R 3699
~~.__._~ ~ ... ..~-----_._---_.._--_.-
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
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, the 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 by the Planning
Commission to receive public input on the Report on the Consetvstion of Agricultural
Resources for the City of Anoyo Grande (Agricultural Report) attached hereto as Exhibit
"An 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 initiate 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
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the
Agricultural Report, and other evidence presented at the hearings and contained in the
record of this matter and make the following findings:
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
PAGE20F9
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 Agriculture 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 protection 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:
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.
-~------ ----
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
PAGE 3 OF 9
A. The specific property to be redesignated is referenced in Table 3 and
on Map 13 of the Agricultural Report and identified as:
1. 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 Dorfman, 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 hav~ng prime
farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime I
farmland soils at a ratio of UP to ~ ~:1 with regard to the
acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural I
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 I
soils. Suitability of the land chosen as mitiaation 10oatioR
shall be determined approved by the City Council. The aim
shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils
primarily within and contiguous to City boundaries, secondly
within the Urban Land Use Element area, and thirdly within
the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La 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
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
PAGE40F9
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
4Q 20 acres for non-cultivated, non-irrigate and/or non-prime
agricultural lands.
II. 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 other qualified consultants to discuss and
calculate the costs and benefits of placing agricultural conservation easements
on their land.
4. Develop a mechanism in conjunction with 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
PAGE 5 OF 9
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 an 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:
1. Establish a zoning overlay implementing a 100 foot minimum buffer around all
Agriculture property as depicted on the map in E-1 to implement General Plan
Policy AG5-2, applicable to a/l 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 and the non-agricultural use if approved by the County
Agricultural Commissioner.
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
Agricultural Report, Section VI.A.1 and VI.A.2 as follows:
1. 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:
-~.._._-_.-
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
PAGE 6 OF 9
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 patterns 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 farmland 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 between
agricultural and nonagricultural land uses and to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare.
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
follows:
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
---~~_.-
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
PAGE70F9
confonning 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 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.
C. Amend AGMC Section 16.28.040 to revise standards as outlined in
Agricultural Report, Section VI.A.5 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 AG3-1 0, revise AGMC Section 16.28.0408. 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
redu~e 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
example ordinance contained In Appendix F. as follows:
1. 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
PAGE 8 OF 9
On motion by Council Member Dickens, seconded by Council Member Costello, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Dickens, Costello and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: Council Members Lubin, Runels
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2200 day of July, 2003.
-- -------.---._------ ----
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
PAGE90F9 ,
. -
ATTEST:
?/U.-
RE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
\
.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~~ITYMANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
,
EXHIBIT A
Report on Conservation of Prime Agricultural Resources for
the City Of Arroyo Grande.
---~~-- -- ___......__ __nu____ _ ----
CONTENTS
I BACK G ROUND ....... ................... .... .... ............................ ....... ..... ..... ... ..... ......... ........ ........... 3
2001 GENERAL PLAN - AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ................3
COORDINATED AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT PROGRAM................................................................... 4
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 16.28 - AGRICULTURAL 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) .................10
Map 4 - Class L II and III Soils within the City................................................................... 11
Map 5 - Parcels with Class I and II Soils by Parcel Size.............................;....................... 12
Map 6 - Class L II and III Soils Classified Agriculture (Zoning, 1991) .............................. 13
Map 7 - Class L II and III Soils Designated Agriculture (Land Use, 2001)........................ 14
Map 8 - Arroyo Grande Agriculture by Parcel Size (Zoning, 1991) ................................... 15
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 PUB LI C COMMENT...... ...... ........... .... .... ............ .... ...... ..... ..... ....... ............................... 19
REVIEW OF PuBLIC COMMENT DURING THECASP STUDY AND GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ........ 19
AGRICULTURAL WORKSHOP; MAY 28, 2003............................................................................. 19
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 17, 2003..................................................................... 20
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 1, 2003....................................................................... 20
PUBLIC COMMENT LETIERS (SEE APPENDIX C FOR COPIES) ...................................................... 20
