
-
--_ __ - --_----- --- _ - - - - -- � :
-
------ --- ,
---�---- -- - . , . .
� ---�---- " _.__' - I r i
�
d
�
� ��.
�_
ti �..
�_
__
_ ,
� �� �
�_
�
��- -� -
d
�
-�' •
�
�_.
�` �
�
�
,
•
�
� ��.
��
�
�
�
APPENDIX E-3
�� � f ' Y . .
� �.
� ��
� � �
" . � � •�����• �
1 y
? �
� 4 � >
� �e �.w. � `�» f�=ij� <3?�
�'��-'�-���.�.�°� � � �°..
, r�.,-�
�;,�,+► ��:.
"� ' 3 .n�.,�� M � Y ���:(� ����''
� � � ��,� �� �� �
> <� �
� � ',
_ r � � �%4 ���;���, ,. �
F � i • �.� . '� � e; +� � .,�
r�� ,s�:a
_ ����• � •
'� �� ," r . �r
.� l.� � /��� r.� ,.� M
% . f, �",��"`����� �' S�`�r���
.,y��� �r. '�l�r�^�'� • . . , y . r� 'tE„��
_` `��. a � ' �.� � • �
ar. ..��� ,v_ _ • �
,. �. � '.� �: .� � ����
� s
. �` � t �� .� � �t
�, �'� '��1. `�"�� �
:; ; � . : �. ,�, ,�'� ��3��•1.
��.
�--�;is�'�':��i���t:.. _ __.'_.�.+����3tL�%_°l -'
: ��• r" �
� ^, M' i�
�� , �,� � .:
. ,��� t ` r�.
.� � �� ,
_ "� �r � ��„3y 's�
R (
� �� , �
_. �"J�'�'��� !�$' _ w
�, . s% ` i ,� ' � ,� . ��; `r . � ,.� .�. .
��L�� _• r l e � � Y
_ p; .'n ` -e'7rY '.'� 4 F �, ` � , a � / }•..
� td' �"a.� '�"� } � .'�S'''� ' •, �L �
��}y��'� �.. .�'� �� �'r� °��� � �c*
� � I!� Y�' � Y.�' �,;Efa ,��'�. �' f �.
{+� . �q . f .� 7 - `�:` ���''�-�� 1 �� e�
c� ' i 1 . !`G 't:r��� r� . '�"�+ � �
' _�'�'� �•: •, �-��:%�� Vd �:.��. •. ;� � �
3�' � , �^„ �` s -s �, r r 1� e. �-: �` �::v� ,
� K"� ` �� � , � ! a � %
�' -�' `' `'+��'% �� �� r , ���� �`�
� : ` •d ! r Ac s f. .
- _��•; t!..���`_/��V�. ' �"�'s.. ty �.N•� Yr� ,�
,-. .� � , -,� s �� ' l��,�,.M� ' . :� � � i ;��/`�?� O �
7 Fj� \.! .���
� �' �w `� 1�►��, �' , �' �� .yf� . � ' %� : ,
a. ,I
` tl•, � �4� ����• � �� � '�': ���� ` � :� \
�:L �'�
��
,� . .�'
Z �
��, � � .�._. �
���� y .".
� =
��,�,, H�'' ��
�� ~ W
�, �
.,., � ��.
� , V
x �
r� � �
R� � �ir. yF:
14`� �
,�
�
3 �
. �d: � �
��u ��- �
�� �� �
�:� � � �."` � � a�
��� �'
� , ��'� d � �i
��� >,, �� �� O
� .��
���� 4 � �
� t` � �
* 7 . /,^ +Tf �kL.
z� � ti.� �4 � �
�• ��,•+ O
� L
1� 1 � ° �
�- �:" e � j � � �
���� \ f �� �.. / r
' �� ��� � ' �
� 'ti; /
"'°
> �`� / �
�. � J O
�
�'� `•,' � � ;� O �
��:. �
;y,,, ,:F �
#�'� �
s � � �.'u �
�i� %� P .:
� ar.,; �
� �
�A.i� � . ��. r � . .
+� i ��. ,
f " � ; �:
.f N ti �
'�4f' Y .':
/l \ a . "`'��',�
�� .�����; " �
.:�: .
-.��� .���.
����:�- �
��� � �` O
�� � � � . O
�: ` �'�/� �,
�
� y .
�? '�� y �
��:�;��� -
?� O
��T� � � ..
i'� � j S � -
� ;. , .
'�' 4 i % �,; ��
a a �
Y i
. � i� �. ..-.i
//
/ /�
APPENDIX F
EXAMPLE MITIGATIO.N REQUIREMENT ORDINANCE
!�
�
APPENDIX F— EXAMPLE PROPOSED MITIGATION REQUIREMENT
ORDINANCE
16.28.060 Purpose and findings.
A. The purpose of this cfiapter and this article is to implement the agricultural land
conservation policies contained in the 2001 General Plan with a program designed to
permanently protect agricultural land located within the Arroyo Grande city limits and
within the Area of Environmental Concern planning area for agricultural uses.
B. The City Council finds this chapter and this article are necessary for the following
reasons: California is losing farmland at a rapid rate; the Arroyo Grande Valley farmland
is of exceptional productive quality; the cumulative impact of the loss of agricultural land
is predictably a significant impact under CEQA in development projects; the Arroyo
Grande 2001 General Plan has policies to preserve farmland; the City has 355 acres
zoned agriculture within city limits; the San Luis Obispo County general plan also
includes policies to preserve fannland; the continuation of agricultural operations
preserves the landscape and environmental resources; loss of farmland to development is
irreparable and agriculture is an important component of the City's economy; and losing
agricultural land will have a cumulatively negative impact on the economy of the City
and the County of San Luis Obispa
C. The City Council further finds that the acreage of prime agriculturalland within the
City limits is a particular important resource, has unique quality and benefits the
community through the provision of productive open space, economic activity and
employment base, wildlife habitat and an important filter to rain runoff, sustaining rural
community character, and the provision of locally grown produce .
D. The City Council finds that the acreage of agricultural land within the City limits
has rapidly decreased over the previous three decades and is particulazly threatened due
to encroaching urban development, available infrastructure and land costs that are
exceptionally higher than average costs of agricultural lands within the County of San
Luis Obispo.
E. The City Council finds that protection of agricultural acreage within the City's Area
of Environmental Concern is important to preserving a strong urban edge and preventing
future urban sprawL
F. The City Council finds that the protection of agricultural lands within the City
limits is the City's greatest priority per the 2001 General Plan followed by lands adjacent
to the City limits, and thirdly, other agricultural lands within the City's Area of
Environmental Concern planning area.
G. It is ±he policy of the City to work cooperatively with San Luis Obispo County to
preserve agricultural land within the City's Area of Environmental Concern planning
area, beyond that deemed necessary for development. It is further the policy of the City to
protect and conserve agricultural land, especially in areas presently farmed or having
Class I or II soils or areas that are presently or were historically farmed or are potentially
capable of being farmed.
H. The City Council finds that some urban uses when contiguous to farmland can
affect how an agricultural use can be operated, which can lead to the conversion of
agricultural land to urban use.
I. The City Council further finds that by requiring conservation easements for land
being converted from an agricultural use and by requiring a one hundred foot buffer, the
City shall be helping to ensure prime farmland remains in or available for agricultural
use. -
16.28.070 Definitions.
A. Advisory committee. The City of Arroyo Grande's Planning Commission shall
serve as the advisory committee.
B. Agricultural land or fannland. Those land areas of tlie County and/or City
specifically classed and zoned as Agricultural Preserve (A-P) or Agricultural General, as
those zones aze defined in the City of Arroyo Grande and County of San Luis Obispo
zoning ordinances within the City's Area of Environmental Concern as shown in Exhibit
A, where the soil of the land contains Class 1 or 2 soils, as defined by the Soil
Conservation Service or is presently or historically farmed.
C. Agricultural mitigation land. Agricultural land encumbered by a farmland deed
restriction, a fannland conservation easement or such other farmland conservation
mechanism acceptable to the city.
D. Farmland conservation easement. The granting of an easement over agricultural
land for the purpose of restricting its use to agricultural land. The interest granted
pursuant to a farmland conservation easement is an interest in land, which is less than fee
simple.
E. Farmland deed restriction. The creation of a deed restriction; covenant or condition
which precludes the use of the agricultural land subject to the restriction for any
nonagricultural purposes, use, operation or activity. The deed restriction shall provide
that the land subject to the restriction will permanently remain agricultural land.
F. Qualifying entity. A nonprofit public benefit 501(c)(3) corporation operating in
San Luis Obispo County for the purpose of conserving and protecting land in its natural,
rural or agricultural condition. The following entity is a qualifying entity: Land
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo. Other entities may be approved by the city council
from time to time. �
16.28.080 Agricultural land mitigation requirements.
A. Beginning on , the City shall require agricultural mitigation by
applicants for zoning changes or any other discretionary entitlement which will change
the use of agricultural land to any nonagricultural zone or use.
