Loading...
Agenda Packet 2003-09-23 CITY COUNCIL Cttt of AGENDA Arroto Gratule Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Jim Dickens Mayor Pro Tem Steven Adams City Manager Thomas A. Runels Council Member Timothy J. Carmel City Attomey Sandy Lubin Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services Joe Costello Council Member NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday September 23. 2003 6:3<l P .~ Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT on Special Meeting Agenda Items. Members of the public wishing to address the Council on any item described in this Notice may do so when recognized by the Presiding Officer. 3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) involving one (1) potential case. 4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: Announcement of reportable action from closed session, if any. 5. ADJOURNMENT. c:closedsession.agenda.092303. __u.____ ------ -._- CITY COUNCIL Cttt of AGENDA Arroto Gratule Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Jim Dickens Mayor Pro Tem Steven Adams City Manager Thomas A. Runels Council Member Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Sandy Lubin Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services Joe Costello Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE: BOY SCOUT TROOP 489 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR GEORGE LEPPER, PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH, ARROYO GRANDE 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5.a. Presentation by Kirstin Barrett and Krlftlan Olsen. Arroyo Grande ""ph School Student ReDr8Sentatlves to the Annual Leaaue of California Cities Conference Se~tember 7-1 O. 2003 In Sacramento 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 6.a. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. -- --- --- AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking fonnal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may: . Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you. . A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. . It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda. Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council: . Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less. . Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members. . Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be pennitted. 8. CON~ENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to pennit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. S.a. Cash Disbursement Ratificat'ol) (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Approve the listings of cash disbursements for the period August 16, 2003 - August 31, 2003. ! S.b. Consideration of Cash Flow AnalysisJADoroval of Interfund Advance from the Water FacilItY Fund (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Receive and file the August 2003 cash report and approve the interfund advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds at August 31, 2003. S.c. StAtement of Investment Deoosits (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Receive and file the report of current investment deposits as of August 31,2003. S.d. Consideration of ADoroval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of August 12, 2003 and the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of August 26,2003, as submitted. AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA (continued}: 8.e. Consideration of Council ADoointment to the Downtown Parking Advisorv Board (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Approve the appointment of Eddie EI-Helou to the Downtown Parking Advisory Board, as recommended by Council Member Costello. 8.1. Conslsteration of ,he Purchase of Security Systems for City Hall and Council Chambers (HERNANDEZ) Recommended Action: 1) Approve the allocation of $4,200 from reserves to purchase security systems for City Hall and the Council Chambers; and 2) Authorize staff to enter an agreement with Great Western Alarm for purchase and maintenance of the systems. 8.g. Consideration of Waiver of Fees for Arroyo Grande Valley Little League Basel1--'1 (HERNANDEZ) Recommended Action: Approve the waiver of $2,499.00 in fees for field preparation for Arroyo Grande Little League. 8.h. Consideration of Resolution Authorizing ADolicatlon for Per CaDita Grant Fund, (HERNANDEZ) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution authoriZing staff to apply for grant funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Clean Water. Clean Air. Safe Neighborhood Parks. and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. 8.L Conslsteration of Authorization to Soli~l~ ~I(ls - Contract~ Custodial Services (HERNANDEZ) Recommended Action: Authorize staff to solicit bids to contract for custodial services for all City facilities. 8.j. Consideration of plsadvantaged Business EnJerorise (~u:tE} PrOGram for FFY ;>>03104. (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Approve the DBE Program for Federal FY 2003-04 and submit to Caltrans by October 1, 2003. 8.k. Conslsteration to Adoot the Storm Water Management elan and Authorization to S"bmlt to th, Reaional W.-rQualltv Control eoard (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1 ) Adopt Resolution adopting the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP); 2) Appropriate $1,500 from the General Fund in FY 2003-04 and $3,000 in FY 2004-05; and 3) Direct staff to submit the SWMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board by October 30.2003. 8.1. Conslsteratlon of Museum Annex (Barn) Color. 127 Short Street. Condlttonal Vse Penn II No. 02.Q1Q (STRONG) Recommended Action: Approve the exterior color of the Museum Annex and defer consideration of window shutter versus metal awning details to November 25. 2003. .- _.~-----~ AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 4 8. CONSENT AGENDA (continued}: 8.m. Consideration of Resolution GrantinG a One-Year Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 99-Q13 and Vartance Case No. 01-001: Camino Mercado and West ~ranch Street (STRONG) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 99-013 and Variance 01-001. 8.n. Consideration of Ordinance to Prohibit ParkinG in Front (Street) Yards (STRONG) Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 10.16.010.8 in Title 10 and Section 16.56.030 in Title 16 to prohibit parking in front (street) yards. 8.0. Consideration of Ordinance to Amend the ZoninG MaD to Prezqne to eut)Jl~ Facllltle, the ProDOsed ,to J9hn's Church Annexation. Develoument Code Amendment Case "0. Q3~ (STRONG) Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance amending Development Code Amendment 03-004 to amend a portion of the zoning map to prezone to Public Facilities (P.F.) all properties within the proposed S1. John's Church annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande. 9. PUBLI~ HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration ConcerninG Use of State 20D-04 Citizens O~tlon for P,,~lJe bfetv (COPS} Funds (TerBORCH) Recommended Action: 1) Approve the expenditure of $100,000 as authorized by the State for law enforcement services under the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program; and 2) Authorize the expenditure of $3,800 carried over from the City's FY 2002-03 COPS Program. 9.b. Conslsteration of the Final EnvlronmentallmD8Ct ReDOrt (FElfI) for Conditional Vse Permit No. 01-001 and Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 01-902 (CrMUIsII Centtrl (STRONG) Recommended ActIon: 1) Review supplemental traffic and historical infonnation prepared for the Creekside Center Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR); and 2) Adopt Resolution certifying the FEIR as being adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA). ~._~--- -----...--- -.------- AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 5 9. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (continued): 9.c. Continued Public Hearina - Consisteration of General Plan Amendme"t 03-002: Amendlna the Land Use MaD to C~anae the Land Use DeslanatiJm.jor Four ProDertles to Aaricu'ture and M2!1If1cation of Lanauaae In the Land U,e Element. and Amendlna the AGriculture. Conservation and ODell SDaCe Element to Revise ImDlementatlon PollcV for Mltlaatlon of Converted Aaricultural Lands (STRONG) ~ Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 03-002 amending the land use map to change the land use designation of four parcels to Agriculture, modification of language in the Land Use Element; and amending the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element to revise implementation policy for mitigation of converted agricultural I. as recommended by Planning Commission. 2) Continue General Plan Amendment 03-003 and Development Code Amendment 03-005 to November 25, 2003. 10. CONTIN\lE5P eUSINESS: 10.a. ConslsieratJon of ADDroval of the EI CamDO B2Is1[Route 191 Prolect Study ReDort - Prolect DeveloDment SUDDOrt (PJ~ (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Approve the EI Campo Road/Route 101 Project Study Report - Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) and direct staff to request funding from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) for project approval and environmental document. 11. ~EW 'USJMES~: None. 12. ~JTY COUN~IL REPORTS: This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which they may be participating. (a) MAYOR TONY M. FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORT A) (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) (3) Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) (4) Other (b) MAYOR PRO TEM JIM DICKENS: (1) South County Youth Coalition (2) Other \ --,---- ---- AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 6 12. CITY COUN~l REPORTS (continued): (c) COUNCil MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS: (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) (3) Other (d) COUNCil MEMBER SANDY lUBIN: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT) (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (3) Other (e) COUNCil MEMBER JOE COSTEllO: (1) Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (2) Other I 13. ~ITY COUNCIL MeMBER ITEM~: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the Mayor and/or a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. a) None. 14. CITY "ANA~eR I"{E"S: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken. a) None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION': Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 17. COMM1mJTY CQMlli~TS At4D ~U(;GESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. 18. ADJOURNMENT .~--.- ------..--.--. AGENDA SUMMARY - SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 7 +++++++++ All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item. of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the Administrative Services Department and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate altemative formats to persons with a disability. as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date. +++++++++ Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information. www.arroyoarande.ora "J ~i)Oer penalty 01 pefJury under'"' IIws of tht ~ 01 Calilomia. that.. fDregalng = _ pOIIICS prior (he meeting on .. =.......... ....... /2 houri far. AtguIIr 11nJI1'" fir.... ........ J'~/~3 ..if t)/&dL. ---.......----. OF ~Of'S COmme\\6.at\O\\ ~ted to t\S\\o.\\ 0 \S~\\ ~ ~\\\% \\t C\\t 0\ ~ ~ 4\ \\t 'ltaP 0\ ()\\\on\" C\\\tS ~ ~\tttftt \\\ ~ ~l,.\a,~ .~~~I~ -------- --~- - ---------------- OF , - a~orts Commendation Wresented to CKjrstin en arrett -..... ., 'In representiltft the Citt of Arroto Grande at tfte ~eGjJue of CaUfomia Cities Amwm Conference ilt Sacrannto Sept. 7 ,., 10, 2003 ~ mrt 9\ gimara, 9'eor '.~ .-- ____.__.___u._ _..__..._...._.._-~-_." 8.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ~ BY: JANET M. HUWALDT, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR ~ SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RA TIFICA TION DATE: September 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period August 16-August 31,2003. FUNDING: There is a $538,569.03 fiscal impact. All payments are within the existing budget. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Cash Disbursement Listing Attachment 2 - August 1, 2003 Accounts Payable .Check Register (03/04) Attachment 3 - August 8, 2003 Accounts Payable Check Register (02103) Attachment 4 - August 8, 2003 Accounts Payable Check Register (03/04) Attachment 5 - August 8, 2003 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks Attachment 6 - August 15, 2003 Accounts Payable Check Register (03/04) Attachment 7 - August 15, 2003 Accounts Payable Check Register (02103) I A IT ACHMENT 1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH DISBURSEMENTS :;'cn de 'PWMt ~ ~ 16 7~ ~ 91. 2009 September 23, 2003 Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for the period August 16 to August 31, 2003. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence and type of payment. August 22, 2003 Accounts Payable Cks 111900-111967 2 $ 74,158.04 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks 3 328,057.76 402,215.80 August 29, 2003 Accounts Payable Cks 111981-112091 4 136,353.23 Two Week Total S 538.569.03 ____u.____.__.._ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM GENERAL FUND (010) SPEGAL REVENUE FUNDS City Government (Fund 010) Park Development Fee Fund (Fund 213) 4001 - City Council 4550 - Park Development Fee 4002 - Administrative Services Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222) 4003 - City Attorney 4501 - Traffic Fund 4101 - City Manager Transportation Fund (Fund 225) 4102 - Printing/Duplicating 4553 - Public Transit System 4120 - Financial Services Construction Tax Fund (Fund 230) 4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4556 - Construction Tax 4130 - Community Development Police Grant Funds 4131 - Community Building (CDBG) 4201 - Law Enforcement Equip. (Fd 272) 4140 - Management Information System 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant (Fd 271) 4145 - Non Departmental 4203 - Federal Universal Hiring (Fd 274) Public Safety (Fund 010) 4208 - Federal Local Law Enforcmt (FD 279) 4201 - Police Redevelopment Agency ( Fund 284) 4211 - Fire 4103 - Redevelopment Administration 4212 - Building &: Safety ENTERPR1SE FUNDS Public Works (Fund 010) Sewer Fund (Fund 612) 4301 - Public Works-Admin &: Engineering 4610 - Sewer Maintenance 4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance Water Fund (Fund 640) 4304 - Street lighting 4710 - Water Administration 4305 - Automotive Shop 4711 - Water Production Parks & Recreation (Fund 010) 4712 - Water Distribution 4420 - Parks Lopez Administration (Fund 641) 4421 - Recreation 4750 - Lopez Administration 4422 - General Recreation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (Fund 350) 4423 - Pre-School Program 5501-5599 - Park Projects 4424 - Recreation-Special Programs 5601-5699 - Streets Projects 4425 - Children in Motion 5701-5799 - Drainage Projects 4426 - Five Cities Youth Basketball 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects 4430 - Soto Sport Complex 5901-5999 - Water Projects 4213 - Government Buildings 4460 - Parkway Maintenance Dept. Index lor Council -~-- 8.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES rq SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL OF INTERFUND ADVANCES FROM THE WATER FACILITY FUND DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: . Accept the August 2003 cash report, . Approve the interfund advance of $581,877 from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds as of August 31, 2003. FUNDING: No outside funding is required. DISCUSSION: Revenues in individual funds are earned in uneven amounts during each month of the year; however, expenses in these funds are paid out in fairly consistent amounts. These differences cause some funds to have temporary cash deficits while waiting for revenues to equal expenses. For investment purposes, the City pools cash in individual funds into one bank account. Since the City pools the cash of all funds, individual fund shortages are not readily apparent. However, in reality, funds with excess cash are "financing" the shortages in other funds until revenues equal expenses. This report is prepared to present to the City Council individual fund shortages and the funds financing those shortages. By year-end, all funds are expected to have positive cash balances. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration: - Approve staff recommendation and accept the annual report; - Do not approve staff recommendation and decline the annual report; - Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; - Provide direction to staff. Attachment: A - Cash Balancellnterfund Advance Report I -- - -----_._~- ----....... ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH BALANCE / INTERFUND ADVANCE REPORT At August 31, 2003 Balance at Recommended Revised Fund 08/31/03 Advances Balance 010 General Fund 1,534,291 1,534,291 210 Fire Protection Impact Fees 128,468 128,468 212 Police Protection Impact Fees 23,998 23,998 213 Park Development 457,531 457,531 214 Park Improvement 70,748 70,748 215 Recreation Community Center 4,883 4,883 217 Landscape Maintenance 30,159 30,159 220 Street (Gas Tax) Fund 124,089 124,089 221 Traffic Congestion Relief 47,849 47,849 222 Traffic Signalization 423,143 423,143 223 Traffic Circulation 472,630 472,630 224 Transportation Facility Impact 1,756,831 1,756,831 225 Transportation 33,752 33,752 226 Water Neutralization Impact 502,966 502,966 230 Construction Tax 231,754 231,754 231 Drainage Facility 18,316 18,316 232 In-Lieu Affordable Housing 628,248 628,248 241 Lopez Facility Fund 901,414 901,414 250 CDBG Fund 702 702 271 State COPS Block Grant Fund (5,263) 5,263 0 272 Calif. Law Enf. Technology Grant 24,801 24,801 279 00-01 Fed Local Law Enforcement Grant 5,209 5,209 284 Redevelopment Agency 8,250 8,250 285 Redevelopment Set Aside 67,296 67,296 350 Capital Projects (576,614) 576,614 0 612 Sewer Fund 28,105 28,105 634 Sewer Facility 125,680 125,680 640 Water Fund 2,765,065 2,765,065 641 Lopez 105,019 105,019 642 Water Facility 1,108,684 (581,877) 526,807 751 Downtown Parking 43,126 43,126 760 Sanitation District Fund 59,304 59,304 Total City Wide Cash 11,150,434 0 11,150,434 THE ABOVE LISTING ARE THE CASH BALANCES SHOWN IN THE GENERAL LEDGER OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS OF AUGUST 31, 2003 ~ -------_.~ -----...- _._~_. -.- 8.c. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES e:t BY: JANET M. HUWALDT, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR~ SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT DEPOSITS DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Attached please find a report listing the current investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande, as of August 31, 2003, as required by Government Code Section 53646 (b). --~- -~._~---_.._,-_._-- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT //6 ~ ~ 31. 2003 September 23, 2003 This report presents the City's investmerits as of August 31, 2003. It includes all investments managed by the City, the investment institution, type of investment, maturity date, and rate of interest. As of August 31, 2003, the investment portfolio was in compliance with all State laws and the City's investment policy. Current Investments: The City is currently investing all short-term excess cash in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) administered by the State Treasurer. This is a very high quality investment in terms of safety, liquidity, and yield. The City may readily transfer the LAIF funds to the City's checking account when funds are needed. At this time, the City does not hold any other investments. The following is a comparison of investments based on book values as of August 31, 2003 compared with the prior month and the prior year. Date: August 2003 July 2003 August 2002 Amount: $12,400,000 12,400,000 12,400,000 Interest Rate: 1.63% 1.65% 2.72% I.d. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Council Members Runels, Lubin and Costello, City Manager Adams, Parks and Recreation Director Hernandez, Human Resources Manager Sisko and City Attorney Carmel were present. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. (Mayor Pro Tern Dickens arrived at 6:17 p.m. prior to Closed Session.) 3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: Agency Negotiators: Daniel Hernandez and Karen Sisko Represented Employees: Arroyo Grande Career Firefighters (AGCF) b. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EV ALUA TION pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Title: City Attorney 4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session. 5. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative Servicesl Deputy City Clerk -'--- ...--- --------,-,.-.------.-- MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TUESDAY, AUGUST 26,2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor/Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Lubin, Runels, Costello, Mayor Pro Tern Dickens, and Mayor Ferrara were present. RDA: Board Members Lubin, Runels, Costello, Vice Chair Dickens, and Chair Ferrara were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Adams, City Attorney Carmel, Director of Administrative Services Wetmore, Assistant City' Engineer Linn, Director of Community Development Strong, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Hernandez, Associate Planner Heffernon, Associate Planner McClish, Assistant Planner Foster, and Assistant Planner Bergman. 3. FLAG SALUTE Members of American Legion Post No. 136 led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor Mark Perry, Crossroads Community Church, Arroyo Grande, delivered the invocation. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. . 6. AGENDA REVIEW None. 6.a. Resolutions and Ordinances Read in Title Only Council Member Runels moved, Mayor Pro Tem Dickens seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Karen Cross Harmon, Arroyo Grande, referred to a recent article in the Times Press Recorder regarding the relocation difficulties the Mormon Church on Traffic Way was having. She suggested a vacant parcel near Rodeo Drive as an appropriate location for a church use instead of building more homes in that area. _.~.._-- CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 2 Wayne KinQ, Pismo Beach, spoke about property tax issues and questioned whether or not Mayor Pro T em Dickens has a conflict of interest. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Lubin requested that Item 8.g. be pulled for discussion. Mayor Pro Tern Dickens requested that Item 8.h. be pulled for a separate roll-call vote. Council/Board Member Costello moved, and Council/Board Member Runels seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.q., with the exception of Items 8.g. and 8.h., with the recommended courses of action. The motion carried on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Costello, Runels, Lubin, Dickens, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Approved the listings of cash disbursements for the period August 1, 2003 ..... August 15, 2003. 8.b. Consideration of Cash. Flow Analysis/Approval of Interfund Advance from the Water Facility Fund. Action: Received and filed the July 2003 cash report and approve the interfund advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds at July 31,2003. 8.c. Consideration of Annual Report - Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Cash Activity in Transportation Facilities Development Impact Fund. Action: Accepted the annual report of Transportation Facilities Development Impact Fund cash activity and ending cash balance at June 30, 2003. 8.d. Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of July 31, 2003. 8.e. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 12, 2003. 8.f. Consideration of Resolution Approving FY 2003-04 through FY 2006-07 Memorandum of Understanding with Arroyo Grande Career Firefighters (AGCF). Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3702 approving the Memorandum of Understanding with the Arroyo Grande Career Firefighters. 8.i. Consideration of an Award of Contract for Fire Station Expansion Project, PW 2003-05. Action: 1) Awarded a contract for the Fire Station Expansion Project to DJM/Borbon-A Joint Venture in the amount of $1,635,000; 2) Authorized the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $163,500 for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the - CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 3 project; 3) Directed staff to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed with other necessary contract documents; and 4) Appropriated $323,000 from the General Obligation Bond Measure 0-02 and $152,000 from the Fire Facilities Fund. 8.j. Consideration of Approval of Parcel Map AG 98-083; Subdividing One (1) Parcel into Three (3) Residential Parcels; 1171 Ash Street; Applicant. Action: Approved Final Parcel Map AG 98-083, subdividing .54 acres into three (3) residential lots. 8.k. Consideration of Acceptance for the Scenic Creekside Walk - Phase III Project. Action: 1) Accepted the project improvements, as constructed by Maino Construction Company, Inc. in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Scenic Creekside Walk Phase III Project; 2) Directed staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorized release of the retention of $21,982.07, thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded, if no liens have been filed. 8.1. Consideration of Development Code Amendment Case No. 02-006 to Revise Zoning Regulations for the Village Commercial District and .Portions of the General Commercial and Office Professional Districts. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 544 amending portions of Title 16.of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (Development Code Amendment 02-006), rezoning the Village Commercial District and portions of the General Commercial and Office Professional District to Village Core Downtown, Village Mixed Use, Village Residential and Single Family Residential; revising land use regulations to address requirements for Mixed Use districts and approval processes. 8.m. Consideration of Authorization to Close City Streets and Use City Property for the 66th Annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival, September 26-27, 2003. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3703 authorizing closure of City streets and use of City property, and authorize the waiver of City fees and costs for the Annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival. 8.n. Consideration of Deed of Conservation Easement to Lucia Mar Unified . School District for Arroyo Grande Creek Adjoining Paulding Middle School Related to Off-site Mitigation for Hidden Oaks Elementary School Site. Action: 1) Approved a Deed of Conservation Easement to Lucia Mar Unified School District for Arroyo Grande Creek adjoining Paulding Middle School related to off-site mitigation for Hidden Oaks Elementary School in Village Glen (Tract 2265, Lot 41); and 2) Authorized the City Manager to sig'n the Deed of Conservation Easement on behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande. 8.0. Consideration of Agreement Affecting Real Property. Action: Approved Agreement Affecting Real Property with Ray Bunnell, owner of Casa Grande Motel and Restaurant, for a deck encroachment easement, subject to a grant to the City of trail and overlook easement and construction of trail improvements on adjoining portions of private land. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 4 8.p. Consideration of Settlement Agreement Between Northern Cities and Parties Outside the Northern Cities Area Regarding Santa Maria Groundwater Litigation. Action: Approved and authorized the Mayor to execute the Settlement Agreert:tent. 8.q. Consideration of First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with E. F. Moore & Company for Poplar Street Ponding Basin Property and Improvements. [COUNCIL/RDA] Action: 1) The Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors approved and authorized the Redevelopment Agency Executive Director to execute the amendment to purchase and sale agreement with E. F. Moore & Company for the Poplar Street Ponding Basin property, expansion and improvements; and 2) The City Council approved the expenditure of $26,150 from the Drainage Fund for improvements to the Poplar Street Ponding Basin project. 8.g. Consideration of Resolution Endorsing the Activities of the South County Healthcare Alliance. Council Member Lubin requested more information on how Clnd what types of activities are being endorsed. Dr. Ernie Jones explained that the South County Healthcare Alliance was a group of South County doctors and community leaders who have formed an alliance to address local healthcare problems and improve the working environment at the hospital. He stated the group was seeking local support and gave a brief overview of the group's objectives. Following Dr. Jones' overview, Council Member Lubin stated he would not have a conflict of interest on this item. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens requested that staff provide the City Council with copies of all correspondence/communication from the Alliance regarding its activities. Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution endorsing the activities of the South. County Healthcare Alliance. Council Member Runels seconded the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens inquired whether the motion included Council being provided copies of all correspondence/communication from the Alliance regarding its activities. Council Member Lubin agreed to amend his motion. Council Member Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Costello, Dickens, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 5 8.h. Consideration of an Award of Contract for Branch Mill Road Overlay Project, PW-2003-03. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to family ownership of real property near the project and stepped down from the dais. Council Member Runels moved to 1) Award a construction contract for the Branch Mill Road Overlay Project to Papich Construction in the amount of $199,758; 2) Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $19,976 for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project; and, 3) Direct staff to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed with other necessary contract documents. Council Member Lubin seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Runels, Lubin, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens There being 4 AYES, 0 NOES, and 1 ABSENT, the motion is hereb~ declared to be passed. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens returned to the dais. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Tentative Tract Map 03-002 and Planned Unit Development 03-002; 1180 Ash Street. Assistant Planner Foster presented the staff report and recommended the Council 1) Adopt Resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of TM 03- 002 and PUD 03-002 and refund of appeal fee, approving TTM 003-002 and PUD 03- 002, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2) Instruct the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination. Assistant Planner Foster responded to questions from Council regarding mitigation for the removal. of oak trees and the proposed underground water retention system. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Sharon Wilcox, appellant, distributed a map, photos, and backup documentation to the Council (on file in the Administrative Services Department) and stated that they were not opposed to construction and development of the property; however, she expressed concerns regarding the removal of the mature oak tree, the placement of an underground water retention basin, and the applicant's request for waiver of the water retrofit fee. She requested the Council save the oak tree, require an aboveground drainage system, and consider not waiving the water retrofit fee. -.--- CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 6 Kevin Hunstad, applicant, addressed concerns and acknowledged that he had tried to design the project around the oak tree. He stated that 2 of the 8 units were being provided for moderate income families; that he had received direction from the City regarding the placement of an underground drainage system; and that he was willing to wait for a recommendation from the Housing Task Force regarding the water retrofit fee and would ask for a refund at a later date, if appropriate. John Keen, Arroyo Grande, acknowledged that the water neutralization fee was required for each unit. He requested the Council consider waiving the fee for the affordable units. L!pon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Pu~lic Hearing. Following Council comments, Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of TM 03-002 and request for waiver of appeal fee, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, instructing the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination, and approving Tentative Tract Map 03-002 and Planned Unit Development 03-002, located at 1180 Ash Street, applied for by Kevin Hunstad. Council Member Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Costello, Dickens NOES: Ferrara ABSENT: None There being 4 AYES and 1 NO, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Mayor Ferrara stated for the record that his vote was based on the failure to waive any part of the appeal fee. 9.b. Consideration of Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03-003 to Modify the Site Plan Approved for Conditional Use Permit 01-010; 579 Camino Mercado; Central Real Estate Development. Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a Resolution, ,as amended, approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03-003. She suggested that if the pedestrian path is approved, staff recommended that a condition be added requiring the landscape plan to include plant material that screens the project and pathway from adjacent residents. Staff further recommended that the Council amend Condition of Approval NO.6 to add the following language to the end of the sentence "..., the applicant shall record an irrevocable open space easement on behalf of the City". Associate Planner Heffernon explained this would replace the requirement of recording a lot line adjustment. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Earl PauldinQ, Arroyo Grande, spoke on behalf of the seniors present, in support of the project. .- CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 7 Russell Miller, Arroyo Grande, opposed the proposed jogging trail and. requested it be moved closer to the road or eliminated entirely. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public Hearing. Following Council comments, Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution, as amended, approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03-003, located at 579 Camino Mercado, applied for by Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Costello, Dickens, Lubin, Runels, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9.c. Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Map to Prezone to Public Facilities the Proposed St. John's Church Annexation, Development Code Amendment Case No. 03-004. Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 03-004 to amend a portion of the zoning map to prezone to Public Facilities (P.F.) all properties within the proposed St. John's Church annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and upon hearing no comments, he closed the Public Hearing. Following Council comments, Mayor Pro Tem Dickens moved to introduce an Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment Case No. 03-004 to amend a portion of the Zoning Map to prezone to Public Facilities (PF) all properties within the proposed St. John's Church Annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande. Council Member Lubin seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Dickens, Lubin, Runels, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Mayor Ferrara called a recess at 8:50 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:04 p.m. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 8 9.d. Consideration of Agriculture Conservation: General Plan Amendment Case Nos. 03-002 and 03-003; and Development Code Amendment Case No. 03- 005. Associate Planner McClish presented the staff report and recommended the Council 1) Adopt Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 03-002 amending the land use map to change the land use designation of four parcels to Agriculture; modification of language in the Land Use Element; and amending the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element to revise implementation policy for mitigation of converted agricultural lands; and 2) Continue General Plan Amendment 03-003 and Development Code Amendment 03-005 to November 25, 2003. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Gary Kubara, Arroyo Grande, referred to parcel 007-621-0901, 1.6 acres owned by the . Japanese Welfare Association, and gave a history of the parcel's use. He spoke in opposition of converting the parcel back to Agriculture. Don Gullickson, Arroyo Grande, spoke in opposition to converting the E. Cherry Avenue parcels back to Agriculture. Dave Ritchie, Arroyo Grande, supported the existing zoning designations of all four parcels and spoke in opposition to converting any of the properties back to Agriculture. Wayne KinQ, representing Mr. Vanderveen, spoke in opposition to converting the Vanderveen property back to agriculture. Ed Dorfman, Arroyo Grande, requested that his property be excluded from the proposal to change it back to Agriculture. Karen Cross Harmon, Arroyo Grande, referred to the community survey results that said preservation of prime agricultural land is important. Steve Ross, Arroyo Grande, spoke in opposition to converting the E. Cherry Avenue parcels back to Agriculture. Nick Alter, Arroyo Grande, referred to a vision for mixed-use development of the E. Cherry Avenue property which would include organic farming. He urg~d the Council to convert the parcels back to Agriculture. Ella Honeycutt, Arroyo Grande, stated that conversions of zoning designations should be Gonsidered on a case-by-case basis. Bruce Vanderveen, Arroyo Grande, distributed copies of a letter from the Law Offices of William S. Walter (on file in the Administrative Services Department) opposing the proposed conversion of the Vanderveen property back to Agriculture. Bill Sutton, Arroyo Grande, spoke in opposition to converting the Vanderveen property back to Agriculture. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public Hearing. Following Council discussion and comments, Mayor Ferrara moved that Parcels A (APN 007-621-023), B (APN 007-621-073) & C (APN 007-621-001) remain designated as Mixed Use, and that collectively, they provide for Single and Multi-Family Residential, CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 9 Agriculture, and Village Commercial elements, with the specific allocations to be determined ata later time. The motion failed to receive a second. Mayor Ferrara moved that Parcel D (APN 007-761-022) be zoned back to agriculture. The motion failed to receive a second. Mayor Ferrara moved to support the Planning Commission's recommended changes to Ag 1-4.2 as stated in the Resolution. Council Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Ferrara, Costello NOES: Runels, Lubin, Dickens ABSENT: None There being 2 AYES and 3 NOES, the motion failed. Mayor Ferrara moved to direct staff to initiate the process to amend Ag Policy 1 to omit the word "minimize" so that the statement reads "Avoid and/or mitigate" and that this proposed amendment be sent back for public hearings and Planning Commission review, consideration, and recommendation. . Council Member Lubin inquired whether this issue was part of the agenda item. City Attorney Carmel responded that he believed it was permissible to direct staff to initiate the process to bring it to the Planning Commission for public hearing, a recommendation, and then back to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Ferrara, Dickens, Costello NOES: Runels, Lubin ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens moved to adopt an amended Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 03-002 amending the land use map to change the land use designation of three parcels to agriculture (deleting #3 (APN 007-621-001, 1.6 acre parcel owned by the Japanese Welfare Association); modification of language in the Land Use Element; and amending the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Elements to revise implementation policy for mitigation of converted agricultural lands. City Attorney Carmel explained that the proposed action would create inconsistency with Land Use Element Policy Statement LU5-13 and would need to be modified. Following discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dickens withdrew his motion. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 10 Mayor Pro T em Dickens moved to adopt the Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 03-002 amending the land use map to change the land use designation of four parcels to Agriculture; modification of language in the Land Use. Element; and amending the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Elements to revise implementation policy for mitigation of converted agricultural lands. The motion failed to receive a second. Council Member Lubin moved to deny the Resolution as presented by the Planning Commission and leave all four parcels as designated in the 2001 General Plan Update. Council Member Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels NOES: Costello, Dickens, Ferrara ABSENT: None There being 2 AYES and 3 NOES, the motion failed. Following discussion to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for further review, Mayor Pro Tem Dickens moved to continue the item to the September 23,2003 City Council meeting. Councif Member Costello seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Lubin, Runels ABSENT: None There being 3 AYES and 2 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9.e. Consideration of Ordinance to Prohibit Parking in Front (Street) Yards. Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 10.16.010.B in Chapter 10.16 of Title 10 and Section 16.56.030 in Chapter 16.56 of Title .16 to prohibit parking in front (street) yards. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Fred Bauer, Arroyo Grande, asked questions of staff regarding provisions in the proposed Ordinance. Steve Ross, Arroyo Grande, asked about provisions for corner lots and what vehicle types apply. Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public Hearing. ---.- ,,-~_._-_.._.._... .. ~-- , . - ---..--------- CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 11 Following Council comments, Council Member Costello moved to introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 10.16.010.B in Chapter 10.16 of Title 10 and Section 16.56.0-30 in Chapter 16.56 of Title 16 to prohibit parking in front (street) yards. Council Member Lubin seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Costello, Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS None. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS a. MAYOR TONY M. FERRARA: (1 ) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORT A). Reported on STIP Funding for local transportation issues; gave an update on Prop 42 funding; and reported on eliminations in Caltrans project delivery staffing. (2) Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA). No report. (3) Other. None. b. MAYOR PRO TEM JIM DICKENS: (1 ) South County Youth Coalition. No report. (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). Reported that the plant continues to run well and is meeting discharge requirements; gave an update on the issue of co-generation for reducing the energy bill; gave a status update on the City of Pismo Beach's request for consolidation; discussed how fees are being impacted by the changes to second residential unit regulations (Mayor Pro T em Dickens requested that staff provide information regarding this matter). (3) Other. None. c. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS A. RUNELS: (1 ) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. No report. (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). No report. (3) Other. None. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 12 d. COUNCIL MEMBER SANDY LUBIN: (1 ) South County Area Transit (SCAT). No Report. (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Received Annual Report; Received presentations from small businesses. (3) Other. None. e. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (1 ) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Adopted 2003-04 Budget; Reported that the marine vessel incentive program is moving forward. (2) Other. None. 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: None. 14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Council Member Lubin expressed disappointment that the South County Historical Society had started painting the museum annex building prior to receiving final Council approval of the color. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. 17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: Ella Honeycutt, Arroyo Grande, stated that it was worth taking the time to research the agriculture issue. Fred Bauer, Arroyo Grande, spoke regarding the E. Cherry Avenue parcels and stated he was an advocate of smart-growth principles. 18. ADJOURNMENT Mayor/Chair Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 11 :18 p.m. Tony M. Ferrara, Mayor/Chair ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative Services/ Deputy City Clerk/Agency Secretary (Approved at CC Mtg ) 8... MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO DOWNTOWN PARKING ADVISORY BOARD DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the appointment of Eddie EI-Helou to the Downtown Parking Advisory Board ("DPAB"), as recommended by Council Member Costello. FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: On January 13, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 481 C.S. amending the composition of applicable Commissions and Boards from seven to five members and adopted Resolution No. 3192 establishing Council policy as it relates to the appointment procedure to various Commissions and Boards. The Ordinance states that the mayor and each respective member of the Council shall appoint a representative to the various Commissions and Boards subject to the approval by a majority of the Council. All Commission and Board members serve at the pleasure of the Council. There has been a vacancy on the Downtown Parking Advisory Board since January 31, 2003 when a previous term expired. Kevin Delaney was appointed at that time, but he resigned shortly thereafter. Council Member Costello is now recommending appointment of Eddie EI-Helou, which now requires City Council approval to fill this vacancy. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the recommended appointment; - Do not approve the recommended appointment; - Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Application form ---- . . CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RESERVOIR OF CITIZENS TO SERVE erry ef~11'\f~61\AHtI~ Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Commission rJAj S&p '5 PM 4: '5 Traffic Commission Years Lived In A . . 0 rande_ Senior Advisory Commission Registered Voter Of Arroyo Grande Architectural Review Committee Yes No V Special Committees (L~9 Range p~n~9 Committee, etc.) fIJ,,+own ~ '''!J Ad""sor~ f!;oC,J.... NAME Eddie El-Helou . HOME 224 Christine Way Pismo Beach 489-6296 ADDRESS PHONE PRESENT EMPLOYER Broadway Jewelers POSITION Owner BUSINESS ADDRESS 121 East Branch Street AG PHONE 474-6646 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND High School College V ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTERESTS The City Council would like to have the names of three (3) Arroyo Grande References: &ME ADDRESS 1. Bob Lund 2. 3. ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES SHOWN BELOW: Planning Commission, First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:00 PM Yes_ No-- Parks and Recreation Commission, Second Wednesday of each month, 6:30.PM Ye&.-No_ Traffic Commission, the day (Monday) before the third Tuesday of each month, 7:00 PM Ve&..-No_ Senior Advisory Commission, First Wednesday of each month, 3:00 PM Yes-No_ Architectural Review Committee First Monday of each month, 3:15 PM Y"---.No_ Special Committees (Long Range Planriln Co mlttee, etc.) Meeting dates vary Yes...-NO-- Signature 8/28/03 The Arroyo Grande City Council requests Information about your Interest (and education, If applicable), In serving on a commission or committee, specifically your comments and views relative to the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Traffic Commission, Senior Advisory Commission, Architectural Review Committee or a Special Committee. Please note such Information on the reverse side of this foAn. Thank you for your Interest. THIS FORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD ! IF APPOINTED. COMPLETION OF A STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS REQUIRED 04102101 ------- _. _..m__~~_ -_.._~ -- 8.f. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION ~ AND FACILITIES SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE PURCHASE OF SECURITY SYSTEMS FOR CITY HALL AND COUNCIL CHAMBERS DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the allocation of $4,200 from reserves to purchase security systems for the Council Chambers and City Hall and authorize staff to enter an agreement with Great Western Alarm for purchase and maintenance of the systems. FUNDING: No funds were allocated in the current two-year budget for this project. A General Fund allocation of $4,200 from reserves is being requested to purchase security systems for City Hall and the Council Chambers along with panic buttons for the front desk, Finance and Community Development offices. The purchase will leave an available fund balance in the General Fund of $2,531 ,603. DISCUSSION: On July 14th of this year, there was a burglary at the City Hall offices. While there was minimal damage, there was a large potential for loss of valuable computer and office equipment. In addition, it was determined at that time the Council Chambers also had the potential of significant damage being done to the City's computer network and cable casting equipment in the event of a break-in. As a result, staff solicited bids for security i ~ " systems for both facilities. A total of two bids were received with options to either lease I' , I or buy the equipment, including a three-year service agreement. Total cost for t I purchase of equipment, installation of three panic buttons and a three-year maintenance I I I agreement are $4,115 from Great Western Alarm and $4,900 from Sylvester's Security I Alarms. AL TERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Allocate funds and authorize staff to proceed; . Modify recommendation and provide direction to staff; . Do not approve recommendation. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Submitted proposals -_.- --.--.._-------~._.--._---- --------'-'--._- -_._~._._--,,-- FROM: Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : Sep. 03 2003 01:56PM P7 ~UL-1~-2~~~ ~~~~~ AM C~EAT WE;T~~N ~L~~M S05 :':~$ e<4a:~ J:'.01 GREAT WESTERN ALARM and COMMUNICATIONS, INC. SECURITY SYSTEM PROPOSAL FOR: NAMe: ~. ~~..A,' AODRESS: ZJ~ L ~...~ CITV: .B8.It 6tIf..,.. Z'I' CODE PHONli (J,,>> J "~"'a DATE: 7.1S"-'~ ATTENTION: ..,J''"", O.SCR'PTION I.'" C " "="" ""'T~~Io"TI.tI - ..- I I --t - 110 - L4!"" .0 . ~~ . . M>>4o a.....L. - ~ - ~ 1 i i ! Accepted By . .-.......... C.. - TOTAL : "'~~4II""'TlGIIiL" Me.1I01" AJ.M. _L M'1Ct. ::DIrDlACT,1'NUIiIv ....., IIMIeIIGT TO~'" .......,.,.,.,...'!'O........ "WM""~--=--I\ AND"" ...... AIoARII_ COllMUtlCA........ 1421 Park Street. Paso Robles. CA. (805) 236.G018. ) 54'0040470. Fax: (80S) 238-9420 ce, . "~3Ce LA · ~2674 ;- . - FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHJNE NO. : Sep. 133 2003 131:57PM PB JUL-l~-~~~6 U~:~l ~M L,1ol.~~' W~.o ~ U-'rJ UI~o.J,...~'\' ~~~ JAW ~~~~ ~.~~ GRIAT WESTERN ALARM and COMMUNICATIOIUI,INC. SECURITY SYSTEM PROPOSAL _._.~~~., . ADO~SS: , ~ CITY: ~~~..a.'vi. ZiP CODE PHONE ji2~~o OATI: "''''r''~'' ~ ATTiNTION: 'oJ ,1111'\, ~---- - OE8C"IPTIOh ~'1ZlJ i ~... ...1'.."...... , J 17.b!. ''2. ... -...... J ~ f.~"'u u, t L.""~ ~ ;::: ~~- -j - I JJ"..../J,tuat(~ r..b-..JJ /)\~~ ~~ I . ! I J/#.;p~ .0 ~ 00 t - - ! I ! ! I -- r= - Accepted By D. TOTAL ~.,.......~,,"!fM1(Glll.Y MD.III:I!&~ ~ ~.'n4IR'I ..M-...rto "'...........,......'fOWIIImIIN _ V'"'IIT~ ....,.... _UlA'..'_J~..~\IC"~IMC. ;421 Park Street. Paso Roblee. CA. (805) 238-9018. BOS) 541-4470. Fax: (80s) 238-9420 ce. . "~30' loA . 00Ie?4 ........__._---_..~._--_.__._._.._._. ----,.-..----.-.---- - ---- ----------~-------~---~~-~-----~ FROM: Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : 5ep. 03 2003 01:58PM P10 . BURGLAR Sill" ...ria omc. (IDS) 928-3895 0 3 . RRE FaJt (805) 92~2640 Date -2'~ 20 0_ _ Corn.merc;ial SIn Lu/$ Obispo 0IIifII (1115) 543-6300 1:1 New tnstallation . Resident,al ~a1t (805) 543-8004 UI. LJ8/8Ij Slllta Ynez O~ (-J 6liH3tJ3 U New Subscriber/Existing System C91'1r.'I Station Fax (805) 688-8863 . . @ 823 ~ KnudSen w.y . SlJnta Marl".. CA 93A54 1.800-2'2-4422 U Extra Work PROPOSAL' Subscriber C~. of flt,~'l/j ~ .- Telephone 41J-S-4~ Address _..._ . .... ....City ..,,-. Contact Person:_.. ~ ~t' ___Telephone ....~.- -,,--- TYPE OF SIGNAL TRANSMISSION TYPE OF $YSTEM a Central Station Automatic Fir. Alarm o Digital Communicator 0 Central ~tion Burglar Alarm a Central Station Sprinkler Waterflow Alarm o Derived Channel 0 Central Station Hold-up Alarm 0 Central Station Supervised Open/Close a Direct Wire 0 Local Bell Burglar Alarm 0 Central Station Equipment Monitor U 0 0 I Control Panel Manufacturer ~ ir'Keypad 0 Lock I!tYard Sign ~ Decals I Sylvester's Bell Box U Siren a Indoor Horn S e:r Magnetic Contacts I!f'Intrared Motion Sensor a Smoke Detector Q Heat Detectors " ..... .... - ! Comments; , __~...w;~ Gis!&" 9f/-~ ~ . . $ 'IdS: --- S 8.dI- Agent'" At..e= ")j.4/4- ' ~. Con... Lie. 580835' CallI. Lie. LAOO1022 I, ACCEPTANCE OF PRDPOIiAL : i . . The prices, specifications and conditions shown herewith are satis- $ / /3SlJ lJQ $ _ ~~ ~ _ - and.... hereby occeptod. SyIvesIet'. -........ lno.. · I , _' authorb:ed to do the work as speoified. I AlARr,' prRM11 SlfIMWtt1 .. _ ! · PAVMENT IS DUE Q REQUIRED I Q NOT REQUIRED UPON COMPLEl1OH OF Dale of Atc",tence -. . INSTALLAT&ON. RISIDlNTIAl CUSTOMEAS-SM AIVIItII SIDE 8_g_ MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION ~ AND FACILITIES SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF WAIVER OF FEES - ARROYO GRANDE V ALLEY LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council waive $2,499.00 in fees for field preparation for Arroyo Grande Valley Little League. FUNDING: Approval of recommendation would result in a loss of $2,499.00 in park rental fees to the General Fund. DISCUSSION: A letter was received on August 29, 2003 from Mr. Frank Simon, president of Arroyo Grande Valley Little League, requesting a waiver of field preparation fees, which were charged for the regular season of Little League. This waiver does not include costs associated with the regional tournament that included many teams from out of the area. Little League is requesting this waiver since they donated materials and fees in excess of $20,000.00 for concrete work performed on Don Roberts Field to improve seating and handicapped access. These improvements are a substantial benefit to the field and complex. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve fee waiver as recommended; . Approve a waiver of a portion of the fee; . Do not approve fee waiver; . Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Letter from Arroyo Grande Valley Little League _..m _________ ------ ---_.~..._-_..._--~-_..------- .....-. _.~.__..- FROM: Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : - A TT ACHMENT 1 Arroyo Grande Valley Little League P.O. Box 355 Arroyo Grands, CA 93421 Date: August 29, 2003 To whom it may concern, Arroyo Grande Valley Little League is asking the City of Arroyo Grande if they would consider waiving the field preparation fees charged to our league for the regular season use of Pilg, Santos, and Don Roberts Fields. The fields are used by children ages 8..12 that live in the City of Arroyo Grande. The total regular season fees for March through June usage total $2499.00. The Arroyo Grande Valley Little League spent over $20,000 this year on concrete Improvements to the spectator seating area at Don Roberts Field. At the same time, we reduced the maintenance required to water and maintain the grass bank and we provided full handicap accessibility. We feel that these improvements to the multi-use baseball/softball/soccer field benefit the City of Arroyo Grande as well as our league. Please consider waiving our fees to help our Little League defray some of the cost of this improvement project. Thanks, Frank Simon ~~u President Arroyo Grande Valley Little League League Identification Number 4055016 Phone (805)489-0366 . ~__"__._._._._._ - - - ~~ - u___ __ _____ u__ 8.h. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND~ FACILITIES SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to apply for grant funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. FUNDING: The adoption of the resolution is a requirement for the grant process, allowing the City to receive allocated funds in the amount of $220,000 for Park Improvement or acquisition projects. DISCblSSION: Funds are proposed to be used for deferred parks maintenance and improvements, as well as the lighting of Don Roberts Field. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staffs recommendation and adopt resolution; - Modify and adopt the resolution; - Do not adopt the resolution; - Provide direction to staff. .~._-- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Per Capita Grant Program which provides funds for the acquisition and development of neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation lands and facilities; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, including setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the governing body to certify by resolution the approval of the Grantee to apply for the Per Capita Allocation; and WHEREAS, the Grantee will enter into a contract with the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby: 1. Approves the filing of an application for local assistance funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002; and 2. Certifies that the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project{s); and 3. Certifies that the Grantee has reviewed, understands and agrees to the general provisions contained in the contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and 4. Appoints the City of Arroyo Grande Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, Daniel Hernandez, as agent to conduct all negotiations, execut~ and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests, and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of project(s). On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2003. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ----- 8.1. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL C. HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION fdk AND FACILITIES SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS - CONTRACTED CUSTODIAL SERVICES DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council authorize staff to solicit bids to contract for custodial services for all City facilities. FUNDING: The estimated annual custodial services cost of $45,600 per year is included in the current budget. DISCUSSION: Currently, Clean Sweep Janitorial has been responsible for facility maintenance since September 2002, when the City Council authorized the elimination of the Maintenance Worker position assigned full-time to custodial duties. Overall, this proposal has resulted in better maintenance of all City facilities, as well as cost savings to the City. At that time, it was decided to contract out services for one year and re-evaluate after that time. It is staff's recommendation to continue to contract out these services and award a two-year agreement through September 2005. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve staff's recommendation to solicit bids; · Direct staff to pursue in-house provision of custodial services; · Modify the scope of services and direct staff to solicit bids; · Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Proposal for services and duties Arroyo Grande Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department Elm Street Community Center and Preschool 1221 Ash Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and Mop Clean and disinfect toilets, sinks, counter tops, urinals Refill all dispensers Clean and disinfect receptacles Empty trash and reline trashcans Deoderize Trash Empty and reline Deodorize Water Fountains Clean and polish TWO DAYS PER WEEK: Vacuum carpeting Mop flooring WEEKLY: Clean and detail sinks and counter tops MONTHLY: Spot clean walls and partitions Spot clean entry doors and door glass Low dusting - sills, ledges, molding, ducts, radiators, desks, furniture, picture frames QUARTERLY: High dusting - lights, vents, fixtures TWICE PER YEAR: Deep renovate grout -_.._-~-~-_..- ------- --------- Arroyo Grande Police Department 200 N. Halcyon Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and Mop Clean and disinfect toilets, sinks, counter tops, urinals and showers Refill all dispensers Clean glass Clean and disinfect receptacles Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Trash Empty and reline Deodorize Water Fountains Clean and polish TWO DAYS PER WEEK: Vacuum all flooring Spot clean carpet Clean and disinfect all sinks and counter tops WEEKLY: Entrance Sweep and mop Spot clean entry windows and door glass Kitchen Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect all sinks and counter tops Clean stove tops Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Walls and Partitions Spot clean ----.".---------. ..-.._-~. ..--- MONTHLY: High dusting Low dusting QUARTERLY: Scrub tile grout ~~..._._."_~U_____'_ .'~----'-'-'-"-~---~--'~--~~'-'-'--~--------- Arroyo Grande Fire Department 140 Traffic Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 WEEKLY: Entrance Spot clean glass Spot clean entry windows Offices and Conference Room Vacuum Empty trash Feather dust desktops Polish conference table Classroom Vacuum Dust Empty trash and reline trashcans Lounge Vacuum Empty trash and reline trashcans Kitchen Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect countertops and tabletops Polish stainless steel sinks Clean stovetop Clean face of all appliances Empty trash and reline trashcans Locker Room Vacuum Empty trash Water Fountains Clean and polish ~------ - ~~_._------.--- _._------~-~~-_._-~-".".__._.__.,--,.._.- TWICE PER WEEK: Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect countertops, toilets, sinks and showers Clean glass Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize --.-- -_.._----~----_._. ',- -----_._.._~-_. --'-~---"-"---- ._--~,,_.._-_.- ._._._ _ ___... J Arroyo Grande Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect all toilets, sinks, urinals, countertops and receptacles Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Trash Empty and reline trashcans Deodorize WEEKLY: Entry Spot clean entry windows and door glass Flooring Dust mop Wet mop Conference Tables Polish weekly Kitchen Clean and detail Carpeted Flooring Vacuum Sinks and Counters I Clean and disinfect MONTHLY: High dust ---,-~_.- ------------------ - -- - --- "._~--,-- ..,..----.----.--- .-------..-.- Arroyo Grande Woman's Club 211 Vernon Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and mop flooring Clean and disinfect toilets, sinks, urinals, receptacles Clean glass Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Sinks and Counters Clean and disinfect Trash Empty trash Deodorize Flooring Dust mop MONTHLY: Spot clean walls and partitions Spot clean entry windows and door glass TWICE PER YEAR: Deep renovate grout - ---. --_._--~----- '.~--"'--~- ---- .._--- Arroyo Grande Corporate Yard 1375 Ash Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 TUESDAY AND THURSDAY: Entrance Spot clean glass Spot clean entrance windows Vacuum throw rugs Sweep and mop Offices Vacuum Dust Empty trash and reline trashcans Conference Room Dust Sweep and mop Clean and polish conference table Empty trash and reline trashcan Kitchen Sweep and mop flooring Clean and disinfect countertops and tabletops Polish stainless steel Empty trash and reline trashcans Water Fountains Clean and polish Restrooms Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect countertops and sinks and toilets Refill all paper products Empty trash and reline trashcans --- -- ,~,-~-~-,~-'~------"----"'--'------~-'--'----'- -- --- -..' ..------,..--------.----- ----- Arroyo Grande City Hall and Engineering Department 214 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FIVE DAYS PER WEEK: Restrooms Sweep and mop Clean and disinfect all sinks, countertops, toilets and urinals Clean glass mirrors Refill all dispensers Empty trash and reline trashcans Deodorize Trash Take out daily Reline trashcans and deodorize WEEKLY: Dust all offices, windowsills, picture frames, baseboards Spot clean entrance windows and door glass Clean and disinfect all sinks and countertops Clean and descale drinking fountains Vacuum and mop all flooring MONTHLY: Spot clean walls and partitions High dusting - walls, vents, fixtures ~---_._---_.._.-._-- .~ -_.~-_._.._--~- ..~- ------,,--------- 8..1. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER N' SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE DISADV ANT AGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL FY 2003/04 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council approve the Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DB E) Program for Federal FY 2003/04 and submit to Caltrans by October 1, 2003. FUNDING: It is anticipated the following Federal-aid highway funds will be expended for the City of Arroyo Grande in FFY 2003/04: . Brisco Road-Halcyon Road/Route 101 Interchange Project Approval & Environmental Determination (PA&ED) - State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds in the amount of $165,000; and . Traffic Way Bridge Rail Replacement - Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR) funds in the amount of $118,592. DISCUSSION: On May 27, 2003, the Council approved the submittal of the Federal FY 2003/04 DBE Program with a "proposed" Overall Annual DBE Goal of 4% to Caltrans. Caltrans reviewed the City's proposed DBE Program and gave authorization to begin the public review process. The Council also directed the Director of Administrative Services to publish a public notice in the local newspaper regarding public input in accordance with Section XIV of the DBE Program. The notice was published on June 13, 2003 in the Time-Press-Recorder and was posted on the City's website. The public comment period ended July 28, 2003 with no public comments being received. The DBE Program is reviewed each year to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts, to create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT -assisted contracts, and to help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT -assisted contracts. It is recommended the Council approve the City's Federal FY 2003/04 DBE Program with an "established" Overall Annual DBE Goal of 4% and direct staff to submit the City's DBE Program, proof of publication, and summary of the public participation process and comments to Caltrans by October 1, 2003. ~---_.- --~-~_._--------~----- --_.-.._.._~_.- CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL FY 2003-04 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve staff's recommendation; - Direct staff to modify the DBE goal and/or program; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments 1. Letter to Caltrans with "established" overall annual DBE goals. 2. Proof of Publication 3. Final Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for FFY 2003/04. jep:232.0203(19)\03.04 DBE Plan\Staff.Report.9.23.03.wpd ------------~------------._--- ..--- --,- _._-_..._--_...._..~-------------------~_._-----_.__.- ------~.~-- Attachment 1 (City of Affoyo Grande Letterhead) September 25, 2003 Mr. Jerald T. Gibbs, Local Assistance Engineer Caltrans District 5 50 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Established Annual Overall Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal Information Dear Mr. Gibbs: The amount of overall goal, methodology, breakout of estimated race-neutral and race-conscious participation are presented herein in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, and as described in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. The City of Arroyo Grande has established an annual overall DBE goal of 4% for the Federal Fiscal Year 2003/04, beginning on October 1, 2003 and ending on September 30, 2004. Methodology The "Utilizing the Goal of Another Local Agency", specifically that of the City of San Luis Obispo, methodology was used to determine the District's overall goal for Federal Fiscal Year 2003/04. The City utilized the following methodology in establishing its Base Figure of relative DBE availability for FFY 2003/04. For the Numerator: Certified DBE Firms in City of AffOYO Grande's Bidders List For the Denominator: All Firms in City of AffOYO Grande's Bidders List The City calculated its weighted Base Figure by first determining the number of all DBEs I per the current Caltrans database and dividing by the total number of firms in the same I I work category, as presented in the latest census data from the Census Bureau. Application of this formula yields the following baseline information: Number of DBE's in City of Affovo Grande's Bidder List = BASE FIGURE Number of All Firms in City of Affoyo Grande's Bidders List _.~- ------._-----._------ ._-------. Mr. Jerald T. Gibbs September 25, 2003 Page 2 The Base Figure resulting from this calculation was 0%. Because the City does have not a bidders list that contains information on bridge projects or design contracts, the City will utilize the same overall goal and estimated race-neutral and race-conscience participation as the City of San Luis Obispo for FFY 2003/04. Breakout of Estimated Race-Neutral and Race-Conscious Participation Of the overall annual 4% goal for DBE participation, the City of Arroyo Grande projects meeting 0% of the goal utilizing race-neutral methods, including making efforts to assure that bidding and contract requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses; unbundling large contracts to make them more accessible to small businesses; encouraging prime contractors to subcontract portions of the work that they might otherwise perform themselves; and providing technical assistance, and other support services to facilitate consideration of DBEs and other small businesses. The remaining 4% of the goal is anticipated to be accomplished through race-conscience measures, which includes establishing contract specific goals on contracts with contracting possibilities, when needed, to meet the City's overall annual DBE goal. Public ParticiDation Process On June 13, 2003, the City published a public notice in the Five Cities Time-Press- Recorder in accordance with Section XIV of the DBE Program. The public notice was also posted on the City's website. There were no public comments received by the City. Please contact me at (805) 473-5440 or Jill Peterson, Consultant Senior Engineer, at (805) 544-4011 if you have any questions regarding this information. Sincerely, Don Spagnolo, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer c: Jill Peterson, JLWA Attachments: Proof of Publication FFY 2003-04 DBE Program jep:232.0203(19}\03.04 DBE PlanIEstablished.GoaI.Ltr.wpd ---------.-.-"-, ------,..._._-..-,~-----' ----------.-.---.. ..__._---_._.~ ,-.\ r, AiChment 2 PULITZER CENTRAL COAST NEWSPAPERS ( <<)) fP ~ Publishers of CENTRAL COAST TIMES - LOMPOC RECORD '- Five Cities TIME-PRESS-RECORDER - ABOBE PRESS P.O. Box 400, Santa Maria, CA 93456 - 3200 Skyway Drive, Santa Maria, CA 93455 (805) 925-2691- Fax: (805) 928-5657 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE P.O. BOX 550 ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421 REFERENCE: PUBLIC HEARING Legal No. 147003 County of San Luis Obispo, State of California The undersigned, Elizabeth Burciaga being the principal clerk of the printer of the Five Cities TIMES- PRESS-RECORDER, a newspaper of ?""'~\.>~ drr.u1ation. print"'d .}~~" - --. -- - ~uC"':~:.hcifiiYilie.dtY otAi~:vyv (;lGi..iri~, . -. .- - ~ -. -, - ..~ - .- .-- - - County of San Luis Obispo, California and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, Case Number 18811; and that affiant is the principal clerk of said Five Cities TIMES-PRESS-RECORDER.. That the printed notice hereto annexed was published in the said Five Cities TIMES-PRESS-RECORDER, in the issues of the following named dates: Dates of Publication: June 13, 2003 I certify, under penalty of petjury. under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. _. Signed: ~{I"'LL.f$//~ gal Advertising Clerk .- Attachment 3 City of Arroyo Grande Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for FFY 2003/04 City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 (805) 473-5440 September 2003 * This Program is in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26 c __ _____.______,.~________ .-------------..--.- CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM I. Definitions of Terms The terms used in this program have the meanings defined in 49 CFR 926.5. II. Objectives/Policy Statement (9926.1,26.23) The City of Arroyo Grande has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR Part 26. The City of Arroyo Grande has received Federal financial assistance from the DOT, and as a condition of receiving this assistance, the City of Arroyo Grande will sign an assurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26. It is the policy of the City of Arroyo Grande to ensure that DBEs, as defined in part 26, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT-assisted contracts. It is also our policy: . To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts; . To create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts; . To ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; . To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs; . To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT-assisted contracts; and . To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program. The Director of Public Works has been delegated as the DBE Liaison Officer. In that capacity, the Director of Public Works is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE program. Implementation of the DBE program is accorded the same priority as compliance with all other legal obligations incurred by the City of Arroyo Grande in its financial assistance agreements with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The City of Arroyo Grande has disseminated this policy statement to the Arroyo Grande City Council and all the components of our organization. We have distributed this statement to DBE and non-DBE business communities that perform work for us on DOT-assisted contracts by publishing this statement in general circulation, minority-focused and trade association publications. City of A"oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 1 September 2003 - --_.__..__.._~- ------ .-_..,,- --_.,..._....-~_.__._-_.._-_._-- III. Nondiscrimination (~26. 7) The City of Arroyo Grande will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR Part 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering its DBE program, the City of Arroyo Grande will not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin. IV. DSE Program Updates (~26.21) The City of Arroyo Grande will continue to carry out this program until the City of Arroyo Grande has established a new goal setting methodology or until significant changes to this DBE Program are adopted. The City of Arroyo Grande will provide to Caltrans a proposed overall goal and goal setting methodology and other program updates by June 1 of every year. V. Quotas (~26.43) The City of Arroyo Grande will not use quotas or set asides in any way in the administration of this DBE program. VI. DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) (~26.45) The City of Arroyo Grande has designated the following individual as the DBE Liaison Officer: Mr. Don Spagnolo, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 (805) 473-5440 dspagnolo@arroyogrande.org In that capacity, Mr. Spagnolo is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE program and ensuring that the City of Arroyo Grande complies with all provisions of 49 CFR Part 26. This is available on the Internet at: osdbuweb.dot.gov/main.cfm. Mr. Spagnolo has direct, independent access to the City Manager concerning DBE program matters. The DBELO has a staff of two support personnel who will devote a portion of his/ her time to the program. An organization chart displaying the DBELO's position in the organization is found in Attachment A to this program. City of A"oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 2 September 2003 --~~---~--_...,._'-.- . The DBELO is responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring the DBE program, in coordination other appropriate officials. Duties and responsibilities include the following: 1. Gathers and reports statistical data and other information as required. 2. Reviews third party contracts and purchase requisitions for compliance with this program. 3. Works with all departments to set overall annual goals. 4. Ensures that bid notices and requests for proposals are available to DBEs in a timely manner. 5. Identifies contracts and procurements so that DBE goals are included in solicitations (both race-neutral methods and contract specific goals) and monitors results. 6. Analyzes the City of Arroyo Grande's progress toward goal attainment and identifies ways to improve progress. 7. Participates in pre-bid meetings. 8. Advises the CEO/governing body on DBE matters and achievement. 9. Chairs the DBE Advisory Committee. 10. Participates with the legal counsel and project director to determine contractor compliance with good faith efforts. 11. Provides DBEs with information and assistance in preparing bids, obtaining bonding and insurance. 12. Plans and participates in DBE training seminars. 13. Provides outreach to DBEs and community organizations to advise them of opportunities. VII. Federal Financial Assistance Agreement Assurance (~26.13) The City of Arroyo Grande will sign the following assurance, applicable to all FHW A-assisted contracts and their administration as part of the program supplement agreement for each project: The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE Program orthe requirements of 49 CFR part 26. The recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE Program, as required by 49 CFR part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). City of A"oyo Grande DSE Program for FFY 2003104 Page 3 September 2003 --~._-_.._.._----- - VIII. DBE Financial Institutions It is the policy of the City of Arroyo Grande to investigate the full extent of services offered by financial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the community, to make reasonable efforts to use these institutions, and to encourage prime contractors on DOT-assisted contracts to make use of these institutions. Information on the availability of such institutions can be obtained from the DBE Liaison Officer. The Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program may offer assistance to the DBE Liaison Officer. IX. Directory (~26.31) The City of Arroyo Grande will refer interested persons to the DBE directory available from the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program website at: www.dot. ca.gov/ha/bep. X. Overconcentration (~26.33) The City of Arroyo Grande has not identified any types of work in DOT -assisted contracts that have a overconcentration of DBE participation. If in the future the City of Arroyo Grande identifies the need to address overconcentration, measures for addressing overconcentration will be submitted to the DLAE for approval. XI. Business Development Programs (~26.35) The City of Arroyo Grande does not have a business development or mentor-protege program. If the City of Arroyo Grande identifies the need for such a program in the future, the rationale for adopting such a program and a comprehensive description of it will be submitted to the DLAE for approval. XII. Required Contract Clauses (~~26.13, 26.29) Contract Assurance The City of Arroyo Grande ensures that the following clause is placed in every DOT -assisted contract and subcontract: The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR part 26 in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as recipient deems appropriate. City of Am)yo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 4 September 2003 i ----------_.~---- ---.---""'----- ~---. .~ ._~ Prompt Payment The City of Arroyo Grande ensures that the following clauses or equivalent will be included in each DOT -assisted prime contract: Satisfactory Performance The prime contractor agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each payment the prime contractor receives from the City of Arroyo Grande. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the City of Arroyo Grande. This clause applies to both DBE and non-DBE subcontractors Release of Retainage The prime contractor agrees further to release retainage payments to each subcontractor within 30 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the City of Arroyo Grande. This clause applies to both DBE and non-DBE subcontractors. XIII. Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms (~26.37) The City of Arroyo Grande will assign a Resident Engineer (RE) or Contract Manager to monitor and track actual DBE participation through contractor and subcontractor reports of payments in accordance with the following: After Contract Award After the contract award the City of Arroyo Grande will review the award documents for the portion of items each DBE and first tier subcontractor will be performing and the dollar value of that work. With these documents the RE/Contract Manager will be able to determine the work to be performed by the DBEs orsubcontractors listed. Preconstruction Conference A preconstruction conference will be scheduled between the RE and the contractor or their representative to discuss the work each DBE subcontractor will perform. Before work can begin on a subcontract, the local agency will require the contractor to submit a completed "Subcontracting Request," Exhibit 16-B of the LAPM or equivalent. When the RE receives the completed form it will be checked for agreement of the first tier subcontractors and DBEs. The RE will not approve the request when it identifies someone other than the DBE or first tier subcontractor listed in the previously completed "Local Agency Bidder DBE Information," Exhibit 15-G. The "Subcontracting Request" will not be City of Arroyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003104 Page 5 September 2003 -- -~_.__.-.. ---_..._>._._-~-_._._~-_.._._.._.~ ~---'-----.^------'-'---~"----'- --- -" -----------. approved until any discrepancies are resolved. If an issue cannot be resolved at that time, or there is some other concern, the RE will require the contractor to eliminate the subcontractor in question before signing the subcontracting request. A change in the DBE or first tier subcontractor may be addressed during a substitution process at a later date. Suppliers, vendors, or manufacturers listed on the "Local Agency Bidder DBE Information" will be compared to those listed in the completed Exhibit 16-1 of the LAPM or equivalent. Differences must be resolved by either making corrections or requesting a substitution. Substitutions will be subject to the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (FPA). Local agencies will require contractors to adhere to the provisions within Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (State Law) Sections 4100-4144. FPA requires the contractor to list all subcontractors in excess of one half of one percent (0.5%) of the contractor's total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater. The statute is designed to prevent bid shopping by contractors. The FPA explains that a contractor may not substitute a subcontractor listed in the original bid except with the approval of the awarding authority. The RE will give the contractor a blank Exhibit 17 -F, "Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, First Tier Subcontractors" and will explain to them that the document will be required at the end of the project, for which payment can be withheld, in conformance with the contract. Construction Contract Monitoring The RE will ensure that the RE's staff (inspectors) know what items of work each DBE is responsible for performing. Inspectors will notify the RE immediately of apparent violations. When a firm other than the listed DBE subcontractor is found performing the work, the RE will notify the contractor of the apparent discrepancy and potential loss of payment. Based on the contractor's response, the RE will take appropriate action: The DBE Liaison Officer will perform a preliminary investigation to identify any potential issues related to the DBE subcontractor performing a commercially useful function. Any substantive issues will be forwarded to the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. If the contractor fails to adequately explain why there is a discrepancy, payment for the work will be withheld and a letter will be sent to the contractor referencing the applicable specification violation and the required withholding of payment. If the contract requires the submittal of a monthly truck document, the contractor will be required to submit documentation to the RE showing the owner's name; California Highway Patrol CA number; and the DBE certification number of the owner of the truck for each truck used during that month for which DBE participation will be claimed. The trucks will be listed by California Highway Patrol CA number in the daily diary or on a separate piece of paper for documentation. The numbers are checked by inspectors regularly to confirm compliance. Providing evidence of DBE payment is the responsibility of the contractor. City of A"oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 6 September 2003 -- ..-----..- _.__..__~__. _______u_.___ - ._ _____n________________________ ______n _______ _ ______u__u____________ ______ Substitution When a DBE substitution is requested, the RE/Contract Manager will request a letter from the contractor explaining why substitution is needed. The RE/Contract Manager must review the letter to be sure names and addresses are shown, dollar values are included, and reason for the request is explained. If the RE/Contract Manager agrees to the substitution, the RE/Contract Manager will notify, in writing, the DBE subcontractor regarding the proposed substitution and procedure for written objection from the DBE subcontractor in accordance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. If the contractor is not meeting the contract goal with this substitution, the contractor must provide the required good faith effort to the RE/Contract Manager for local agency consideration. If there is any doubt in the RE/Contract Manager's mind regarding the requested substitution, the RE/Contract Manager may contact the DLAE for assistance and direction. Record Keeping and Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises The contractor shall maintain records showing the name and address of each first-tier subcontractor. The records shall also show: 1. The name and business address, regardless of tier, of every DBE subcontractor, DBE vendor of materials and DBE trucking company. 2. The date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to each of the firms. 3. The DBE prime contractor shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work claimed toward DBE goals. When a contract has been completed the contractor will provide a summary of the records stated above. The DBE utilization information will be documented on Exhibit 17 -F and will be submitted to the DLAE attached to the Report of Expenditures. The RE will compare the completed Exhibit 17-F to the contractor's completed Exhibit 15-G and, if applicable, to the completed Exhibit 16-B. The DBEs shown on the completed Exhibit 17 -F should be the same as those originally listed unless an authorized substitution was allowed, or the contractor used more DBEs and they were added. The dollar amount should reflect any changes made in planned work done by the DBE. The contractor will be required to explain in writing why the names of the subcontractors, the work items or dollar figures are different from what was originally shown on the completed Exhibit 15-G when: . There have been no changes made by the RE. . The contractor has not provided a sufficient explanation in the comments section of the completed Exhibit 17 -F. The explanation will be attached to the completed Exhibit 17-F for submittal. The RE will file this in the project records. City of A"oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 7 September 2003 ~----------- -- The local agency's Liaison Officer will keep track of the DBE certification status on the Internet at www.dot.ca.gov/ha/bep and keep the RE informed of changes that affect the contract. The RE will require the contractor to act in accordance with existing contractual commitments regardless of decertification. The DLAE will use the PS&E checklist to monitor the City of Arroyo Grande's commitment to require bidders list information to be submitted to the City of Arroyo Grande from the awarded prime and subcontractors as a means to develop a bidders list. This monitoring will only take place if the bidders list information is required to be submitted as stipulated in the special provisions. The City of Arroyo Grande will bring to the attention of the DOT through the DLAE any false, fraudulent, or dishonest conduct in connection with the program, so that DOT can take the steps (e.g., referral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, referral to the DOT Inspector General, action under suspension and debarment or Program Fraud and Civil Penalties rules) provided in 926.109. The City of Arroyo Grande also will consider similar action under our own legal authorities, including responsibility determinations in future contracts. XIV. Overall Goals (926.45) Amount of Goal The City of Arroyo Grande's overall goal for the Federal fiscal year FFY 2003/04 is the following: 4% ofthe Federal financial assistance in FHWA-assisted contracts. This overall goal is broken down into 4% race-conscious and 0% race-neutral components. Methodology The "Utilizing the Goal of Another Local Agency" methodology was used to determine the City's overall goal for Federal Fiscal Year 2003/04. Specifically, the City of San Luis Obispo's goal, based on the DBE Directories and Census Bureau Data, was used. 1. DOT -Assisted Contracting Program for FYV 2003/04 The following represents the City of Arroyo Grande's projected FHW A funded contracts and expenditures by work category and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for FFY 2003/04: City of A"oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 8 September 2003 Engineering Services 541330 $ 183.492 65% - Brisco Road-Halcyon $ 165,000 Road/Route 101 PA&ED $ 18,492 - Traffic Way Bridge Rail (HBRR) Bridge & Tunnel Const 234120 $ 100.100 35% - Traffic Way Bridge Rail (HBRR) $ 100,100 TOTAL $ 283,592 100% 2. Goal-methodology Step I: Determination of a Base Figure (49 CFR 26.45) The City of Arroyo Grande utilized the following methodology in establishing its Base Figure of relative DBE availability for FFY 2003/04. For the Numerator: Certified DBE Firms in City of Anvvo Grande's Bidders List For the Denominator: All Firms in City of Affoyo Grande's Bidders List The City of Arroyo Grande calculated its weighted Base Figure by first determining the number of ready, willing and able DBEs in its FY 2002/03 Bidders List by work category, and dividing the number of DBEs by the total number of firms in the same work category. Through this method, the City of Arroyo Grande can measure availability by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate in, City of Arroyo Grande's DOT-assisted contracting in FY 2002/03. Application of this formula yields the following baseline information: Number of DBE's in City of AffOVO Grande's Bidder List = BASE FIGURE Number of All Firms in City of AffOYO Grande's Bidders List The Base Figure resulting from this calculation is as follows: Base Figure = .65(DBEs in 541330) + . 