IV G R 0 WTH AND CHANGE ........ ............... .............. ...... ..... ....... ..... ..... .................... ...... 22
HISTORICAL HERITAGE.............................................................................................................. 22
ECONOMIC BENEFIT................................................................................................................... 22
SMALL LOT AGRICULTURE........................................................................................................ 23
EDGE ISSUES .............................~................................................................................................ 24
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE AGRICULTURAL STUDy................ 24
V AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION / PREVENTION OF URBAN
CO NVERSI 0 NS ....................... ............ ............... ....................................... ....... ......... ........... ..... 2S
WHEN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSTITUTES A CONVERSION OF PRIME FARMLAND............ 25
LAND Ev ALVA TION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA)................................................................. 25
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 26
MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................................................................ 26
Buffers ......... ........... ..... .............. .... .... ............. .............. .................... ..... ....... ............... ....... ... 26
Mitigation ordinances and policies...................................................................................... 29
In Lieu Fees............. ......................... .........;... ............ ........ ....... ..... ....... ..... ... ............. ......... ... 29
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDITS............................................................:......................... 30
PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS..................................................... 30
WILLIAMSON ACT ...................................................................................................................... 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 Classifications ......................... ....... .... .................. ....................... 35
VI "INSIDE THE BOX" AL TERN'ATIVES .....................................................................36
I. ZONING ORDINANCE 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
MITIGATION ORDINANCE........................................................................................................... 38
Example Mitigation........ ............................ ............. ............... ............ ..... ..... ....... .... .............. 38
for Subdivision and Rezoning of Agricultural Land ............. ....... ..... ............ ........... ..... ........ 38
BUFFERS .................................................................................................................................... 39
1 Ordinance for new or re-development...............................................................................39
11 Zoning Overlay for Buffers........................................................................................... 39
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT CREDIT ORDINANCE ................................................................... 39
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................ 40
SUPPORT LOCAL AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE.......................................................................... 41
VII "0 UTSID E THE DO X" AL TERN'A TIVES ................................................................. 41
APPEND ICES ....................... ........................ ....... .... ........ ........................... ..... ..... .............. ........ 43
2
-~--_...._.-- - - - --_.-._,,-_.._--"----
REPORT ON THE
CONSERVATION OF PRIME AGRIGUL TURAL RESOURCES
IN THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
I 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 - Aariculture, 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" between 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 Impact 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
overridina 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 relief. 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 two sectors. In addition, two
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 Aaricultural Support Proaram
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 Cunnt Study
(Includes areas (within City limits) (within City limits)
outside of City limits)
Applicable agricultural parcels 168 61 61 or 67*
Parcels with active agriculture 106 27 27
Different land owners 51 36 32
Acres of agricultural 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.
4
- --~~-----
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 current 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 - AQricultural 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 two 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.
5
~.__...... _.~._-_._._..-.-.-
II INVENTORY OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
GIS Analysis
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 between
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 illustrate 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, lI,and III soils that are zoned or designated in the Land Use Element as
6
-.--.-. ----~.._._._...-
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 two 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
larger 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 also
illustrates 8' correlation between small lot size in the northeast Agriculture lands and the
lack 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
Map 1
Arroyo Grande Agriculture by
Zoning (1991) and
Land Use Element 2001
I I N I ~~{~se I
i w*.
I Arroyo Grande Agriculture
i I
I I
i Zoning = 369 acres D City Limits I
s c=J Parcels .
Land Use Element = 329 acres
10 0.5 1 Miles
I
Map2
Arroyo Grande Agriculture by
Parcel Size (Zoning, 1991 )
_ Creeks
N D Parcels
Summary: w-+. D City Umits
10 parcels are 10 acres of larger Parcel Size
I 0 - 2.49 ""'"
13 parcels are between 5 and 9.99 acres 2.5 - 4.99 acres
13 parcels are between 2.5 and 4.99 acres 5 - 9.9 9acres
S 10 - 38.51 acres
A total of 67 parcets are currently zoned agriculture. 0 0.5 1 Miles
I
Map 3
Arroyo Grande Agriculture by
Parcel Size (Land Use Element, 2001)
_ Creeks
N D Parcels
Summary W+E D City Limits
I 9 parcels are 10 acres or larger Parcel Size I
11 parcels are between 5 and 9.99 acres I 0 - 2.49.....