B. Agricultural mitigation shall be satisfied by:
1. Granting a farmland conservation easement, a fannland deed restriction or other
fannland conservation mechanism to or for the benefit of the city and/or a qualifying
entity approved by the city. Mitigation shall be required for that portion of the land which
no longer will be designated agricultural land, including any portion of the land used for
park and recreatian purposes. Two times as many acres of prime agricultural land shall be
protected as was changed to a nonagricultural use within city limits, or up to four times as
many acres of agricultural land shall be protected as was changed to a nonagricultural use
outside the city limits, but within the City's Area of Environmental Concern in order to
mitigate the loss of agricultural land; or
2. In lieu of conserving land as provided above if the city council determines that the
payment of in-lieu fees provide a superior opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of
the general plan, agricultural mitigation may be satisfied by the payment of a fee based
upon a one to four replacement for a fannland conservation easement or farmland deed
restriction established by the city council by resolution or through an enforceable
agreement with the developer. The in lieu fee option must be approved by the city
council. The fee shall be equal to or greater than the value of a previous farmland
conservation transaction in the City plus the estimated cost of legal, appraisal and other
costs, including staff time, to acquire property for agricultural mitigation. The in lieu fee,
paid to the city, shall be used for farmland mitigation purposes, with priority given to
lands with prime agricultural soils within the City.
C. The land included within the one hundred foot agricultural buffer required by
section 2001 General Plan Ag 5-2 shall not be included in the calculation for the purposes
of determining the amount of land that is required for mitigation.
D. It is the intent of this program to work in a coordinated fashion with the San Luis
Obispo County and State agencies, and, therefore, farmland conservation easement azeas
may overlap partially or completely with habitat easement areas approved by the State
Department of Fish and Game. Up to twenty percent of the fazmland conservation
easement area may be enhanced for wildlife habitat purposes as per the requirements of
the State Department of Fish and Game and/or San Luis Obispo County management
programs; appropriate maintenance, processing or other fees may be required.
16.28.090 Comparable soils and water supply.
A. The agricultural mitigation land shall be compazable in soil quality with the
agricultural land whose use is being changed to nonagricultural use.
B. The agricultural mitigation land shall have adequate water supply to support
agricultural use on the land to be converted to nonagricultural use and the water supply
on the agricultural mitigation land shall be protected in the fazmland conservation
easement, the farmland deed restriction or other document evidencing the agricultural
mitigation.
16.28.100 Eligible lands.
A. The first priority for agricultural mitigation land shall be located within city limits.
The second priority for agricultural mitigation shall be located adj acent, to Gity limits, and
the third with the City's Area of Environmental Concern, as shown in the 2001 General
Plan. The criteriafor preferred locations or zones for agricultural mitigation land shall be
determined by the City Council after receiving input from the advisory committee and
San Luis Obispo County. In making their determination, the following factors shall be
considered:
1. The zones shall be compatible with the 2001 General Plan and the general plan of
San Luis Obispo County.
2. The zones shall include agricultural land similar to the acreage, soil capability and
water availability sought to be changed to nonagricultural use.
3. The zones shall include comparable soil types to that most likely to be lost due to
proposed development.
4.
B. The planning commission shall recommend to the city council acceptance of
agricultural mitigation land of ten acres or more by a qualifying entity and/or the city,
except that it may consider accepting smaller pazcels if the entire mitigation required for
a project is less, or when the agricultural mitigation land is adjacent to larger parcels of
agricultural mitigation land akeady protected. Contiguous parcels shall be preferred.
C. Land previously encumbered by a conservation easement of any nature or kind is
not eligible to qualify as agricultural mitigation land.
16.28.110 Requirements of instruments; duration.
A. To qualify as an instrument encumbering agricultural mitigation land, all owners of
the agricultural mitigation land shall execute the instrument.
B. The instrument shall be in recordable form and contain an accurate legal description
setting forth the description of the agricultural mitigation land.
C. The instrument shall prohibit any activity, which substantially impairs or diminishes
the agricultural productivity of the land, as determined by the advisory committee.
D. The instrument shall protect the existing water rights and retain them with the
agricultural mitigation land.
E. The applicant shall pay an agricultural mitigation fee equal to cover the costs of
administering, monitoring and enforcing the instrument in an amount determined by city
council.
F. The city shall be named a beneficiary under any instrument conveying the interest
in the agricultural mitigation land to a qualifying entity.
G. Interests in agricultural mitigation land shall be held in trust by a qualifying entity
and/or the city in perpetuity. Except as provided in subsection (h) of this section, the
qualifying entity or the city shall not sell, lease, or convey any interest in agricultural
mitigation land which it shall acquire, except to continued agricultural uses in accordance
with the continuing instrument.
H. If judicial proceedings find that the public interests described in section 16.28.060
of this chapter can no longer reasonably be fulfilled as to an interest acquired, the interest
in the agricultural mitigation land may be extinguished through sale and the proceeds
shall be used to acquire interests in other agricultural mitigation land in San Luis Obispo
County, as approved by the City and provided in this chapter.
I. If any qualifying entity owning an interest in agricultural mitigation land ceases to
exist, the duty to hold, administer, monitor and enforce the interest shall pass to the City.
16.28.130 City of Arroyo Grande farmland conservation program advisory
committee.
A. The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission shall serve as the Arroyo Grande
farmland conservation advisory committee.
B. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the advisory committee to exercise the
following powers:
1. To adopt rules of procedure and bylaws governing the operation of the advisory
committee and the conduct of its meetings;
2. To recommend the areas where mitigation zones would be preferred in the City of
Arroyo Grande, adjacent to, and within the Area of Environmental Concern;
3. To promote conservation of agricultural land in San Luis Obispo County by
offering inf�rmation and assistance to landowners and others;
4. To recommend tentative approval of mitigation proposals to City Council;
5. To certify that the agricultural mitigation land meets the requirements of this
chapter;
6. Any denial from the advisory committee may be appealed to City Council.
C. The eligible Land Trust shall monitor all lands and easements acquired under this
chapter and shall review and monitor the implementation of all management and
maintenance plans for these lands and easement areas. The eligible Land Trust shall
provide advice to the planning commission on the establishment of criteria for the
location of agricultural mitigation lands.
D. All actions of the planning commission shall be subject to the approval of the
Arroyo Grande City Council.
16.28.140 Annual report.
Annually, beginning one year after the. adoption of this chapter, the Community
Development Director shall provide to the advisory committee an annual report
delineating the activities undertaken pursuant to the requirements of this chapter and an
assessment of these activities. The report shall list and report on the status of all lands and
easements acquired under this chapter. The Community Development Director shall also
report to the eligible Land Trust.
16.28.150 Violation.
Any person or entity who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of
an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the
maximum prescribed by law. In addition, any person or entity who violates any provision
of article I of this chapter shall be liable to the transferee of the property for actual
damages. In an action to enforce such liability or fine, the prevailing party shall be
awarded reasonable attomeys' fees.
16.28.160 Precedence.
This chapter shall take precedence over all ordinances or parts of ordinances or
resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith.
APPENDIX G
EXAMPLE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT CREDIT ORDINANCE
APPENDiX G Example Proposed Transfer Development Credit Program
Procedure For Establishment of Transferable Agricultural Credits .
Transferable agricuiturai credits are eligible to be ailocated to the property owners of record of
agricultural land within the approximately 355 acre secti�n of the City of Arroyo Grande that is
zoned" Agriculture by the 1991 Zoning Map. Transferable agricultural credits shali run with the
land. Existing agricuitural parcels in the subject area, and over an acre in size are eligibie to
transfer two credits for each acre of agricuitural land which is placed in a permanent conservation
easement. in the caiculation of agricultural credits, a fraction which is 0.5 or larger shall be
considered a full agricultural credit. �
Eligible Lands To Satisfy Agricultural Land Mitigation Requirements
In the establishment of any conservation easements, the Agricultural Land Trust shail avoid the
creation of any situation in which a property owner who does not participate in the Program,
would have any acces�, utiliry or infrastructure easements negatively impacted, unless the
nonparticipating property owner consents. In addition, any nonparticipating property owner shall
not have their land unduly impacted as to present or future development potentiai, by the creation
of nonparticip�ting land "islands" (where the nonpa�ticipating land is completely surrounded by
properties participating in the Program), uniess the nonparticipating property owner consents. ,
The foliowing minimum criteria shall be met for a property to be eligible for placement in an
agricultural conservation easement or satisfy agricultural land mitigation requirements identified
within this chapter:
• The property shall have adequate water supply to support the historic agricultural use on
the land. The water supply for the land shali be protected in the farmland conservation
easement, the farmland deed restriction or other document evidencing the agriculturai
mitigation; or � �
• The property is of adequate size, configuration and location to be viable for continued
agricultural use.