35(DBEs in 234120) Base Figure = { .65(0) + .35(0) } (0) (0) Base Figure = [ .65(0) + .35(0) ] City of A"oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 9 September 2003 -----.. -- Base Figure = [ 0 + 0 ] x 1 00 Base Figure = [ 0] x 1 00 = 0% Step 1/: Adjusting the Base Figure Because the City does have not a bidders list that contains information on bridge projects or design contracts, the City will utilize the same overall goal and estimated race-neutral and race-conscience participation as the City of San Luis Obispo for FFY 2003/04. Breakout of Estimated Race-Neutral and Race-Conscious Participation Of the overall annual 4% goal for DBE participation, the City of Arroyo Grande projects meeting 0% of the goal utilizing race-neutral methods, including making efforts to assure that bidding and contract requirements facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses; unbundling large contracts to make them more accessible to small businesses; encouraging prime contractors to subcontract portions of the work that they might otherwise perform themselves; and providing technical assistance, and other support services to facilitate consideration of DBEs and other small businesses. The remaining 4% of the goal is anticipated to be accomplished through race-conscience measures, which includes establishing contract specific goals on contracts with contracting possibilities, when needed, to meet the City's overall annual DBE goal. Process Starting with the Federal fiscal year 2002, the amount of overall goal, the method to calculate the goal, and the breakout of estimated race-neutral and race-conscious participation will be required annually by June 1 in advance of the Federal fiscal year beginning October 1 for FHW A-assisted contracts. Submittals will be to the Caltrans' DLAE. An exception to this will be if FTA or FAA recipients are required by FTA or FAA to submit the annual information to them or a designee by another date. FHW A recipients will follow this process: Once the DLAE has responded with preliminary comments and the comments have been incorporated into the draft overall goal information, the City of Arroyo Grande will publish a notice of the proposed overall goal, informing the public that the proposed goal and its rationale are available for inspection during normal business hours at the City of Arroyo Grande's principal office for 30 days following the date of the notice, and informing the public that City of Arroyo Grande comments will be accepted on the goals for 45 days following the date ofthe notice. Advertisements in newspapers, minority focus media, trade publications, and websites will be the normal media to accomplish this effort. The notice will include addresses to which comments may be sent and addresses (including offices and websites) where the proposal may be reviewed. City of Anoyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 10 September 2003 ~~---- -'-----. -------" ---- ...-.._---_.- ---"---'--- ~--'" _.____ ,__u ',_______ ---- ._---~ The overall goal resubmission to the Caltrans DLAE, will include a summary of information and comments received during this public participation process and City of Arroyo Grande's responses. This will be due by September 1 to the Caltrans DLAE. The DLAE will have a month to make a final review so the City of Arroyo Grande may begin using the overall goal on October 1 of each year. If there is a design build please refer to Appendix B of this DBE Program. XV. Contract Goals (926.51) The City of Arroyo Grande will use contract goals to meet any portion of the overall goal the City of Arroyo Grande does not project being able to meet by the use of race-neutral means. Contract goals are established so that, over the period to which the overall goal applies, they will cumulatively result in meeting any portion of the overall goal that is not projected to be met through the use of race-neutral means. Contract goals will be established only on those DOT -assisted contracts that have subcontracting possibilities. Contract goals need not be established on every such contract, and the size of contract goals will be adapted to the circumstances of each such contract (e.g., type and location of work, availability of DBEs to perform the particular type of work). The contract work items will be compared with eligible DBE contractors willing to work on the project. A determination will also be made to decide which items are likely to be performed by the prime contractor and which ones are likely to be performed by the subcontractor( s). The goal will then be incorporated into the contract documents. Contract goals will be expressed as a percentage of the total amount of a DOT -assisted contract. XVI. Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (926.49) If DOT -assisted contracts will include transit vehicle procurements, the City of Arroyo Grande will require each transit vehicle manufacturer, as a condition of being authorized to bid or propose on transit vehicle procurements, to certify that it has complied with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26, Section 49. The City of Arroyo Grande will direct the transit vehicle manufacturer to the subject requirements located on the Internet at: http://osdbuweb.dot.gov/programs/dbe/dbe.htm. XVII. Good Faith Efforts (926.53) Information to be Submitted The City of Arroyo Grande treats bidders'/offerors' compliance with good faith effort requirements as a matter of responsiveness. A responsive proposal is meeting all the requirements of the advertisement and solicitation. Each solicitation for which a contract goal has been established will require the bidders/offerors to submit the following information to: City of Arroyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003104 Page 11 September 2003 ~~.~---_.__.---,--"-----._- -----.---.---' ---~--_.__._--_._~--.~-~--_.- City of Arroyo Grande Attn: Director of Administrative Services P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 no later than 4:00 p.m. on or before the fourth day, not including Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, following bid opening: 1. The names and addresses of known DBE firms that will participate in the contract; 2. A description of the work that each DBE will perform; 3. The dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm participation; 4. Written and signed documentation of commitment to use a DBE subcontractor whose participation it submits to meet a contract goal; 5. Written and signed confirmation from the DBE that it is participating in the contract as provided in the prime contractor's commitment; and 6. If the contract goal is not met, evidence of good faith efforts. Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts The obligation of the bidder/offeror is to make good faith efforts. The bidder/offeror can demonstrate that it has done so either by meeting the contract goal or documenting good faith efforts. Examples of good faith efforts are found in Appendix A to part 26 which is attached. The following personnel are responsible for determining whether a bidder/offeror who has not met the contract goal has documented sufficient good faith efforts to be regarded as responsive: The City of Arroyo Grande Director of Public Works. The City of Arroyo Grande will ensure that all information is complete and accurate and adequately documents the bidder/offeror's good faith efforts before a commitment to the performance of the contract by the bidder/offeror is made. Administrative Reconsideration Within 10 days of being informed by the City of Arroyo Grande that it is not responsive because it has not documented sufficient good faith efforts, a bidder/offeror may request administrative reconsideration. Bidder/offerors should make this request in writing to the following reconsideration official: Mr. Steven Adams, City Manager City of Arroyo Grande. P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 (805) 473-5404 City of An-oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003104 Page 12 September 2003 -~---'.'._' --...-..-- --~ .-------.--..---- - -------.- ------,,_.- The reconsideration official will not have played any role in the original determination that the bidder/offeror did not make document sufficient good faith efforts. As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to provide written documentation or argument concerning the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so. The bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to meet in person with the reconsideration official to discuss the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do. The City of Arroyo Grande will send the bidder/offeror a written decision on reconsideration, explaining the basis for finding that the bidder did or did not meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts to do so. The result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to Caltrans, FHW A or the DOT. Good Faith Efforts when a DBE is Replaced on a Contract The City of Arroyo Grande will require a contractor to make good faith efforts to replace a DBE that is terminated or has otherwise failed to complete its work on a contract with another certified DBE, to the extent needed to meet the contract goal. The prime contractor is required to notify the RE immediately of the DBE's inability or unwillingness to perform and provide reasonable documentation. In this situation, the prime contractor will be required to obtain City of Arroyo Grande prior approval of the substitute DBE and to provide copies of new or amended subcontracts, or documentation of good faith efforts. If the contractor fails or refuses to comply in the time specified, the City of Arroyo Grande contracting office will issue an order stopping all or part of payment/work until satisfactory action has been taken. If the contractor still fails to comply, the contracting officer may issue a termination for default proceeding. VXIII. Counting DBE Participation (926.55) The City of Arroyo Grande will count DBE participation toward overall and contract goals as provided in the contract specifications for the prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner with prime or subcontractor, or vendor of material or supplies. See the Caltrans' Sample Boiler Plate Contract Documents previously mentioned. Also. refer to XI, A. "After Contract Award." XIX. Certification (926.83(a)) The City of Arroyo Grande ensures that only DBE firms currently certified on the Caltrans' directory will participate as DBEs in our program. City of Arroyo Grande DSE Program for FFY 2003104 Page 13 September 2003 --- --------_.~--~-- -_.~ -~-_.__._.._---- ----~~ XX. Information Collection and Reporting Bidders List The City of Arroyo Grande will create and maintain a bidders list, consisting of information about all DBE and non-DBE firms that bid or quote on its DOT -assisted contracts. The bidders list will include the name, address, DBE/non-DBE status, age, and annual gross receipts of firms. Monitoring Payments to DBEs Prime contractors are required to maintain records and documents of payments to DBEs for three years following the performance of the contract. These records will be made available for inspection upon request by any authorized representative ofthe City of Arroyo Grande, Caltrans, or FHW A. This reporting requirement also extends to any certified DBE subcontractor. Payments to DBE subcontractors will be reviewed by the City of Arroyo Grande to ensure that the actual amount paid to DBE subcontractors equals or exceeds the dollar amounts stated in the schedule of DBE participation. Reporting to Caltrans The City of Arroyo Grande's final utilization of DBE participation will be reported to the DLAE using Exhibit 17 -F of the Caltrans' LAPM. Confidentiality The City of Arroyo Grande will safeguard from disclosure to third parties information that may reasonably be regarded as confidential business information, consistent with Federal, state, and local laws. This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program is approved by: Steven Adams Date City Manager This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program is accepted by: Jerald T. Gibbs Date Caltrans District 5 Local Assistance Engineer City of Arroyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Page 14 September 2003 ; -~---_.__.._.~----- ATTACHMENT A ORGANIZATIONAL CHART THE ELECTORS I MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 1 CITY MANAGER Steven Adams I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Spagnolo, P.E. Director/City Engineer/DBELO T I I Michael E. Linn, P.E. Jill E. Peterson Assistant City Engineer/ Sr. Consultant Engineer/ DBE Support Staff DBE Support Staff City of A"oyo Grande DSE Program for FFY 2003/04 Attachment A - Page 1 Sseptember 2003 -----..- ---------.-- ---~ APPENDIX A TO PART 26 GUIDANCE CONCERNING GOOD FAITH EFFORTS I. When, as a recipient, you establish a contract goal on a DOT-assisted contract, a bidder must, in order to be responsible and/or responsive, make good faith efforts to meet the goal. The bidder can meet this requirement in either of two ways. First, the bidder can meet the goal, documenting commitments for participation by DBE firms sufficient for this purpose. Second, even if it doesn't meet the goal, the bidder can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even if they were not fully successful. II. In any situation in which you have established a contract goal, part 26 requires you to use the good faith efforts mechanism of this part. As a recipient, it is up to you to make a fair and reasonable judgment whether a bidder that did not meet the goal made adequate good faith efforts. It is important for you to consider the quality, quantity, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that the bidder has made. The efforts employed by the bidder should be those that one could reasonably expect a bidder to take if the bidder were actively and aggressively trying to obtain DBE participation sufficient to meet the DBE contract goal. Mere pro forma efforts are not good faith efforts to meet the DBE contract requirements. We emphasize, however, that your determination concerning the sufficiency of the firm's good faith efforts is a judgment call: meeting quantitative formulas is not required. III. The Department also strongly cautions you against requiring that a bidder meet a contract goal (Le., obtain a specified amount of DBE participation) in order to be awarded a contract, even though the bidder makes an adequate good faith efforts showing. This rule specifically prohibits you from ignoring bona fide good faith efforts. IV. The following is a list of types of actions which you should consider as part of the bidder's good faith efforts to obtain DBE participation. It is not intended to be a mandatory checklist, nor is it intended to be exclusive or exhaustive. Other factors or types of efforts may be relevant in appropriate cases. A. Soliciting through all reasonable and available means (e.g. attendance at pre-bid meetings, advertising and/or written notices) the interest of all certified DBEs who have the capability to perform the work of the contract. The bidder must solicit this interest within sufficient time to allow the DBEs to respond to the solicitation. The bidder must determine with certainty if the DBEs are interested by taking appropriate steps to follow up initial solicitations. City of A"oyo Grande DSE Program for FFY 2003104 Appendix A - Page 1 September 2003 ---_.._.--.~-_..~..- - -------..-..-.---.-.-..------.....,,- B. Selecting portions of the work to be performed by DBEs in order to increase the likelihood that the DBE goals will be achieved. This includes, where appropriate, breaking out contract work items into economically feasible units to facilitate DBE participation, even when the prime contractor might otherwise prefer to perform these work items with its own forces. C. Providing interested DBEs with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract in a timely manner to assist them in responding to a solicitation. D. (1 ) Negotiating in good faith with interested DBEs. It is the bidder's responsibility to make a portion of the work available to DBE subcontractors and suppliers and to select those portions of the work or material needs consistent with the available DBE subcontractors and suppliers, so as to facilitate DBE participation. Evidence of such negotiation includes the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBEs that were considered; a description of the information provided regarding the plans and specifications for the work selected for subcontracting; and evidence as to why additional agreements could not be reached for DBEs to perform the work. (2) A bidder using good business judgment would consider a number of factors in negotiating with subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors, and would take a firm's price and capabilities as well as contract goals into consideration. However, the fact that there may be some additional costs involved in finding and using DBEs is not in itself sufficient reason for a bidder's failure to meet the contract DBE goal, as long as such costs are reasonable. Also, the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts. Prime contractors are not, however, required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable. E. Not rejecting DBEs as being unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities. The contractor's standing within I its industry, membership in specific groups, organizations, or associations and political or social affiliations (for example union vs. non-union employee status) are not legitimate causes for the rejection or non-solicitation of bids in the contractor's efforts to meet the project goal. F. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding. lines of credit, or insurance as required by the recipient or contractor. G. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or related assistance or services. City of Arroyo Grande DSE Program for FFY 2003/04 Appendix A - Page 2 September 2003 -~_.._._.._.,..._._._._-.--- ------.--.-....--------.-.