12 parcels are between 2.5 and 4.99 acres 2.5 - 4.99 acres !
S 5 - 9.99 acres
10 - 38.51 acres
A total of 61 parcels are currently designated Agriculture 0 O.Q 1 Miles
I
I
I
J
Map4
Class I, II, and III Soils
Within the City of Arroyo Grande
I
I
i
I
D city Limits I
N ~ Creeks i
, I
There are an estimated 500 acres w*. Parcels I
Soils
of Class I and II soils within the I'
II I
City of Arroyo Grande. s III
I
I
0 0.5 1 Miles
- I I I
i
Map 5 .. ·
parce\S w\th c\aSS \ and \ \ 50\\s
bY parce\ 5\z.e
t!~ '
"N CI'c'/ \.111'I\\5
W... ~5
S\2.9
,- ........
. 2.5 . 4.99 acres
5.9.99 acres
s ~o . 48.5 acres
0 0.5 '\ N\\\es
Map 6
Class I, II, and III Soils
. Classified Agriculture (Zoning, 1991)
_ Creeks
N D Parcels
I w*. D City Limits
253 acres of Class I or II soils Soil Classification
II I
I II
I zoned as agriculture. s
I . III
I I
1 Miles i
I 0 0.5 !
I
--.----... .-- _____U_" ',.___._____._ _ J
Map?
Class I, II, and III Soils
Designated Agriculture
(Land Use, 2001 )
I _ River
I N D Parcels
235 acres of Class I and II soils W-+E D City Limits
I Soil Classification
II
I per the Land Use Element. II
I s III
I
0 0.5 1 Miles
I
Map 8
Arroyo Grande Agricu\ture by
parce\ Size (Zoning, 1991)
N ~~s
C Ci~ \.imits
, w+" PaiCel SiZe
i.~
2.5 - 4.99 \
5-9.99 \
S 10 - 19.99
~_~1 \
0 0.5 1 .MUes .
---.-- --------
Map9
Active Agriculture
Zoning (1991) and
Land Use Element 2001
IC_~
N . ActIve Agriculture
... Lend Use
WE... Zoning
. D City Limits
S D Parcels
0 0.5 1 Miles-
I
I
Map 10 -
Zoning and
Open Space Contract Status
of County Land South of the
.
City of Arroyo Grande
"AG
AG
HWY 1
AG
AG
AG AG AG OSC
OSC OSC AG AG
OSC OSC
AG
OSC AG AG
OSC
OSC
I Q) ~o:
\.
r
~ I~
.
Map 11
Zoning and _
Open Space Contract Status
of County Land Northeast of the
City of Arroyo Grande
AG = Agriculture
OSC = Open Space Contract....
Base map from CASP study. Zoning and contract status from the
Office of the County AsseSsor
.
.
. -
-- -
-.
III PUBLIC COMMENT
Review of Public 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.
AQricultural 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 to 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 California, 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 MeetinQ 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 conservation. The Saruwatari Family
stated that church~s, 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 1 0 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 direct or cumulative decline of quality 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,OOO/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 I
l
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. Currently, 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
f
EdQelssues
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
residents 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 Housing 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.
24
----- -_.~-----~- -..--..-.'-------.
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 AvenuefTraffic Way agricultural parcels that were redesignated
in the 2001 General Plan from Agriculture.
RiQht 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 modem 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
~-~..._---- --~---_.- - ------------.---------
:=t~
o~-c
-
--~
:JI\.)
CD
Q,
(J)
c
8:
o --
0,<
--
en
--
0
:J
en
0
:J
~.
cc
~...,
--
0
c
-
r-+
C
Ci3
I>>
:J
~a.
o,en
3:
m
-+z
tt:I
-
"
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 impact 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 Jessen
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?