• In addition, a property that meets any or all of the following criteria can be considered as
agricultural mitigation land:
• The mitigation land is located along a roadway and contains unique visual values;
. The mitigation land is not strategically located for other economic development purposes;
• The mitigation land is contiguous with other areas sought for agricultural protection which
comprise a minimum of 10 acres; and
• The mitigation land provides open space and wildlife habitat values.
A property is ineligible to serve as agricultural mitigation land if one or both of the two
circumstances below apply.
(1) The property is already subject to easements or physical conditions that IegalJy or practicably
prevent modification of the property's land use to a nonagricultural use.
(2) The property is currently encumbered by a conservation easement of any nature or kind.
Requirements of Easements or Other Instruments
To preserve agricultural land, all owners of the land shall execute the appropriate conservation
easement or other lega� instrument. The instrument shall be in recordable form and contain an
accurate legal description setting forth the description of the land. The instrument shall prohibit
any activity that substantially impairs or diminishes the agricultural productivity of the land. The
instrument shall protect the existing water rights and retain them with the agricultural mitigation
land.
The City or a qualifying entity approved by the City shal! Fay the costs of administering,
monitoring and enforcing the instrument. The City shall be a named beneficiary under any
instrument conveying the interest in the agricultural mitigation land to.a qualifying entity, unless
waived by the City Councii.
Interests in agricultural mitigation land shall be held in trust by a qualifying entity.and/or.the City in
perpetuity.
If judicial proceedings find that the public interests described in this section of this chapter can no
longer reasonably be fulfilied as to an interest acquired. the interest in the agricultural mitigation
land may be extinguished through sale and the proceeds shall be used to acquire interests in
other agricultural mitigation land in Contra Costa County, as approved by the City and provided in
this chapter.
If any qualifying entity owning an interest in agriculturai mitigation land ceases to exist, the duty to
hold, administer, monitor and enforce the interest shall pass to the City. �
Procedure For Transferpf Agricultural Credits
Agricultural credits maybe transferred to any residential zone of the City that has been identified
as a housing opportunity site ln the Housing Element Update (2003 Housing Element Update —
Workshop No. 1— Housing issue Report). Approval by the City must be based on findings that
the transfer is consistent with the General Plan and provides for the permanent conservation of
the donor parcel as farmland. The transfer of agricultural credits shall be authorized as part of a
development agreement and shall be subject to all City policies, regulations and codes, including
the requirement to obtain development entitlements for the receiver parcel. A development
agreement appiication shall include both the donor and receiver parcel.
When agricultural credits are transferred from a donor site, the corresponding acreage generating
the transferred credits shall be maintained as farmiand subject to conditions specified in the
farmland conservation easement deed restriction. Partial transfer of allocated credits for donor
parcels may be ailowed and any remaining credit ailocation balance shall be monitored until all
credits are transferred.
The number of agricuitural credits which may be transferred to a receiver parcel shall not exceed
the maximum density range specified in the General Plan.
The City Council may adopt rules and procedures it considers necessary to implement these
provisions to facilitate the transfer of ailowable development. Such rules and procedures shail be
adopted by resolution.
Formation of Local Land Trust
A new local land trust should be formed, for example the San Luis Obispo Chapter of the Land
Conservancy.
On a periodic basis the Community Development Director shall publish a report delineating the
activities undertaken pursuant to the requirements of this chapter and an assessment of these
activities. The report shall list and report on the status of all lands and easements acquired under
this chapter.
Violations and Enforcement
Any person or entity who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an
infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the maximum
prescribed by law. In addition, any person or entity who violates any provision this article shall be
liable to the transferee of the property for actual damages. In an action to enforce such liability or
fine, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees. .
Precedence
This chapter shall take precedence over all ordinances or parts of ordinances or resolutions or
pa�ts of resolutions in conflict herewith.
9
e
APPENDIX H
AGRICULTURAL STUDY MEETING LOG
�
9
S
APPENDIX H
Agricutture Study
Meeting Log
Date With CDD Members
March 3, 2003 John Warrick, San Luis Obispo County Rob Strong
Agriculture Teresa McClish
Jim Bergman
March 13, 2003 Sorrel Marks, California Regional Water Rob Strong
Quality Control Board Teresa McClish
Jim Bergman
March 13, 2003 Raymond K. Belknap and Bob Hill, The Rob Strong
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo Teresa McClish
County Jim Bergman
April 2, 2003 Carol Roberts, The Tribune Rob Strong
- Teresa McClish
� Jim Bergman
April 4, 2003 Malcolm McEwen, Central San Luis Rob Strong
Resource Conservation District; Timothy Teresa McClish
Duff, The Coastal Conservancy; Jeffery Jim Bergman
Garcia, American Farmland Trust;
April 9.2003 Bruce Beaudoin, Bruce Beaudoin & Rob Strong
Associates Teresa McClish
• Jim Bergman
April 10, 2003 Paul Allen, Joel Craig, and Melissa Teresa McClish
Guise, Air Pollution Control Board Jim Bergman
June 5, 2003 Tom Bordonaro,and Kirk Kidwell. San Rob Strong
� Luis Obispo County Tax Assessor's � Teresa McClish -�
Office Jim Bergman
APPENDIX I
SYNOPSIS OF MEETING WITH AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT .
�
�
APPENDIX I
Synopsis of Meeting with Air Pollution Control District Staff
On April 10, 2003, Teresa McClish and Jim Bergman met with staff inembers Paul Allen,
Joel Craig, and Melissa Guise of the Air Pollution Control District to discuss wind as a
variable in the Agriculture Study. .
Overview of Air Pollution Control District a.nd their data
The Air Pollution Control District works to preserve clean air for all and to promote
community and individual responsibility for air quality through education. To cazry out
these goals the district staff monitor the air quality, reviews land use projects, develops
and enforces rules and regulations, issues permits, and creates a long-term Clean Air Plan
for the county. The Air Pollution Control District is the primary agency responsible for
achieving clean air standards established by the Califomia Air Resources Board and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The Air Pollution Control District's monitoring program is based upon a series of
weather and wind monitoring stations in representative areas throughout the county. It
was stressed to us by the staff that the data that comes from these monitoring stations
should only be used for general trends due to the fact that topography has a huge
influence on wind direction and speed at the site specific or micro level. With this caveat
in mind the staff presented us with quarterly "Wind Rose" data from the Grover Beach
monitoring station. The wind rose data can be best summarized as:
1/1/02-3/31/02 — Approximately 38 percent of the time wind came from North, North-
North-East and North East, and 14 percent from the West, and from all compass points
during the remaining 48 percent of the time. The strongest winds originated from the
West.
4/1/02-6/30/02 - Approximately 25 percent of the time wind came from due west, 10 �
percent from the West-North-West; and from all compass points during the remaining 65
percent of the time. The strongest winds originated from the West. -
7/1/02-9/30/02 — Approximately 25 percent of the time �vind came from due west, 10
percent from the West-South-West, and from all compass points during the remaining 65
percent of the time. The strongest winds originated from the West.
10/1/02-12/31/02 — Approximately 36 percent of the time wind came from North-North-
East, North East, and East-North-East, 10 percent from the West, and from all compass
points during the remaining 54 percent of the time. The strongest winds originated from
the West.
_.
In addition to these seasonal wind patterns, we were informed that the wind tends to shift
throughout the day in the County of San Luis Obispo and especially in the South County
due to the proximity of the Pacific Ocean. The general pattern of'this diurnal wind pattern
sees calm mornings, winds from the ocean in the afternoon, and lesser winds from the
land to the ocean in the evenings. .
Agriculture Related Suggestions from the Staff of the Air Pollution Control Dishict
Smart Farming
The concept of smart farming was brought to the table. Smart farnung is based upon the
idea that it is in a farmer's best economic and social interest to avoid certain practices
such as watering, disking, or applying pesticides during inefficient times based upon
scientific data and -research.
Buffers - �
The concept of buffers both physical and spatial was discussed. It was the opinion of the
staff inembers based upon our prograzn goals and physical and topographic
characteristics that taller and variable height physical buffers would be the best choice for
physical buffers, while spatial buffers should consist of uniform boundaries that ignores
wind direction and is flexible enough to deal with all possible situations.