Mitiaation 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 housing. 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 two
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 Hampshire 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
between 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
-~_....._,-- -----------..- __..____~H__.._
. 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, two 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 parcel 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 land. 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 Agricultural 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:
30
_'~_~__M~' _ _._._---_._~._-- - -_.._------~---_..._----~
. 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
pu blic 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 specific 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 J
---- -----~------_.._- --
Potential Conversions in the City of Arroyo Grande
Inconsistencies Between 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
-_._---- --- ~ -----._-- -.--..-.---..-----
~
z+
~
~
LO
.
T""
~
--
(.)
c:
Q)
us
_ _ T""
en
c:
8
c:
-
~
--
c:
~ ~
-c
c:
co
c:
co
c:
-
C')~
~ Q) 0
a.c:
~(B
--~-
____..w_
~ 'i6
~
.-
== en
G) "U)
~ c CD
0 €
~c: - ..s ~ ~
o CD ~ C ~
, CD ~ i
.... ~ ~ -%
(0 CD en ,
t-;"ON .- ~:a' G) o ... 0
en'Oi~ ... u::.~ ')- %0..% ')- :x:
CD 0'" "It 0..
.-
(J CD
c: ~ ...
.s g- CD
~
en ~
.- "U)
en g- (0
c: CD €
ON "0
~
(Jet) ~ ~
c:C?
-.... "5 i
t:S)~'& S, 5
c:i?O~ ~ :x:
._ o:X: "It
c:
~
"0
c:
~
c:
~
-
0..
-a
...
CD
c:
CD
t!)
~
~
f/)
c:
0
~
co
c:
CD
en
c: iii
0 1
c.J ~
CD -e
... il.
.a 3
"B 8
"S .c: a I/)
(,) i 0. ~
.- -a '"C '"C 10
... 8 .s~ ,Q
(/) ".;:; .~ ~
~ CD c: '- ~ (0
(/) $('0. $ '6' %CD to.!l~
=> o (/) (0 '6' (0 ~ I/) - c:
>.c: 0...C: ~ a- (0 ~ \~~
.c (0 '- .2 ~ ~~
Q.-e. 0- ~ -e.i 10
c: '- e i ._ ~E
g e=> CD CD ~ 01"'5 => (/) to ,. "0 $
(0 ~2 .cQ. __ .S 0'0 e "0 1/)"0 .S ~
z u 00 oEJ: ~ ! ~ ~i "1)( ~
Ii) 5 Q. .Q. 0- ,-~(O~~CI) oS ~- .$~~
0... (/) {:.~ _e $'-u.. e '6~~
<( e CI) - :;, '0 ~ 1Ot~
~ >. u (0 _ c: c:::: ~2i-CI)~:;' c:. i
't::.'-<( U e .0 CD :;, (OC:CI)CI)U g ~ :oit E 1O'~
Q) CD CD- .!!l CD .;:: ~ .u .~ ~ 8 8 ! ~
~ o.;c:CD c: .sg ."'" c ~ m ~t$ i~.s
e. ~ .~ '0 CD CD ~~ ~~&<(~CiS
(!) ~ .
\- ~oen en
--.
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 CECA 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" AL TERNA TIVES
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. Zonina 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 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 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 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 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 implement 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 I
------- _._~-"- I
. 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 CEOA 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. 81 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. (PubliclOuasi-
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
Section16.28.040B 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.
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 Plan 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 CEOA would determine impact of conversion
and identify possible alternatives and mitigation measures.
38
---
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).
OR
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 between the agricultural use and the non-agricultural use if approved by the
County Agricultural 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 Develo,?ment Credit Ordinance
To implement General Plan Policy A1-4 and CASP Action Plan Alternative 5.5,
introduce a Transfer of Development Credit Ordinance to achieve agricultural
protection, incentive to property owners and a mechanism to direct growth to
39
_.._---_..._-~ -- -- - ._--~----~-
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 properties involving prime farmland soils that are currently zoned Agriculture (see
map 13 and Table 3). .
F. Aaricultural Conservation Easement Proaram
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 provide 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.
1 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 AQricultural 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 SiQnificance usinQ the LESA system 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" AL TERNA TIVES
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-Iand fragmentation or facilitating prime Ag-Iand
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
-. - - - -~-~~ ._~ ---,--
_ _'~ ._, ~. ."1;,":: ~~ \\..,>.~<.: 'i'I; . . _."''- ~---'7'::"':;':;'-:'=::3~-~- ...--~--'~ 1'::~'" ~ -~~,;_..'"
,j;,-"}; ,_. I' . ...'i(," >' '.' If"""': ..~ '\ . . .-". . ': ~ ,'. ~ '"fK,,"f.l . '.: .'. P' ,;:",'I"-;r. ;..-@!. .. ~~.;-rl\II~j -:.
.~T/~?} :~'. 'i }&}X;~r-;," :t?l~' 'i~a>; ~ ~;~~;~:.~~..~~.:..~. ~~i~~~"$> ,.~~ ~1'tih~~$~~.,J~~I-;;5I;.d.:~....
.' ~li' ,~:~~~"I~\~:(,'j ,,~,'..1"rJ.':<~ . ~~ .,\.\~r'..~~ :<'::;~" r:.,; , t ' '\ ::ir'f>'=."'t.-I' .e~~.. ~ ~1\Vt(,;.o ;.I...t '.-:.'
7.'~ ._',_/' r ;<...._:...:.:,.~.. '~~/\""'-7_.,~~ ~ .~".\\'.1"').~' - ~":!:ir. ."" . ."''t/.,' :.",~~,"\!.; k~i ""'..',' .-;"..:.:
, . '..... .,. ~.)J )'," .....'-'''< .' ~l(' ~ ., -,> ' . .,~w, .,,, 90 ,-,.,.
~.r-if\:/~Y '.':.' ~"I"..,~1l-i!Jl. ~~;'A ~ ~511':,' 'l:.~"~'~} ~~1:,re{~~.:;:i::'')~~' ....-. t<f.~""'~'~
. V: "I' . . ,...... ., . "'c?',:~f t.. "f'" ~ 'o{.>~" <7' -' ~.!II I~' ,~" I 'li" N ~ ~ i ., f.' '0..,' ~
~~~:1~;~~~.t?~~T~\f~~'7i~~:~RiJtl~ ..~: ~).'~f~, ".t~ ~/,)(~<J1~{::r;.t~~'::~~
"""" ' ~'_',= tZi'/f.' ''''1: .,. \ \ C~ ~ .L.~ '~, tllJ....' ,-".!fi!\Th!'" 'I. (~"J ) . ..., ., .", ,
~~'i?'~~;' ~:::~ff;;;, ~\:"'~)1"'10111(~'i~: ~ _\ \.:. ~~'" .~~ '\. ~~~ ~\..~I \, :J,f\ '. :1 r .' ~~. ;:Ttl< -~;~~'I~ '-~ . " ?~ ..... .,'\ l 'l.11~~;;:~.~..;
tt~~~"I' ~ :.>'..\~, I~\ '-. JI .1';,/ ~A)I-_,.."",,""I-J. ~t-IR,~" -~';';$! ~t!...t.; .!(. ~.',~.... '..\ : ...iP'.....,.~. :;
'" ~. . -M = . ., >. ,V'" V J""- ",- " .' ~, .... .' - . '.' ..' .
~; it':f~~~.i ';,~ -' .l'~~ ~'". ". I-~.:,: >{.1.AJ' 1"" ~.:~ ~ ...~ " . T' . . ~~. "";)". :t- ;.;;~
I~' ....:~In.,~'. ." . ~,. . .. .:>t. ,bi",' __,x.'1< .' ':!--11 \.:./ .~c:.., ')~I
, =~ .., ,;.,~ . .,) ,/.JA'::' ,.':' .. . .;:C'"
~ . 1ra~ ~ .'JU!f'~: ~. It<. ~~.'~ \ . ~\"t'l~~~ ~. .} L:~~";.o, ...,'~ o~ . t; :i~iv-'Ij;""';"~
,.,., ~ ~';;"i~, ~~'\-'I' .. )I~:/'.J' .... .tt ,'~ '~)" :I.'J~;,:~" \.b
., ,.. ~~., .' <:Jr. ' ," '.' !,<",,'. w.