�
�
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 1 OF 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT
THE PREPARATON OF AN ORDINACE AND RESO,LUTION
IMPLEMENTATING RECOMMENDATONS FROM THE REPORT ON THE
CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2003, the City Councif adopted Ordinance 536 which
implemented a moratorium on the acceptance of land use applications that seek to
develop parcels containing prime farmland soils and directed staff to prepare a study to
determine impacts of such conversion; and
WHEREAS, a public workshop was held on May 28, 2003 and on June 17, July 1, and
July 17, 2003, public hearings were held by the Planning Commission to discuss
citizen concerns and draft alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered th.e information in
the Report on the Conservation of Agricultural Resources in Arroyo Grande, as well as
public testimony presented at the hearings and make the following findings:
A. Proximate prime agriculture within the City of Arroyo Grande is integral to the
character af the community and directly affects the City's economic and
historical significance;
B. The City has demonstrated a long term commitment to agricultural preservation
through long-range planning, general plan policy, zoning, the right to farm
ordinance and commission of the Coordinated Agriculture Support Prog�am
study;
C. Allowed development of prime farmlands have historically and persistently
caused the eventual conversion of nearby or adjacent parcels to non agricultural
uses which in turn affect additional development pressure on other agricultural
lands,
D. Operating farms have not been consistently or adequately protected through the
dedication or maintenance of agricultural buffers;
E. The 2001 General Plan requires Development Code revisions to ensure the
adequate review of land use proposals, the-appropriate findings of fact and
adequate conditions and mitigations;
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE20F3
F. Successful agricultural easement programs exist in comparable communities
that secure funding and acquire agricultural easements for long term
preservation;
G. Successful programs exist in comparable communities that promote agri-tourism
and agri-enterprise operations;
�
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande, California hereby recommend the following for City Council
consideration: �
1. Preparation of an ordinance to
i. amend Section16.24.020 creatinq a agricultural buffer overlay
district of 100 feet around all a� rcels designated and zoned
ac�riculture;
ii. amend Section 16.28.16.040 and 16.20.060 to incorporate
expanded findinqs for rezoninq applications and subdivisions as
outlined in Exhibit A Section VI•
iii. amend Section 16.28.030 to revise allowable uses in
aaricultural districts;
iv. amend 16.28.040 to revise Develoament Code standards;
v. amend Section 16.28 to include mitigation requirements and
additional buffer requirements for proposed development in
aariculture districts; and
2. Preparation of resolution to
i. Initiate General Plan Amendment(s) to reconsider and resolve
inconsistencies between policies within the Agriculture and
Open Space Element, Economic Element and Land Use
Element and the General Land Use map
ii . Develop an Agriculture Conservation Easement program and
direct staff t,� outline funding and process for acquiring
Agriculture conservation ea�seFnents
iii . Work with local Farm Bureau, Chamber of Commerce and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE30F3
other organizations to develop an Agricultural Enterprise
program to promote and benefit local agricuiture .
On motion by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: '
seconded by ,and by
the foregoiRg Resolution was adopted 5th day of February, 2002.
ATTEST:
Lyn, Commission Clerk
AS TO CONTENT:
Rob Strong
Community Development Director
Jim Guthrie, Chair
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
PAGE 6
���� ATTACHMENT 1
• Maximum parking should be per 250 square feet to discourage uses that would need
massive parking to succeed.
• Being out of parking is a big deal, so in lieu fee is appropriate where a more intense
use is proposed. Needs to be a reasonable amount to achieve parking spaces.
How do we arrive at a dollar amount? Mr. Strong stated the Parking Committee and
the City Council need to complete further study, but formula should not be in the
Development Code, but should be a separate Council Resolution.
• Disturbed by current parking requirements, "shall provide onsite parking". It will be
disruptive to Village Core Downtown (VCD) if we provide for onsite parking in VCD.
Instead we want ability to say we do not want you to provide onsite parking, but
should require in lieu fee or shared offsite parking solution. Less concern is VMU for
on-site lots, but still need off-site in-lieu alternatives.
• Lots at 122, 124, and 124 '/Z Allen Street in VMU should be included. Ms. McClish
explained the current zoning has a line through the middle of the lot, and previously
it was viewed as a residential use and in previous residential land use designation.
There is an ambiguity.
• Commissioners Arnold, Fowler, Keen and Chair Guthrie were all in favor of including
the Freitas lots as requested by the owners.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Keen, recommending
the Public Hearing be continued to the meeting of July 15�', 2003.
The motion was unanimously approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Keen, Arnold, Fowler and Chair Guthrie
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 03-004; APPLICANT —
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report
prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner, and Jim Bergman, Planning
Intern.
Ms. McClish presented the report addressing policy alternatives conceming the
conservation of prime agricultural lands in Arroyo Grande.
Chair Guthrie opened the hearing for public comment.
Otis Page, 606 Grove Street:
• Disagrees that there was not an in depth study with General Plan Update.
• Suggest another hearing to review study or have more open work sessions
• The farmers and landowners had not been surveyed and we are playing with the
farmer's money. There should be an in-depth discussion with farmers.
• Controversial history of Ag Study, suggest that focus should be a lasting work, not
temporary. If document has failures then it will be turned down by the City Council
or the next City Council. In its current state, the document will not stand the test of
time
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
PAGE 7
• Personal issue: Accused of not being a friend to agriculture, but it is not true. Wants
to support the farmer in any way, and should also dignify and honor the farmer's
property rights.
• Conservation easements price not defined.
• Better to say no conversion than to be hypocritical.
Jeffrey Garcia, 2587 Villamont Court, American Farmland Trust, Camarillo:
• Not a problem isolated to Arroyo Grande, but nation-wide.
• Support staff work and the process of involving the public.
• Clarify conservation easements; voluntary tool (1 option ) to give farmers relief from
pressure of development; offers liquid assets in lieu of development rights, retain
property rights. It works and is used nation-wide. Dixson Ranch has done it locally.
Because of the flexibility (there are term easements), it can work anywhere.
• Support perpetuity and inclusion of agriculture in planning.
• Applaud research and creative techniques proposed by staff.
• There are funds available with Coastal Conservancy for preservation.
Connie Dunbar, 507 Launa Lane:
• Wonderful land in the City that can never go back once it is paved over.
• Sense of community, public health, and intangible benefits should be remembered.
• CA used to feed the world and that ability is rapidly being lost, even the ability to
have locally grown crops.
• Should preserve our Ag-based way of life.
Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road:
• Ongoing issue, we have the finest farmland.
• Land will go quickly because people want to move here.
• Look at the farmer who wants to farm. Farmland protection is a priority.
• Going through the plan, pages 30, 32, 33 (buffer): Buffers should not be on the
farmers back, but on the developer who wants to develop around them. Page 34
transfer of development rights is a questionable tool. With easements US dept of
Agriculture should be mentioned. There are funds available to be used for
easements
• Water development and marketing important. Planned residential clusters involving
prime soils are a bad idea in the City. Specialized housing for farm workers is
needed.
• SLO has purchased thousands of acres of open space at a much less cost than the
freeway overpass. If we develop the farmland, we have to build many more things.
Ed Dorfman, 285 La Cresta:
• Agree with buffer zones for farming, and that residential development as well as
agriculture needs to have the buffer zones.
• County is currently gaining farmland, and additional housing is necessary.
• Rules keep changing on property.
• Farming is a business and some parcels will not make economic sense to continue
farming.
• Housing needs to be infill and also on the fringes.
• Take a survey and see what people want to do with their property.
• Housing is cheaper in flat land and we need affordable housing.
Coreen Saritari, 512 Laona Lane:
• Has been farming for 25 years.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
PAGE 8
• Issue of people not being compensated for others enjoying the view of the open
space and land.
• Right to develop taken away when compensated for staying in farming.
• Can produce so much here, and agree with staying in agriculture.
Leroy Saritari:
• Page 36, Disagree w/ clusters because encroachment will still happen.
• What is in agriculture should stay in agriculture; other means of compensation
can be looked at.
Jim Dickens, 769 Branch Mill Road, City Councilman:
• American Farmland Article: "Farming on the Edge." Why we are doing what we are
doing; addresses conservation easements. His family took initiative to try
Conservation Easements.
• Highest quality land under the most pressure development report: food and open
space in the path for development. Prime land is converting 30% faster.
• Although farmland increasing, the highest quality soil here in AG is �not expanding.
How much land is left? Most fertile land is disappearing fast. CA lost 85,200 prime
acres. Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth.
• Need to increase funding for conservation easements, target funds to most valuable
areas, promote planning that does not encourage conversion of prime soils.
• Conservation Easement is a deed restriction landowners voluntarily place on their
property to maintain Ag usage of property. Property owners have rights. It's not
about selling away rights to public use. Retain rights to farmland, use land as
collateral for a loan, and many other property rights. Gives options for the future of
their farms. Can be compensated for the speculative value of development planned
for their property.
• Process deals with a fair market value (easements). If at any time unhappy with the
agreement, can back out. Believes in property rights and this tool gets us there.
• Unique because property was under the Williamson act.
Stephanie Painter, 541 Mesa View Drive, Ranch Owner:
• Not a one-sided decision, need to consider the farmers and the developers.
• Farming affects the environment as well.
• Inside the city, have already allowed development on Ag land. People have
purchased land in hopes of developing it. How can we say no to these people, but
not to the previous people?
• There are unique pieces where farming is difficult where neighborhoods are
encroaching. Many places in the city where this is true, but the decision has to be
practical. Development is already there, encroaching on prime Ag land, and we
have to live with what we have done.