(~~ f' \. !"-,:. ,If"'> ~ >, \' ~"<:O:. ~. '.... ~ '. ). '~iJi~q'l
~ ~.,~~~.,. \ -.J-~ .::} t'~r:f', )Iff); -:' , rtl. ::i .~tl"~ . .:~.'!.,,) - -' . " . '. Q:';;':':'''I:'~.I~:( )~":: ~'il' .
. ~ .p ..'. . . '.' " ...." .. .,. "'....__ """,,' ~ ..' .' . /. ' J' "". ..
, 'N.' ,-"A .. '" ,,"- v;' > ;\' . ~ '~"-If., " , ,. f;) J'- ,
.' ~ ~'- ~-:.,..l:r' .-;::::,)) ,. '.,:.~1.." ....1 ~ ~.~ "~' ... :::'-:: '/~ ,'''OQ.. ~" .:'.r ,. " H:t:~tJ~S,
.><t: '.. .</ .~... . '., n;.. '1: 'r ..' ~<'" . f;I '.,' ., , .-y,. ~: r,
Iii '" '" "'-',~ !J, . . ~",,':fj.. r.z~' ,.. ~' , . ';\;!,. T' .,~......;'~~' .:.~'
".' p, -7'"" _.. j, \ - ..' i ~. . ..,!;' . ..:sii'",. .... . ,,"':'.. '. ~:-='~. ,.,. -;e".' 1: .' -"j
';r'~ ~ .~' ., ~~I:(:,"-..i.'/"'.l /11t.-::./~"fy!t1...~, r; 'I~t"i ~~. . . 0_ to .t1"-:C';:"-'''''.!!''-I~''''('-
...__ .'~ .', ~I'r,l~.~r',' ~JP~,;~,,, .- '.. ,:",:.0 ..,,,'
~ _ ~ . _ -<;a:~ ..:__.... :A..j!::t (~ . '!'{,( ~..,:\: . e', ~ (\~u. ::fu.,'')l)'''.~ "Qo... //...,.r''''~~ .;..:~.... ./~:' j !
'>0-. .' . ... ""'''' "-- " - '.r ... ~,' ~~..,.
. ':_ ..,. ,,",-.' ~. :-. i'~v~~. .J ~.'~ r~ -.' ~. J ft, ~ '111.' . <. 0'" ..... .._~. . . " S':""', I
. _. .. _ '. ",.r,cw," w""",,~~ w ,'~' . ~.. .".
4 _ (, 'I ~l' ~~.~ ~'I '..1. ..~ ' C-
. . .'. __""'"' . _> ~. ~. tJ !Pt.~' ~\. '. tI:- ",,"--.- ' . - .
_ . ..,..,.,,~ .;-.<;. /.I-' .>!I~ , !>t. i .. - ?...'. '-< .. ..' '..
. ..",..... .-," .. . !
IE.' . i\ " ; ~." ' . ".
...... _, .. - n, . . - ~. . .
~f'" .1 7' .C. it'( of A r.rOYO Gran..d. .e.~';' ~l. "'.'":~~ .
.....~y" . . . -?- ~ .' ---: .'''-''~',,.\'~ :. ," '- ..' ~-
;i... ,,\ . . . - ~:--.J: 10:>:, ..."~ ~~% /...;. ,. ..
~ .~ .;~K 'if ~.. 'W}.~JJ?:'C~' -.. .
:"": i;- ., . . - ~ +., ".. .,' ':;'E~~H ~. . " ." "
~ ':--".\do' . tit-,.' :~. ::;:.-;, _ ~:.; J~. ~ii"-;:Y.. '4,:" '"
.~~ - .~'~:- .... . .. :,\!I".}
.. i' . ~-- ,-- .' ..~:~. ,. - ;WAY' "
, ..' " -' . .~ .... '
:;:.t }..'~ "~' .... j~ II. \., -:.'.. 0Ii' ," ~. '. ."