• If impossible to make a living on that land then it should be developed instead of
other non-infringed areas.
• Difficult decision to make but everyone's needs should be addressed. Want more
workshops before decision is made.
Susan Flores, 529 East Branch:
• Very complicated issue
• Two important things: 253 acres of class 1 soil in 1991 and 235 in 2001, health
problems around homes built around small Ag land.
• More workshops needed to further understand Ag land issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
PAGE 9
• Need Ag land info, what is the land producing? What are we utilizing?
• How is a Bed and Breakfast an Ag land use?
• Need to find funds for the farmers who want to farm.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Staff answered questions from Commissioners:
• Mr. Strong explained that there are findings outlined in the Williamson Act that
outline changing conditions before allowing Wiltiamson Act cancellation; there is a
need to distinguish between logical expansions and illogical conversions;
conservation easements that are mutually agreed to would be better; staff could do
conversion findings in addition to subdivision and use permit findings.
• The gradation of former floodplains are generally Class 1 and 2. As you progress
toward edge, slightly sloping or further up slope start getting into Classes 3,4,5,6.
They take more water, pesticides, and more management. May have drainage
problems, but they can be productive. They are not considered prime. Not
necessarily farming an uneconomic piece, but not necessarily more appropriate for
conversion.
• Ms. McClish answered questions on the Buffer ordinance.
• Mr. Strong answered questions on easements.
Commissioner Brown:
• Under what circumstances are we going to look at prime soils? Do we believe it is
an irreplaceable resource or not? How can we protect it fairly with a lasting
document?
• Farm does not have to be actively farmed to be a valuable resource. Has to be
looked at as class1 soil over the long term
• What are ramifications of political pressure to make farming a problem on that
property and where does that leave the landowner 30 years down the road with an
easement?
• Have to develop a mechanism to inform Ag landowners and that we will do
something about keeping the land that ways.
• Should actively develop a road map for funding sources, a document that would be a
resource base for anyone interested in what the resources are and how to use them.
Commissioner Fowler:
• Believe in property rights and the right to farm, conservation efforts, and the
conservation easements. The person that wants to have the say in the use of land
should have financial interest in the land.
Commissioner Arnold:
• Property rights: rezoning should benefit community, not the individual. Shouldn't be
able to rezone after buying land. If land becomes unusable, it can be rezoned, so no
taking. Just because farmland could make more money by building condos, the
community as a whole should want that. Building on Ag land would not be in the
best interest of the community, so should not be rezoned.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003
PAGE 10
• Redevelopment districts have the power to break deed restrictions, but that may be
a real risk.
Commissioner Keen:
• All the programs are voluntary, which is important because the farmers should have
the right to farm or sell their property. Farmer also has rights to do other things with
the property. Hate to take away property rights. Don't create a situation that makes
it impossible to farm the land.
• If in easement could you come out when land is not producing any longer?
• City is responsible for promoting property rights not dictating to the farmer what to do
with their land.
Chair Guthrie commended staff on complete document and commented:
• With an honest appraisal potential for reasonable discussion to ag land conversion.
• Buffers are the key, but need more expert input on what reasonable buffers are
• County has more expertise about buffers and should be used.
• Mitigation measures are reasonable, and should include land that is also adjacent to
the city, and will need funds for protection of the Ag land
• Would tike to know what staff needs. We do need another meeting.
• Need to discuss buffers specificatly and conservation easements
Mr. Strong said Robert Hopkins, who consulted about the General Plan and ag buffers,
passed away prematurely and was a tremendous loss to the County.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Amold, to recommend
continuing the hearing to the meeting of July 15, 2003. The motion was unanimously
approved on a 5-0 voice vote.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: - None
_
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: - None
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP:
Mr. Strong gave the Commission an update on the Creekside Center EIR project stating
that City Council did not approve the EIR and that they had requested more information on
the traffic circulation and historic buildings.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. on a motion by Chair Guthrie,
seconded by Commissioner Brown, and unanimously approved
ATTEST:
KRISTIN KRASNOVE,
COMMISSION CLERK
JAMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR
ANNOTATED AGENDA �� PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSION ��
JULY 1 2003 �
�
Ms. Heffernon gave an update on the Housing Element programs and stated the focus
tonight should be on the Goals and Policies in Chapter 2. She then asked the Planning
Commission if they could schedule a special meeting on July 29, 2003 to discuss the
programs. '
The hearing was opened for public comment.
Hal Rosen, Local Housing Task Force (LHTF) member, commented on the goals and
policies A2, A6, A8, Al2, B1, B4 & E4. He had questions to staff regarding inclusionary
housing (F-1).
Jerry Bunin, LHTF member, stated that in-lieu fees can be a valuable resource kept at a
reasonable level and that inclusionary housing has only created 800 units in the State.
Ed Dorfman, 285 La Cresta, stated that there is an urgency to plan for growth; in-lieu
fees can never provide enough money for housing; the City "should" annex land; agreed
with Mr. Rosen that you should not put lower income people in higher cost housing
areas; suggested using bonds to raise money; believes inclusionary housing does not
work.
The public hearing was closed.
The Commission then reviewed and commented on the goals and policies where
applicable.
Chair Guthrie commented that in our community in-lieu fees have not worked, but
inclusionary housing has worked.
The Commission stated they would like to return to continue discussion of these items
and the programs on July 29 when other Commissioners would be present.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.F: CONTINUED ITEM - AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
STAFF PROJECT CASE NO. 03-004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE;
LOCATION — CITY OF ARROYO.GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by
Teresa McClish, Associate Planner, and Jim Bergman, Planning Intern.
Ms. McClish gave an overview of the report, addressed the policy alternatives concerning
the conservation of prime agricultural lands in Arroyo Grande and stressed that this
document is still a draft.
The Commission had no questions and the hearing was opened to the public.
Bill McCann, 575 Crown Hill, congratulated staff on the report. He stated the goal of the
City should be to maintain every bit of the 235 remaining acres of prime soils designated for
agricultural use and that the City should be a leader in any efforts to maintain this resource.
He would like to see some simplified programs — not cumbersome to administer.
ANNOTATED AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 1, 2003
���� PAGE 5
�
Nick Alter, 354 Corbett Canyon Road, referred to his comments already submitted by him to
staff on the report.
Ed Dorfman, 285 La Cresta, commented that the rules were being changed in the policies
of City of Arroyo Grande, they were in total in opposition of the real world and represent the
policies of people who have homes and like open space. He suggested a bond issue to buy
all acres. He stated that some small farms are not being farmed and would make excellent
housing sites.
Chuck Fellows, Canyon Way, asked what other jurisdictions addressed Public Relations
conceming ag conservation - raise bond issue.
Ella Honeycutt, 561 Road spoke in response to Chuck Fellow stating the grape growers and
greenhouse advocates have done a good job with P.R. and that an Ag Tourism map is due
out soon.
Howard Mankins, 200 Hillcrest Drive, commented on the strong language used in the
Purpose and Findings handout, nothing is permanent if it is unreasonable, asked where
were the farmers tonight and stated that a church cannot be precluded on ag land according
to Federal law.
The public hearing was closed and Ms. McClish answered questions from the Commission.
The Commission discussed some of the items under the heading of °Summary of
Altematives", commented on the report and discussed the chart on Agriculture
Conservation Study General Plan and Zoning Inconsistencies. Some of the Commission
comments:
• Given General Plan policies and these recommendations, — Class 1& 2 should
remain as designated Ag, but excluding the Hayes property which is not prime soil.
• There was no discussion at Planning Commission on any of the properties
redesignated from Agriculture- no process for findings contained in the 2001 General
Plan.
• Inconsistent with policies and goals of General Plan to convert prime Ag lands.
• Suggest the LESA Program could be modified to fit local jurisdictions - add language
— add language to Altematives.
• Properties listed should be re-designated Agriculture. If they cannot meet
recommended findings for rezoning and conversion then a General Plan
Amendment would be required.
Buffers were then discussed by the Commission:
• Commissioner agreed with 100-foot buffers with provision that when. development
takes place the minimum buffer could be increased if appropriate.
Rob Strong said staff would bring back the Mitigation ordinance on July 15, 2003 and
continue discussion of the report at that time.
-- _ _ _
ANNOTATED AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
� �►F PAGE 4
• Concern on only having a 7-foot setback in back of garages. Mr. Hunstand said the
side yard where the patio opens onto is considered as the back yard.
• Concern about the removal of the oak tree.
• Nice area on side for entertainment.
• This project will improve the area and provide affordable units — well designed.
• Understand concern about traffic and parking, but the parking for these single-family
homes is adequate.
• Difficult to make a decision on waiving of water retrofit in-lieu fee for "moderate"
housing as this contradicts the proposed Housing Element policy to waive only very
low and low income housing fees.
Mr. Strong advised the Commission that City Council would decide on the request to waive
the in-lieu fees so no action need be taken in this regard.