'1I?~.1' " ~ ~ '.'I'I-rr... .'Ff'.,.,.... '1 .f..,,-" .\ ,
k~ .; . -~, 7:"i"""J. ..... '1 '.- .. ". .11 -' , ,. .
'^ :a, . ..") ""..."",. . :<fI"!;;ii;;' . " .' >~.
,~ .. .' .' ~'. . ""'" .. ..
. ."" """ ~._' "._ '-! WI" . ., .~\".... '. ~..' ;' _;t -'.,
. ~ . .. . '-' .....- . ,. ""'..
. .~~. ..' . . '. . = . . .""""" .. .r. .,;,. """" ..
..,. _.' ..... _ . . . w.~,_..~~. '"
,," . . . ... '.' 'w,.. . " l' , . ..... ";.: .." ' .., ,
-'., .' '. _' , .. II '11..~.....;..:~.~. ~:I~.. ~~
. . ..' .,- ~ . ' ." ". ~..
..~t;a. ~!{,~bjo~ . ~:.'~"'!:~;' ,~ '. . 0":. .-'. '-: ~~,\~, "'-_.~~.,:~
.:;t:0i! .>"~ l.ti.1....-~.I..~. 0 l.::> .' ~ ..~.~.../'
.'~ .' '",,,' . ~ .....",,' Co...;:' , " ..., '. ~
.~~'I II. ~ """ .. ","1. ....... .' O~_ I!<:N-H'- , C'" .. io';~.'\:: ,~~,\ .-
,,!@' ", .' _.! -" . ~ ,.; "'. ....'=';'
., . {" . ......_"'-,..-- ___..." I ,. ., !L 0 'iiI/". - . ~. ·
bl'~.;I" '. - :tJ{~ i i "i-..J ' . i , - .~ J '...., ' ;':1~- ~ ->> .' . =JIl -- ~
.,.~~t ..' ~\' j ! {i.... r. J , ~.. . '-in' . ,~,- 1;" -~ - '.,,'..'
_ ._.....~....."'. ...:.".......-.... --~iJIf)_..._. ~.:::?J..l- ----, -~ ~ ~ ~~ ,..
_;:\ .. . H'~C".I i '_,-!. - 1 ~~/, ' . ,tt.tII. ~..~
- .. . ..'- " .. " . ~
~.I:' - . ~.' ~~..! . ,,-, --- ~ .,~~..,
~, _ I .m1'-" ~.: I . . :. .... ~'\.,;;;P,l '~.. r.
"~ ." .{'f! I ...,"<., "'tj.. "'" \\:"."
.' ;j "'...... \. !..."]:.' r... \ I (" fI,.~.' ".: \; .....'-\1\~\ I 0 ~~~)t:;1:,;,;"
. , '. .:. . ,.-""..". ! ,.. .. .-- . . ",,~-....' . - . ='--'
. ' '" . ." .. - ,"'. .,,' . . , . -.... .----
~;f... I.' i:...-~f;.W""-.",_._-_.~""r. ::::~ ~'/,,' \ ~'),J
!J''f, ';' ,_" ~i_> .., ~'ft~ .' . , .;.-'
..::t:~." ~.._, '~~'_ .r.:~ _ ,:_..._._. .,. · ...~~'.::SJ,/..:i. "-.. ~" " -~ ~....v) '\ ~ ~ 'rk
"':,:"., ~.~ ':' .' _ ~~ ~'( i{' ., ....' iI'I i I \.J ,?; \&
", i! '.. .__.-,..". . . ~,,,,,,"",'" -'"," to. ~ ..
~..~~, , ....-.lIL. _, ..........-..11. .' J~~-:::;?I..-.... -_........;r-l":.~~__.... -)~
",;li.'~ tx\.\5.~." -9 . .~ o;;;::!" .~ 0,", :.1..' .1 'V'~" 0 o. y~
'<1"" ..'~ :-. . -.. ..'--"" ,~. '.. '. .. - ' '
" . '" : <... '<-' _. .. . ,... '. ~. ' <",
'" - .... . -. -'~ ~ . ' .~
~rl~,~..~.::..::~ ."" ~. -,-; .........~.. " ..~<S-;JY/..;... ~~ .~.:,: , 'I -.' ..~. ~~~"':l..~~
Ii(" ,,~\{ ()~ _ .' ~... (i: v-....----.:~.~ . .........." ;s?,~. .
ij;~~~': ~~~l't _~. .... .'._ .~ . .. '" ""'-'- -:. .,;. Map-1 ~~ ~ '-
~~., . '..\:t \: '. f. ~ " . ~~ -:- ~-- - '. . . . :.....--- .; .- r-- .:;---:;::-
.>, .",.,~... . ' . . ~_ >.A... ..
~>,,,,,=". ': ... ",'1' ...~. ~~-;.vil?: ' "'" 2001 GENEAAL plJ>.N UPDATE
_ Planning Area - AEC
_ -. ___ 2001 City Umits
..-..." Sphere Of Influence (SOl), Proposed ~\.,
:>' ;
. . .... , . . Sphere Of Influence (SOl) To Be Excluded ::, ;
'"
. .._ .. ... ~ . ....._ - .. - .. - ... ....0.. .. .
INTRa - 9
. .
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS
...
.9 .
-
-
- .
. .
--
--- -
APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS
Buffer Zone - A:n. 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 characteristics 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
perfonn certain acts or meet ~ertain requirements as part of the agency's approval of the
project.
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
development occurs.
Economic use of property - "uneconomic character" no other reasonable or
comparable agricultural use to which th~ land may be put either individuaUy or in
combination with other adjacent prime fannland parcels.
Eminent Domain - The process by which public agencies acquire private property for
public use) when the owner of that property is unwilling to sell.
Exaction - An. exaction is a specific fonn of condition on a public agency's approval of a
development proposal. There are typically two 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 agency may require the owner to pay fees to finance public improvements (sometimes
referred to as "monetary exactions").
. .
. .
!
, .
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 demanc;l
created by a new housing development). State law closely regulates the adoption, levy,
collection and challenge 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 detennination or conclusion based on the evidence presented to the-pub~c
hearing body, such as the planning commission, in support of its decision. Findings
explain and justify the 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, generar
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 ovetwhelmed by rapid growth.
Permitted Use - A use by right that is specifically authorized in a.. particular zoning
district. Contrast with 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-renewable. 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.
Sprawl - Dispersed, irresponsible development outside of compact urban and village ' -.
centers along highways 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.
. .
-----
I
.
Subdivision _Map Act -- A subdivision is any division of land for the purpose of sale,
lease or financing. Subdivisions are governed by the California SubdiVision Map Act.
Generally, a subdivision requires a tentative map approved by the local agency and a
fmal map (based on the qualified survey of the land) filed with the county recorder.
Local agencies regulate and control the design and improvement of the subdivision; many
local agencies have adopt~d ordinances specifying the agency's requirements for
subdivisions.
Taking - One of the most contentiou~ areas of land use law , involving the question of
what type of public agency action constitutes a regulatory taking." The law of takings
derives from the 5th Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution: ". . . nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation." Simply defined, a taking occurs
when a public agency-either condemns property to build public projects (also referred to
as eminent domain) or physically occupies or damages property. The Takings Clause
does not prohibit these activities; it merely requires that the public agency pay property
owners'~ust compensation."
Zone - Zones are geographic areas where a specific type of use has been establishedior
existing buildings and land as well as future development. The type of use within a zone
is governed by that zone's "zoning regulations." These regulations govern sizes and
shapes of buildings, the number of dwelling units that can exists on a property. Zoning
regulations may govern other act!vities as well, such as tree planting or car parking.
. .
. .
------
-_.~-~- - .. ----_.._-.....__._----~-~~- ---- -._-~_._---~-_._.~._- ------.------.-- -.,-..-..---
RESOLUTION NO. 3699
-
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk of
the City of Arroyo Grande, .County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do
hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that Resolution No. 3699 is a true, full,
and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 22nd
day of July, 2003.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 25th
day of July, 2003.
.
~/U--
RE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/
DEPUTY CITY CLERK