Chair Guthrie asked staff to investigate if the oak tree could be transplanted to the site for
the Santa Lucia Bank (transplant had been recommended for the Santa Lucia Bank
project). Staff would investigate this.
Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to
recommend City Council approve the Tentative Tract Map 03-002 and Planned Unit
Development 03-002, located at 1180 Ash Street, with the following:
• Language to state that the affordable units should be consistent in square
footage and outward appearance as the other units.
• Staff and Parks and Recreation staff should explore with the applicant on
transplanting the oak tree to another site and the fees should be consistent
with the proposed fees determined during Housing Element Update.
The motion was approved on a 5/0 roll call vote.
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
II. E- CONTINUED ITEM - AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION, STAFF PROJECT CASE
NO. 03-004; APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION — CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE. Staff report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate
Planner and Jim Bergman, Planning Intem.
Ms. McClish introduced the project and gave an update on the process and the
recommendations in the report; clarified that in the table on page 33 re Mr. DorFinan's
property, the approx. 2%z acre parcel shown (zoned Hwy Commercial) on the zoning map is
not part of the inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning map. The Planning
Commission continued discussion on recommendations for policy alternatives concerning
the conservation of prime agricultural lands in Arroyo Grande. Ms. McClish then gave an
update on the corrected report Page 31, re Dorfman property currently zoned Highway
Commercial fronting Traffic Way.
Commission Questions:
• Concem with the TDC program, are there any citywide programs versus countywide
program. Ms/ McClish said there are examples, but they tend to be problematic, but
this is not included in the recommendations to be forwarded to City Council.
• Page 29 bullet: no information included re Fredericks and Williams property. Mr.
Strong said this was removed as it was an error.
ANNOTATED AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
.` �A � � ��
PAGE 5
• Page 34 last sentence, how does this work? Mr. Strong explained that if the City is
not supportive of making overriding considerations or does not believe that the
General Plan designation is correct then it should be considered for Ag designation.
There are some inconsistencies — policy should reflect majority opinion.
• Page 37 mitigation example? Where is 4/1 ratio referenced. Ms. McClish -
referenced in Appendix F, example ordinance. Mr. Strong stated all draft
recommendations still to have to have legal review. He then explained the priorities
that staff had considered to arrive at the mitigation ranges for the policy. Advised 2:1
mitigation was staff recommended action.
• Asked for clarification on "expanded findings" referred to in A6. Ms. McClish said
they are in the report — Page 35 and also in °Agriculturaf Districts°.
• Page 35, No. 6, is poorly written. Ms. McClish suggested remove the wording
starting with ...for the use... up to ...°prime farmland....
Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing.
Ed Dorman, 285 La Cresta, stated the report does not deal with infill or widowed parcels as
previous General Plan Update reports did — would like to see it put back. He then read
comments from part of Leroy Saritori's letter (included in the report) stating why he
disagreed with these specific comments.
Jerry Bunin, Home Builders Association:
• Not against preservation of ag land; smart urban planning will preserve ag land.
• 5& 7-acre parcels will not be farms in the future, but are good sites for affordable
housing.
• Land is the biggest restraint, next is water.
Public Hearing closed,
Commissioner Brown — response to Mr. Dortman: There is provision to convert whether
adopt or not. Should not have concern.
• TDC big issue
• Good document.
• Inconsistent to have parcels previously designated Ag other than hillside.
• Inconsistent to adopt GP and then recommend changing zoning on properties
without conforming to mitigation and other policies.
Commissioner Fowler:
• Comments from previous meetings unchanged, no new comments.
Commissioner Arnold:
• Very thorough doc.
• Dorfman — not rezone for affordable housing — market will dictate.
Commissioner Keen:
Farmers have right to farm and shepherd in way see fit - ordinance protects farmers.
This document puts undue burden on farmers by dictating what is to be done with
land.
_ _
ANNOTATED AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 2003
� ���
PAGE 6
• Referred to definition for "taking° and the explanation — thinks City damaging by not
letting farmer take care of own property.
• Disagree with instructions given to staff to produce this report.
Commissioner Guthrie:
• In past seen ability of farmers to farm damaged by housing. Arduous task to protect
Ag land.
• In favor of document as is.
Commissioner Arnold: Did not agree a"taking" if a property owner is told that they cannot
rezone to build houses on Ag land.
Commission Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold to make a
recommendation to City Council to adopt the draft resolution to implement policies,
programs and proposed provisions. The motion was approved on the following roll
call:
Commissioner Arnold: Yes
Commissioner Brown: Yes
Commissioner Fowler: No
Commissioner Keen: No
Chair Guthrie: Yes
II.F - CONTINUED ITEM — DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO 02-006;
APPLICANT — CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE — VILLAGE OF ARROYO GRANDE; Staff
report prepared and presented by Teresa McClish, Associate Planner.
Ms. McClish said this discussion is being continued from the Public Hearing of June 17 and
changes have been incorporated into the document as recommended, additionally:
• An open space requirement of 350 feet per residential unit pertaining to mixed-use
projects has been inserted in Section 16.48
• Section 16.08 has now been included in Exhibit °62".
Ms. McClish answered the Commissioner's questions:
• Page 52, language from Section 16.08 has been moved to Title 2 of the Municipal
Code for consistency.
• Exhibit A, 2" page, the map is incorrect and everything south of the Creek should be
Village Mixed-Use.
• Exhibit A clarification for Allen Street zoning: Only the bold outlined areas are being
reclassified. One property (not showing up on map) on Station Way, south of Fire
Station, should show as Village Mixed Use.
• Page 266 numbering is wrong.
• Page 264, discussion on development density rounding up — staff is proposing to
revise the section on density calculation to be more consistent. Mr. Strong
suggested rounding to nearest'/. number in Multi-Family.
Commissioner Guthrie re building height:
• Difficult to do 3 stories because no elevator. At 43 feet can have tower and could
get elevator in 3-story building.
• Suggest have ultimate height in Village district. Commissioner Brown agreed.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 1 OF 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLQNNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT
THE PREPARATON OF AN ORDINACE AND RESOLUTION
IMPLEMENTATING RECOMMENDATONS FROM THE REPORT ON THE
CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance 536 which
implemented a moratorium on the acceptance of land use applications that seek to
develop parcels containing prime farmland soils and directed staff to prepare a study to
determine impacts of such conversion; and
WHEREAS, a public workshop was held on May 28, 2003 and on June 17, July 1, and
July 17, 2003, public hearings were held by the Planning Commission to discuss
citizen concerns and draft alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in
the Report on the Conservation ofAgricultura/Resources in Arroyo Grande, as well as
public testimony presented at the hearings and make the following findings:
A. Proximate prime agriculture within the City of Arroyo Grande is integral to the
character of the community and directly affects the City's economic and
historical significance;
B. The City has demonstrated a long term commitment to agricultural preservation
through long-range planning, general plan policy, zoning, the right to farm
ordinance and commission of the Coo�dinated Agriculture Support Program
study;
C. Allowed development of prime farmlands have historically and persistently
caused the eventual conversion of nearby or adjacent parcels to non agricultural
uses which in turn affect additional development pressure on other agricultural
lands,
D. Operating farms have not been consistently or adequately protected through the
dedication or maintenance of agricultural buffers;
E. The 2001 General Plan requires Development Code revisions to ensure the
adequate review of land use proposals, the appropriate findings of fact and
adequate conditions and mitigations;
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE20F3
F. Successful agricultural easement programs exist in comparabie communities
that secure funding and acquire agriculturaf easements for long term
preservation;
G. Successful programs exist in comparable communities that promote agri-tourism
and agri-enterprise operations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande, California hereby recommend the following for City Council
consideration:
1. Preaaration of an ordinance to
i. amend Section 16.24.020 creatins� a agricultural buffer overlav
district of 100 feet around all arcels designated and zoned
agriculture;
ii. amend Section 16.28.16.040 and 16.20.060 to incorporate
expanded findins�s for rezonins� applications and subdivisions as
outlined in Exhibit A Section VI•
iii. amend Section 16.28.030 to revise allowable uses in
agricultural districts;
iv. amend 16.28.040 to revise Develoament Code standards;
v. amend Section 16.28 to include mitigation reauirements and
additional buffer requirements for proaosed develoument in
a�triculture districts; and
2. Preparation of resolution to
i. Initiate General Plan Amendment(s) to reconsider and resolve
inconsistencies between poltcies within the Agriculture and
Open Space Element, Economic Element and Land Use
Element and the General Land Use map
ii . Develop an Agriculture Conservation Easement program and
direct staff to outline funding and process for acquiring
Agriculture conservation easements
iii . Work with local Farm Bureau, Chamber of Commerce and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE30F3
other organizations to develop an Agricultural Enterprise
program to promote and benefit local agriculture .
On motion by , seconded by , and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted 5th day of February, 2002.
ATTEST:
Lyn, Commission Clerk
AS TO CONTENT:
Rob Strong
Community Development Director
Jim Guthrie, Chair
C7
O
C)'1
�
�
�J1
�
�
�
O
�
�
-
—
�
♦
V♦
�■
!"'*`
�
^�
♦ ,
�
^�♦
�.L�
�
�
�
V/
� z
�
a
�
�
�
_
�
m
Z
�
W
I �
ATTACHMENT 4
R�-t;+ 1`�'E:�
To: The Arroyo Grande City Council J � + � � �� �' �� � � � � � �' ��� s � �, r
Q3 JUL I 7 P�� 5� I 7
Subject: City Council meeting of June 22, 2003
Reference: City's development moratorium
The subject of development pressures on Arroyo Grande's prime soil agricultural
resources should not be treated without consideration of farm land owner's property
rights.
The agricultural issues were extensively covered during the completed General Plan
Update and they became a political focus in the last election.
I make the following request because of the importance of the past representations and
issues bearing on this matter:
1) That the record of the past City Council's General Plan review and decisions be
made a part of this consideration. �
2) Testimony should be encouraged and data/information provided on the question
of a fann owner's property rights and the provision for farmers who wish to sell
their property under various circumstances.
3) The political questions dealing with the issue should be frankly and honestly
characterized so that the citizens may be advised as how this factor can be
understood.
Specifically, a review must be made that mayor Tony Ferrara and Councilmember
Jim Dickens made misrepresentations to the citizens on the agricultural matter
during the last election, that Councilmembers Mike Lady, Sandy Lubin and Tom
Runels
misrepresented the agriculture issue to their constituents.
4) A review of the record regarding the McCann petition, complaint and suit against
the City should be considered and made a part of the record. Specifically, a record
should be established regarding Jim Dickens working with the McCann group to
bring a suit against the City, and the role Mayor Ferraza played in that matter.
5) A frank discussion should be held regarding the reasons why the present Council
majority, of Ferrara, Dickens and CosteYlo,
opt for high density developments that lower the standazd of living in Arroyo
Grande when there is ample space in the Fredericks and Williams properties to
accomodate the growth of the City in providing space and infrastructure resources
to meet the State's housing mandate.
Respectfully,
Otis Page
606 Myrtle St
Arroyo Grande, 93420
Copy: City Manager and Staff
Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online
11.a.
TO: CITY COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER _�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE
FIRE STATION EXPANSION PROJECT, PW 2003-5
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
A. approve the plans and specifications for the Fire Station Expansion project; and,
B. authorize the Public Works Department to solicit public construction bids for the Fire
Station Expansion project.
FUNDING:
A total of approximately $2,005,000 is available for funding of the Fire Station Expansion. This
includes $1,840,000 from the General Obligation Bond Measure 0-02 and $165,000 from the
Fire Facilities Fund. The engineer's estimate for construction is $1,600,000. The total project
cost estimate at this time is $1,960,056, which includes construction, design, contingency, and
equipment and furnishings.
DISCUSSION:
The Fire Station project expands the operations of the Fire Station and upgrades the structure
to current building codes. The main component of the scope of work involves the construction
of a second story addition, which will house the sleeping quarters, workout and classroom
facilities. Improvements to the lower floor include the addition of inedical clean-up and turnout
facilities. Improvements to the apparatus area will incorporate additional storage, an upgraded
vehicle exhaust system and an expanded vehicle bay. The entire structure will be retrofitted
throughout with seismic upgrades and further protected with the installation of fire sprinklers.
Construction of a separate maintenance building at the northeast corner of the property will
enable maintenance work to be performed separate from the operational activities in the
apparatus bays.
,
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE
FIRE STATIOI� EXPANSION PROJECT, PW 2003-5
JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
Design is primarily consistent with the conceptual design drawings approved by the City
Council, with some minor modifications that will be reviewed in the Council presentation. The
design was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Committee on April 7, 2003.
The contract time is estimated at 180 calendar days. Work is expected to begin in mid-
September 2003 and finish by the end of March 2004 as shown in the attached project
schedule. Plans and specifications are available for review at the Public Works Department.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendations;
• Do not approve staff's recommendations;
� Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Project Schedule
ATTACHMENT 1
� i � �i� i, i � i / �
i
Tentative Project Schedule
For
Fire Station Expansion Station
City Project No. PW 2003-5410
Authorization to Solicit Bids (at City Council meeting) .......................................................... July 22, 2003
1 St Notice to Bidders July 25, 2003
................................................................................................................
Pre-Bid Job Walk (Tuesday, 2:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers) ........................................ July 31, 2003
2nd Notice to Bidders (5 days min. between publications) ....................................................August 1, 2003
Bid Opening (Tuesday, 2:00 p.m. City Council Chamber) ..................................................August 19, 2003
Authorization to Award Contract (at City Council rr�eeting) ...............................................August 26, 2003
Noticeof Award ..............................................................:.....................................................August 27, 2003
Notice to Proceed / Contract Start Date ......................................................................... September 15, 2003
Contract Completion (180 calendar days) .............................................................................March 15, 2004
jep:232.5650�Project Schedule 4.21.03.wpd
11.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBL.IC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE
BRANCH MILL ROAD PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT, PW-2003-03
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
it is recommended the City Council:
A. approve the plans and specifications for the Branch Mill Road Paving and Drainage
Improvements project, PW 2003-03; and,
B. authorize the Public Works Department to solicit public construction bids for the
Branch Mill Road Paving and Drainage Improvements project.
FUNDING:
The FY 2003/04 Capital Improvement Program budget includes $231,300 for the entire
construction phase of the Branch Mill Road Paving and Drainage Improvements project.
The engineer's estimate for construction is $215,000.
DISCUSSION:
This project will improve the roadway and drainage of Branch Mill Road befinreen Huebner
Lane and the east City limits near Newsom Springs Road. The scope of work will involve
grinding of the existing pavement and the placement of an asphalt concrete overlay. Two
catch basins will also be installed to enhance the drainage capability in this area.
Due to the lack of shoulders along the roadway and the nature of the work, it will be
necessary to close Branch Mill Road to through traffic for most of the duration of the
project. The detour will route traffic around the project site by utilizing East Cherry
Avenue, Garden Street, Allen Street, Mason Street, East Branch Street, Huasna Road and
Branch Mill Road.
The proposed closures will be limited to occur befinreen 9:00 am and 4:00 pm and the local
traffic may access their properties via Huasna Road to the east. By limiting the hours of
closure, the roadway will be open in the mornings, evenings, and weekends during peak
commuter times. Detour signage will be placed to direct traffic control around the closure.
The detour signs will be covered when the road is oper�ed.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE BRANCH MILL
ROAD PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PW-2003-03
JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
Alternatives to closing the road were considered. To keep the road open with the use of
flaggers and pilot cars would add to the expense of the project, but more importantly,
would create significant safety issues due to the narrow roadway and shoulders. In places
the roadway is only 25 feet wide and the shoulders less than one foot. With the paving
operation, personnel need to be in a work zone beyond the edge of paving (at the center
of the road), leaving no room for safe passage of tra�c.
Residents will be notified in advance of the pending closure via notices published in local
papers, the City website, and notification signs placed one week prior to the closures.
Residents will also be invited to a Town Hal! meeting to discuss the schedule and traffic
control prior to the start of construction.
The contract time for this project is estimated to be 30 calendar days. Work is expected
to begin at the end of September 2003 and completed by the end of October 2003 as
described in the attached project schedule. Plans and specifications are available for
review at the Public Works Department.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendations;
• Consider alternative detour routes;
• Do not approve staff's recommendations;
• Modify as appropriate and approve staff s recommendations; or
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachment:
1. Project Schedule
jep:232.5650 \ City Council - Solicit Bids-2.fina1071803wpd.wpd
l.,itc� o��rroc�o �ravcde
Tentative Project Schedule
For
Branch Mill Road
Grading � Drainage Improvements
(City Project No. PW-2003-03)
Authorization to Solicit Bids at City Council Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 22, 2003
1 S` Notice to Bidders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 25, 2003
2" Notice to Bidders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 1, 2003
Pre-Bid Job Walk - Thursday, 2:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers ........... August 7, 2003
Bid Opening - Tuesday, 2:00 p.m. City Council Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 19, 2003
Council Staff Report to Award Bid Due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 29, 2003
Award of Bid at City Council Meeting . . . . . . .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 9, 2003
Notice of Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 11, 2003
Notice to Proceed / Contract Start Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 29, 2003
Contract Completion (30 calendar days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 28, 2003
11.c.
� �vvT'ynI��CV L
�
V O
�
\ C JUL11 10. 1911
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER�7�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF VOTING DELEGATE
AND ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council appoint one Council Member as the voting
delegate and one Council Member as the altemate delegate for the League of
California Cities Annual Conference.
FUNDING:
The only costs associated with this action are costs for attendance at the Annual
Conference.
DISCUSSION:
This year's League of California Cities Annual Conference is scheduled to take
place September 7-10, 2003 in Sacramento. One important activity of the
Conference is the annual business meeting, to be held on Wednesday,
September 10�' at 10:00 a.m., when the membership takes action on Conference
resolutions. Annual Conference resolutions guide the League and its members
in their efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local
government in California.
League bylaws state that "any official of a Member City may, with the approval of
the City Council, be designated the City's designated voting delegate or alternate
delegate to any League meeting. Designated voting delegates (or their
alternates) registered to attend the Annual Conference constitute the League's
General Assembly."
CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTMENT OF VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE FOR THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
JULY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Appoint one Council Member as the voting delegate and one
Council Member as the alternate delegate for the League of
California Cities Annual Conference;
Provide staff with other direction.
Better Cities—A Better Life
Leaque of
Calif ornia Citles
www.cacities.org
. .._ '. . , J�,= :.t'
�UN 2. 31003 i
June 20, 2003
To:
From:
Re:
.�:;:
._.. ... _.. .. . , , . �_ :
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Russo, League President, City Attorney, Oakland
Designation of Voting Delegate for 2003 League Annual Conference
The League's 2003 Annual Conference is scheduled for Sundav. September 7 through
Wednesdav. September 10. in Sacramento. One very important aspect of the annual
conference is the annual business meeting where the membership takes action on conference
resolutions. Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in our efforts to
improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of locai govemment in Califomia. It is
important that all cities be represented at the Annual Business Meeting on Wednesday,
September 10, at 10:00 a.m. at the Sacramento Convention Center.
To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy-making meeting, each city council
should designate a voting representative and an altemate who will be registered at the
conference and present at the Annual Business Meeting. A voting card will be given to the city
official that is designated and indicated on the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form."
Please complete and retum the enclosed form to the League's Sacramento office at the earliest
possible time (not later than Friday, August 8, 2003), so that proper records may be
established for the conference.
The city's designated voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Card desk
located in the League registration area. The Desk will be open on September 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Voting cards should be picked up before the Annual Business Meeting on September 10.
The voting procedures to be followed at this conference are printed on the reverse side of this
memo.
Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is appreciated.
If you have any questions, please call Lo�raine Okabe at (916) 658-8236.
Headquarters
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.658.8200
FAX 916.658.8240
Southern California Office
602 East Huntington Dr., Suite C
Monrovia, CA 91016
626.305.1315
FA� 626305.1345
League of California Cities
2003 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE FORM
CITY:
1. VOTING DELEGATE:
(Name)
(Title)
2. VOTING ALTERNATE:
(Name)
(Title)
ATTEST:
(Name)
(Title)
PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO:
League of California Cities
Attn: Lorraine Okabe
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
�
Fax: (916) 658-8240
Deadline: Fridav, Auqust 8. 2003
G:LLEGISLTVIPOLICYIACRESIVOTE DEL REVISE03.DOC
11.d.
u �
� .u�Y ,o. ,.�, , ,f
c4 ��FORN� P
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
�
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER ��
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF VOTING DELEGATE
AND ALTERNATES TO THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS
INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA)
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council appoint one member of the City Council as a
Voting Delegate to the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
Board of Directors and one member of the City Council, the City Manager and
Human Resources Manager as Alternate Delegates.
FUNDING:
There is no cost impact from this action. The CJPIA reimburses the City for
expenses for the Director and/or Alternate to attend the Annual Board of
Directors Meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Participation in the CJPIA self-insurance pool was approved by the City Council
at the June 10, 2003 meeting. The CJPIA is governed by a Board of Directors,
consisting of one elected official appointed by each Member Agency. The Board
elects a President, Vice President and seven Members of the Executive
Committee, which meets monthly to supervise and c+mduct CJPIA affairs. The
Executive Committee has an advisory City Managers Committee that meets
monthly and a Finance Officers Committee, which meets quarterly.
Therefore, the City Council has been requested to appoint a Voting Delegate and
at least one Alternate. There is no limit on the number of Alternates that may be
appointed. The CJPIA Board of Directors meets annually at the CJPIA offices in
La Palma. The Board Director must be an elected official. The Alternate(s) may
be either an elected official or staff and may serve as the Voting Delegate in the
Director's absence. Staff recommends appointing the City Manager and Human
Resources Manager, along with one Council Member, as Alternates to ensure
that a staff representative is available to attend the annual meeting if the Council
representatives are unable to attend.
CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATES TO THE CJPIA
J U LY 22, 2003
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Appoint one member of the City Council as a Voting Delegate to
the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board of
Directors and one member of the City Council, the City Manager
and Human Resources Manager as Alternate Delegates;
- Appoint only one member of the City Council as a Voting Delegate
and one member of the City Council as the Alternate;
- Appoint one member of the City Council as a Voting Delegate and
the City Manager and Human Resources Manager as Alternates;
- Provide staff with other direction.
CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE(S)
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
I hereby certify that as of this date, the Official Minu#es and Records of the city council
of the City of Arroyo Grande confirm that the following persons have been appointed
to represent the City of Arroyo Grande, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7
of the CALIFORI�TIA JOINT POWEIZS INSURANCE AUTHORITY Agreement.
DIRECTOR (Board Member)
ALTERNATE(S) (one or more, may be staff inember)
Clerk:
Member: City of Arroyo Grande
Date:
� PRROyO �
� c �P
� INCOHPOAATED Z
V �
�[ JU�11 10. 1 i 11 *
c4 ��FOR�� P
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGE f
SUBJECT:
DATE:
EVCSLOC AND SLOCVCB AGREEMENTS
JULY 22, 2003
8.h. & 8.i.
The following attachments should be included with the proposed agreements with the
EVCSLOC and SLOCVCB, Agenda Items 8.h. and 8.i. There are no changes in the
agreement from last year. Please let me know if you have any questions.
San Luis Obispo County Visitors &.
Conference Bureau Agreement
Description of Services
Exhibit "A"
The San Luis Obispo County Visitors & Conference Bureau shall provide regional
tourism services and activities that shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Assuring strong communication and compatibility with City goals and policies;
coordinate all City related tourism activities consistent with a protocol
satisfactory to the City's Economic Development Director.
2. Developing direct sales efforts to attract leisure, group business, and
confere,nces. Major markets �would include, but not be limited to, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Bakersfield, and Fresno.
3. Providing leads for potential conferences with individual properties including
the South County Regional Center, the Arroyo Grande Woman's Club
Community Center, and the South County � Performing Arts Center (Clark
Center). �
4. Developing and distributing countywide promotional materials, including
Arroyo Grande's promotional materials, to be used in the marketing program.
5. Submitting biannual reports on the progress of the SLOCOVCB to the City's
Economic Development Director. Reports will contain information from the
most recent time period as well as anticipated future activities, including a
detailed breakdown of activities that specifically benefit the City of Arroyo
Grande.
6. Acting as the County Film Commission to attract film business to the area.
Economic Vitality Corporation of
San Luis Obispo County Agreement
Description of Services
Exhibit "A"
The Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County (EVCSLOC) shall provide
regional economic development services and activities as follows:
1. Assure strong communication and compatibility with City goals and policies;
coordinate all City related business retention, expansion, and recruitment
activities consistent with a protocol satisfactory to the City's Economic
Development Director.
2. Assist in the development of job employment, training and business
apportunities for residents of the City of Arroyo Grande. .
3. Assist in the preparation and delivery of an annual economic development
update that may include, but not be limited to, an Overall Economic
Development Plan, an Economic Element of the General Plan, and other
� comprehensive economic development policies, strategies, and needs
assessment. -
4. Assist in the preparation and submittal of application on behalf of the City of
Arroyo Grande and/or participating agencies to public and private funding
sources for financing and/or to state and federal agencies for special
designations in support of economic, business, and employment development
activities. ' �
5. Assist in providing research, analysis, and recommendations to the City of
Arroyo Grande and private organizations on economic development.
6. Provide appropriate countywide business marketing and business retention
and expansion activities and to liaison with appropriate local, regional, state
and federal agencies, and private parties, including actively participating in
the Central Coast Marketing Team and providing copies of the agendas and
minutes to the City. �
7. Provide semi-annual reports of its activities to the City of Arroyo Grande. The
reports shall include activities from the previous time period as well as
anticipated future activities. Said reports shall include a detailed breakdown
of all activities that specifically benefit the City of Arroyo Grande.
/PRROy�
/ C � ■a■
� INCORPOAAiED 9 2
V m
� """' * MEMORANDUM
c ���FORN� P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ITEM 9.a. DISCREPANCY IN EXHIBIT A REPORT ON CONSERVATION
OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE
DATE: JULY 22, 2003
There is a discrepancy between Arroyo Grande agricultural statistics presented in
Table 1 on Page 4 and the text of paragraph one on Page 5. For the sake of
accuracy, the numbers presented in Table 1 are correct.