----.. ~~--~-------- -~---- H. Effectively using the services of available minority/women community organizations; minority/women contractors' groups; local, state, and Federal minority/women business assistance offices; and other organizations as allowed on a case-by-case basis to provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of DBEs. V. In determining whether a bidder has made good faith efforts. you may take into account the performance of other bidders in meeting the contract. For example, when the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the contract goal, but others meet it, you may reasonably raise the question of whether, with additional reasonable efforts, the apparent successful bidder could have met the goal. If the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the goal, but meets or exceeds the average DBE participation obtained by other bidders, you may view this, in conjunction with other factors, as evidence of the apparent successful bidder having made good faith efforts. City of An-oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003104 Appendix A - Page 3 September 2003 --- - ---~- ---,--~~-- -----....-.- ..--- ._---~.._--,-----------~ -- ------ APPENDIX B TO BE USED FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS The following are hereby incorporated into the Agency's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program: II. Objectives IPolicy Statement (9926.1,26.23) At the end of the first paragraph, add the following: The Agency recognizes that certain modifications are necessary to adapt the program for use in connection with design-build contracts, and has therefore established certain procedures applicable to design-build DBE contracts under the DBE Program. Public Contract Code Section 4109 requires subcontractors to be identified by the prime contractor for the subletting or subcontracting of any portion of the work in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor's total bid. Exceptions are only in the cases of public emergency or necessity, and then only after a finding reduced to writing as a public record of the awarding authority setting forth the facts constituting the emergency or necessity. The written public record of the awarding authority/Agency as to either emergency or necessity is attached hereto (See Appendix C for sample). XIII. Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms (926.37) At the end of the first paragraph below "After Contract Award", add the following paragraph: After Design-Build Contract A ward As described in the Section entitled "GOOD FAITH EFFORTS" below, each proposer for an Agency design-build contract will be required to submit a DBE Performance Plan as part of a responsive proposal. Following award of a design-build contract and during both the design and construction portions of the project, the design-build contractor will be required to submit documentation, in the form of progress reports described below, to show that the design-build contractor is meeting the contract goal for the project, or if the goal is not being met, the design-build contractor must submit satisfactory evidence that it has made good faith efforts, in accordance with that Section, to meet the goal. Evidence of good faith efforts, as described in 49 CFR Part 26 Section 26.5349 and Appendix A, will be monitored by the Agency throughout the duration of the design-build project. City of A"oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Appendix B - Page 1 September 2003 --~- At the end of the first paragraph below "Preconstruction Conference", add the following sentence: The contractor will promptly provide the Agency with the information required by the form entitled "Local Agency DBE Information" upon selection of any DBE or other subcontractor not previously identified by the design-build contractor. During the course of the contract, differences must be explained and resolved by either making corrections or requesting a substitution. At the end of the fourth paragraph below "Construction Contract Monitoring", add the following paragraph: The contractor will provide DBE Progress Reports to the Agency with each invoice and will (' provide an annual report on or before August 1 of each year of the design-build contract. Each report must also include a narrative summary stating whether the contractor is on target with respect to the DBE goal set forth in the design-build contract, whether the goal has been exceeded (stating the amount of the excess), or whether the contractor is behind target (stating the amount of the deficit). XVII. Good Faith Efforts (926.53) At the end of the third paragraph below "Information to be Submitted", add the following items: 7. A DBE Performance Plan containing a detailed description of the design-build contractor's planned methodology for achieving the DBE goal stated in the contract, including a description of the good faith efforts the design-build contractor intends to undertake to achieve that goal. B. A design-build proposal must also include an affidavit that the proposer will either attain the DBE goals for the design-build contract or will exercise good faith efforts to do so. At the end of the first paragraph below "Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts", add the following sentence: If it is a design-build contract, each contractor proposing will be required to submit DBE Performance Plan as part of a responsive proposal and good faith efforts. This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program for design-build contracts is approved by: Steven Adams Date City Manager City of A"oyo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003/04 Appendix B - Page 2 September 2003 ~---'----'--'-'-'----- ---~ ---- This Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program for design-build contracts is accepted by: Jerald T. Gibbs Date Caltrans District 5 Local Assistance Engineer City of Am>yo Grande DBE Program for FFY 2003104 Appendix B - Page 3 September 2003 i ------ - ._--_._~~----- -.----.,'...----- --------- J APPENDIX C SAMPLE RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REGARDING NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY FOR SUBSEQUENT SUBCONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS (REQUIRED BY PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 4109 ENTITLED "PUBLIC EMERGENCY GROUNDS FOR CHANGEII) A. EXPLANATION OF PUBLIC NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY: B. FACTS CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY OR EMERGENCY: C. FINDINGS: D. RESOLUTION FOR SUBSEQUENT IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS: E. ADOPTION OF PROCEDURE TO BE USED BY DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR FOR SUBSEQUENT IDENTIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS: F. CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY 1. MOTION MADE AND DATE 2. VOTING RESULTS 3. SIGNATURES: (a) (Secretary) (b) (Chairperson) City of Arroyo Grande DBE Program for FFY.2003/04 Appendix C - Page 1 September 2003 ~_ ~~.v.'I,;~ '""" . -" 8.k. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: D~N SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT TO THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. adopt the attached resolution adopting the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP); and, B. appropriate $1,500 from the General Fund in FY 2003-04 and $3,000 in FY 2004-05; and C. direct staff to submit the SWMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) by October 30, 2003. FUNDING: Cost of the annual Phase " permit is $1,500 for the first year and $3,000 each year thereafter. An additional appropriation is being requested from the General Fund for the first two years in the amount of $4,500. Costs to implement the measures identified in the plan have not yet been determined. However, costs and recommended funding sources will be determined during the five-year period allowed for implementation. DISCUSSION: In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CW A), was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The 1987 amendments to the CW A established a framework for regulating storm water discharges under the NPDES Program. In 1990, Phase I of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) storm water program was established under the CW A. Phase I relies on NPDES permit coverage to address storm water runoff from: . Industrial sites, including construction sites disturbing 5 acres of land or greater; and -~~~_. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT TO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 . Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally serving populations of 100,000 or greater. On December 8,1999, the EPAestablished the Storm Water Phase" Final Rule. The Phase II program expanded the Phase I program by requiring NPDES permits for storm water discharges from: . Construction sites disturbing between 1 and 5 acres of land; and . Small MS4's generally serving populations of 25,000 or greater. It is the intention of Phase II to further reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat by instituting the use of controls on the unregulated sources of storm water discharges that have the greatest likelihood of causing continued environmental degradation. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the storm sewer system to the "maximum extent practicable," to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the CWA. The SWMP includes the following six minimum control measures: - Public Education and Outreach - Public Participation"nvolvement - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination - Construction Site Runoff Control - Post-Construction Runoff Control - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping The City will have up to five years to implement these measures once the SWMP is approved by RWQCB. The deadline to submit the plan to the RWQCB is October 30, 2003. The SWMP was prepared in conjunction with the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo . Beach. Arroyo Grande is also participating in the San Luis Obispo County Partnership for Water Quality in order to pool resources and reduce the overall cost to implement the plan. ._~ ~-- - --'-- . ~-~--_._-~.._-,----,--.- --,---- CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT TO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 3 On June 10, 2003, the City Council authorized distribution of the draft SWMP. The draft report was made available for review at the South County Regional Library, Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce, the Home Builders Association of the Central Coast, Administrative Services and Public Works Departments, and its availability for review will be posted on the City's website. The public comment period for the SWMP ended on August 25, 2003. No public comments were received. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve staffs recommendations; . Continue consideration of the SWMP to the October 14th meeting and direct staff to add, delete, and/or modify the proposed BMPs; or . Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Storm Water Management Plan jep:232.0203 (19) \ NPDES \ City CounciI9.23.03.wpd , --- ----_.~-~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING THE CITY'S STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) WHEREAS, in 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; and WHEREAS, in 1990, Phase I of the Storm Water Rule was applied to municipal storm sewer systems (MS4s) with a service population greater than 100,000, to construction projects affecting five acres or more, and to certain industrial activities; and WHEREAS, Phase II of the Storm Water Rule is generally applicable to MS4s serving an urban population of greater than 10,000 and construction activities affecting 1 acre or more; and WHEREAS, Phase II requires the City of Arroyo Grande to develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from their storm sewer system to the "maximum extent practicable", to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the CW A; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby: 1. Adopts Exhibit "A" attached, entitled "Storm Water Management Plan". 2. Directs staff to submit the SWMP and adopting resolution to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2003. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY --..-.--- Exhibit "A" City of Arroyo Grande Storm Water Management Plan NPDES Phase II Program OF .' .. ........ .... " 'J).&. ~! ,~LIFORNI&~ '1 ~.- ~~.~.'@ Public Works Department September 2003 Contents Section 1 I ntraduction............. ............. .......................... .............................. ... ........ ..............1 Regulatory Requirements ....................................;.... ............................................1. Scope of the Storm Water Management Plan.. .................................................... .1 Storm Water Phase II Program Goals and Objectives..........................................3 Funding .................................................................. ............................................. .4.. Section 2 Public Education and Outreach................... ............ .... ............ ..... ...... .....5 Objectives and Requirements.. ............. ...................... ..........................................5 Minimum Control Measures...................................... ....... .....................................5 Target Date for Activities........... ................................. .............. ................... ..........7. Existing Ordinances/Policies/Programs/BMPs............ ............... ...........................7 Section 3 Public Participation and Involvement........... ... .................... ........ ................ ......8 Objectives and Requirements.. ........................ .................... ............... ..................8 Minirnum Control Measures.. ....... ........... .................... ............ ........ .......................8 Target Date for Activities.......... .................. ...... .... ...................... ......................... ..9. Existing Ordinances/Policies/Programs/BMPs...... ...... ............. ....... ......................9 Section 4 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination........................................_..........10 Objectives and Requirements.. ................. ........ ................................................. .10 Table 4.1 ....... .... ...... ..... ............ .............. ....................... .................................... .1.0 Minimum Control Measures ................................................. ....... ..... .......... ........ .1.1 Target Date for Activities.. ...... ........ ...; ................................................................ .12 Existing Ordinances/Policies/Programs/BMPs.................................................... j 2 Section 5 Construction Site Runoff Controls..................................... ._.........................13 Objectives and Requirements......................... ............... .......... ......................... ..13 Minimum Control Measures ....... ..... ..... ~..... ... ...................... ...... ......................... .1.3 Target Date for Activities......................................... ............ ..... ..... .................... ..1A Existing Ordinances/Policies/Programs/BMPs ............. ........... ............. ...............1 5 Section 6 Post-Construction Runoff Controls.......................................... _...................16 Objectives and Requirements. .............................. ........ ............................;........ .16 Minimum Control Measures.... ........................ ................:. ................................. .1.6 Target Date for Activities................ .................................................................... .1.7 Section 7 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations.........._18 Objectives and Requirements............................................................................ .18 Minimum Control Measures ............................. ................... ...... .......... ....... ........ .1.8 Target Date for Activities.. ..... .............................................................................20 Existing Ordinances/Policies/Programs/BMPs................................................... .20 Section 8 Mon itoring and Reporting............................ ........... .......... ....... ... ........... .... _..21 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ............................................................21 Form and Content of Annual Report............... .......... .............. ............................21 Reporting21 Appendix A Jurisdiction Map City of Arroyo Grande Map C:\desktop\My Briefcase\Murry\NPDES_Phase_II_(TOC) - --..- SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Pollution from storm water runoff has a major impact on waterways in San Luis Obispo County and our local communities. Storm water runoff transports pollutants from residences, streets, parking lots, and other sources to creeks, rivers, and estuaries. Activities such as land clearing, excavation and filling, use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, illegal dumping, and even improper disposal of pet waste can generate storm water pollution. Water quality concems that result from storm water pollution include suspended sediment, pathogens, nitrates, chlorides, sodium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and low dissolved oxygen levels. Storm water pollutants can inhibit the "beneficial uses" of a waterway that range from human contact and recreational uses to uses for commercial fisheries, drinking water, and habitat for animals and plants. Until recently, storm water runoff in areas with a population of less than 100,000 people was not regulated. Although many existing storm water runoff controls have been in place, there has not been an integrated and comprehensive approach to preventing pollution from storm water runoff in these areas. Regulatory Requirements In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which established the NPDES program was adopted. The NPDES program regulates the discharge of waste waters from point sources to surface waters. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was amended in 1977 and became known as the Clean Water Act (CWA).ln 1987 the CWA was again amended to add section 402, which established a framework for regulating discharges from mur,icipal separate storm water systems (MS4s) as a special category of point source under the NPDES Program. Enacted in 1990, Phase I of the Storm Water Rule applied to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) with a service population greater than 100,000, to construction projects affecting five acres or more, and to certain industrial activities. Phase II of the Storm Water Rule is generally applicable to MS4s serving an urban population greater than 10,000 and construction activities affecting 1 acre or more. Under the Storm Water Phase II Rule small MS4s that meet specific criteria must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for storm water discharges. NPDES storm water permits will be issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and must be renewed every five years. The first five-year permit term will begin on October 27, 2003, at which time the small MS4's are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General Permit. To comply with the State's General Permit, the small MS4 operator must implement a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that reduces the discharge of pollutants to the "maximum extent practicable", that protects water quality, and that satisfies the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The City must submit an NOI, a permit fee, and their SWMP on or before the State's General Permit deadline. 1 Scope of the Storm Wate{ Management Plan In order to meet the requirements of the Stonn Water Phase II Rule, the Cities of Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande, and Pismo Beach have fonned an infonnal partnership to addresslocalstonn water quality issues. The Cities also coordinate with the San Luis Obispo County Partnership for Water Quality, which includes numerous cities,. and the County of San Luis Obispo. This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) was created to serve as a guide for developing and implementing the NPDES Phase II requirements for stonn water discharges. This document describes how pollutants in stonn water will be controlled and also describes recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) that address the six required minimum control meaSl.lres in a small MS4. Each BMP is accompanied by measurable goals to be achieved during the permit tenn, as a means of determining program compliance and accomplishments, and as an indicator of program effectiveness. A "Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or Small MS4" is a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man made channels, orstonn drains) that are: 1. Owned or operated by the United States, a State, city, town, borough, country, parish. district. association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes. including special districts under State law as a sewer district, flood control district, drainage district; or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CW A that discharges to waters of the United States. 2. Not defined as "large" or "medium" municipal separate storm sewer system. 3. Small' MS4s including systems similar to separate storm sewer systems in municipalities, such as systems at military bases, large hospital or prison compl.exes, and highways and other thoroughfares, but do not include separate storm sewers in very discrete areas, such as individual buildings. This program includes specific BMPs for the six minimum control measures and defines measurable goals for each control measure. Best Management Practices for storm water management are defined as schedules of activities, prohibition of practices. maintenance procedures, the use of pollution control devices and other management practices used to prevent or reduce the amount of pollution introduced to receiving bodies from storm water runoff. Recommended BMPs for each of the six minimum control measures are provided in Section 2 through 7 of this plan. The "Maximum Extent Practicable" (MEP) standard requires the development and implementation of BMPs and the achievement of measurable goals to satisfy the six minimum control measures. Detennining whether a BMP protects water quality to the maximum extent practicable is subjective. MEP is generally a result of emphasizing pollution prevention. Source control BMPs are the first line of defense and may be used in combination with treatment methods where appropriate as additional lines of defense. The MEP approach is an evolving, flexible and advancing concept, which considers technical and economic feasibility. As knowledge about controlling urban runoff continues 2 - ---- to evolve, so does that which qonstitutes MEP. The individual and collective activities described in this Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) are the recommendations for reducing or eliminating pollutants in storm water to the MEP. The "Measurable Goals" should reflect the specific needs and characteristics of the city according to the EPA guidelines. According to the program guidelines, the measurable goals do not necessarily have to be quantitative, but should be attainable and controllable. Measurable goals shall include at a minimum, a description of the action that will be taken to implement each BMP, what is anticipated to be achieved by each goal, and the fi"equency and dates for which such actions will be taken. Inspections and monitoring are both important to a storm water program. Visual inspections and monitoring of storm water runoff and infrastructure (e.g. drop inlets, basins, and gutters), can determine the effectiveness of a storm water program. Through visual inspections and monitoring, non-storm water discharges can be discovered and subsequently eliminated, maintenance needs can be identified, and visual pollutants and erosion problems can be detected. Inspection of facilities is also important to ensure proper BMP implementation and maintenance at businesses and municipal sites, and to detect non-storm water discharges. Monitoring can also be conducted to involve the public through citizen monitoring groups, to identify and target pollutants of concern, and to illustrate water quality improvements and permit compliance. Area of Permit Coverage One of the first steps in developing the SWMP was to determine the storm water areas to be managed. All urbanized areas within the boundaries of the City are included as part of this SWMP. Agricultural lands within the boundaries of the City is not addressed under the general permit for Small MS4's. Storm Water Phase II Program Goals and Objectives As declared by the EPA, the goal of the Storm Water Management Program is: (1) to protect the water quality of the Nation's waterways by reducing the quantity of pollutants that storm water picks up and carries into storm sewer systems and natural drainage ways (e.g. creeks, lakes, estuaries, and the ocean) during storm events to the "maximum extent practicable," and (2) to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act. To meet these goals the Phase" Program requires a "Small MS4" to develop, implement, and enforce a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that includes six minimum control measures: 1. Public Education and Outreach 2. Public Participation and Involvement 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 4. Construction Site Runoff Control 5. Post-Construction Runoff Control 6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations 3 -.- ---- Funding Funding for this program is part of the overall Storm Water Management Plan and has been identified in each of the target date for activities section of the plan. Potential sources for funding that will be investigated include: State and Federal grants, establishing a separate storm water utility, and other potential funding sources that are being developed statewide SECTION 2: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH This control measure is intended to ensure greater public support and compliance for the storm water management plan. Specifically, these efforts are directed to teach the public the importance of protecting storm water quality, both for the benefit of the environment and human health. The role of each community member, both at home and work, is a major emphasis of this minimum control measure. Objectives and Requirements ~ Understand the public perceptions and attitudes towards the problem of urban runoff; and ~ Raise. public awareness about urban runoff pollution and its impacts on the community's water resources; and ~ Educate the community about specific pollutant sources and what individuals can do to reduce urban runoff pollution; and ~. Foster participation through community-based projects or volunteer activities focused on pollution prevention. To meet these objectives, the requirements of the Public Education and Outreach component of the . Storm Water Program are to: ~ Implement a public education program which distributes education materials and conducts outreach activities aimed at informing the public about the impacts of storm water discharges on local water bodies, and receiving waters; and ~ Implement appropriate BMPs and develop achievable and measurable goals in order to assess the success of the public education and outreach program. Minimum Control Measures for PUblic Education and Outreach Program BMP 2.1: Provide a wide variety of educational information on non-point source pollution and urban storm water management including informational brochures, posters, and fact sheets. Justification: There are many different opportunities to educate the public regarding the impacts of storm water discharges to local waterways. Educating the public on storm water and water quality pr~ctices will help promote better public awareness within the communities. 4 Measurable Goals: Docume~t the number of outreaches to community groups (brochures. posters, fact sheets, web site, etc.); Document the number of Business / Homeowner / Contractors information developed; Document the number distributed in water utility bills. BMP 2.2: Provide opportunities for the proper disposal of trash and hazardous waste. Justification: Making proper disposal of household hazardous waste and trash easier by providing more accessible disposal locations (community hazardous waste / recycling days). Providing more trash receptacles in public areas makes disposal of trash easier. Measurable Goals: Number of new trash receptacles installed in the City; Number of household clean-up days provided. BMP 2.3: Storm water education programs / workshops for various audiences such as: General Public, Schools, Industry-specific workshops / presentations, and other interested groups. Justification: A presentation forum on water resources within the community could highlight the potential problems associated with non-point source pollution, and the ways that individual actions affect urban runoff quality. Measurable Goals: Number of educational workshops for the general public, schools, businesses, and contractors; Number of volunteer educators trained. BMP 2.4: Form a partnership with local communities and other interested groups to ensure full coverage of public education and outreach. Justification: Seek organizations that are willing to team up and provide the greatest possible coverage of the area by providing education and outreach material to the public. Each agency should target a certain population, understanding there would be information relevant beyond jurisdictional boundaries, with the overall goal of reaching 100% of the market audience. Measurable Goals: Number of formal partnership/agreements reached with other organizations; Number of educational materials produced. 5 ~-_.._------- - _ _.____._.___~__m Target Date for Activities: Year 1 BrQchures, posters and fact sheets developed and distributed in City utility bills; 2003-2004 Partnership with other local communities. Year 2 Business I Contractors I Homeowners information developed; Storm Water 2004-2005 Hotline created. Year 3 Citations issued to restaurants and other businesses for dumping grease and 2005-2006 other pollutants down storm sewer inlets. Year 4 Volunteer educators trained; Educational cunicula developed; School 2006-2007 presentations made. Year 5 Creek Care Guide developed; Develop funding sources. 2007-2008 Annual Brochures, posters and fact sheets updated; Educational YoOrkshops for homeowners, businesses, and contractors; Volunteer educators trained; Community recycling days; Placement of additional trash receptacles. Existing Ordinances I Policies I Programs I BMPs: ~ A curbside recycling program is provided where any residential or commercial customer will be provided with a basket or other suitable container for the purpose of recycling glass, aluminum, newspaper, motor oil and other recyclable materials. ~ Informational handouts provided on what materials are recyclable, developed by the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority. ~ Inspections of restaurant grease traps and citations issued to businesses dumping grease or other pollutants in stonn sewer inlets. ~ Dog mess bags (mut-mits) are provided for public use at public parks and walking trails. City crews also perform clean-up of dog mess at City parks. 6 SECTION 3: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT This control measure is intended to foster active community support for the storm water management program and recommendations for its implementation. Participation by the public ensures that the program reflects community values and priorities and thus has the highest potential for success. Objectives and Requirements ~ Raise public awareness about urban runoff pollution; and ~ Involve the public in developing and implementing the Storm Water Management Plan in order to promote public interest and support. To meet these objectives, the requirements of the Public Participation and Involvement component of the Storm Water Program are to: ~ Comply with all State, and local public notice requirements; and ~ Involve the public in the continuing development and refinement of the Storm Water Management Plan; and ~ Allow the public to review the permit and the Storm Water Management Plan; and ~ Include a procedure to receive and respond to comments from the public regarding the Storm Water Management Plan; and . ~ Implement appropriate BMPs and develop achievable and measurable goals in order to assess the success ofthe public participation and involvement program. Minimum Control Measures for Public Participation and Involvement Program BMP 3.1: Develop a mechanism to solicit public participation / input on the City's Storm Water Plan. Justification: Involving the public earlY in development of the Storm Water Management Plan should increase support for the program and provide additional input and suggestions to help shape the program. Measurable Goals: Document the number of citizen surveys distributed through the City utility bill and responses received. BMP 3.2: Provide opportunities for public participation and involvement in the Storm Water Management Plan and conduct activities to protect urban water quality. Justification: By involving members of the community, the storm water program can be sustained and implemented by otherS than just the City's efforts. To draw upon the input and experience of as many interested people as possible to help achieve the goal of improved water quality. Measur~ble Goals: Document the number of storm drain inlets stenciled; Document the number of public outreaches. 7 - --------- BMP 3.3: Establish a Community Committee Justification: By involving members of the community, the Storm Water Management Plan can be sustained and implemented by others than just the City's efforts. By providing opportunities for community members to discuss areas of concern, information can be relayed to the appropriate City Staff members. Measurable Goal: A committee will be established for the permit area within one year of the programs conception. Target Date for Activities: Year 1 Volunteer organizations begin storm sewer inlet stenciling; Establish a steering 2003-2004 committee, Citi:zan survey developed and distributed in Utility Bill. Year 2 I Review of annual survey results. I 2004-2005 Year 3 Citizens participating in creek clean-up days. 2005-2006 Year 4 Adopt-A-Creek groups established. Establish a Community Committee. 2006-2007 Year 5 Involve the media in educating the public; De\elop funding sources. 2007-2008 EJ Citizen survey distributed and received; Storm sewer inlets stenciled; Creek walks conducted. Existing Ordinances I Policies I Programs I BMPs: ~ Conduct creek clean-up days and participate in Adopt-A-Creek program. ~ Storm drain inlet stenciling. 8 SECTION 4: ILLICIT DISGHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION This control measure of the Storm Water Management Plan is intended to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to receiving waters. It requires the development and implementation of a system to identify and eliminate sources of illicit discharges and illegal dumping. The program depends on a number of partners including the public and other local agencies. An illicit discharge is defined as any discharge to the municipal storm drain system that is not composed entirely of storm water, except for discharges authorized by an NPDES permit. Illicit discharges may enter the storm sewer system through either (1) direct connections (accidental or deliberate connections to storm sewers), or (2) indirect connections (Le. filtering into storm sewers from cracked wastewater pipes, spills draining into storm sewer inlets, or waste waters or materials deliberately dumped into storm sewers). Discharge sources must be controlled and illegal behavior prevented. Objectives and Requirements ~ Control illicit discharges by.conducting field surveys I investigations of the storm sewer system to identify and eliminate improper connections and discharges; and ~ Prevent improper disposal of waste through public education and providing appropriate waste material disposal options and incentives; and ~ Contain and clean-up accidental spills using proper clean-up and disposal materials and methods. To meet these objectives, the requirements of the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination component of the Storm Water Program are to: ~ Develop a storm drain map that shows the location of all outfalls and the names and locations of all waters that receive discharges from the outfalls; and ~ Develop enforceable means to prohibit non-storm water discharges (Le. an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism); and ~ Develop a City-wide plan to detect and address non-storm water discharges; and ~ Educate the general public, busin~sses, and public employees about the hazards (and legal consequences) of illicit discharges. The following table of discharges may be exempted from regulations unless they are determined to be a significant source of pollution or a nuisance. 9 ---_._~._--_...- --~--- Table 4.1: water line flushing II irrigation water landscape irrigation II springs diverted stream flows II water from crawl space pumps rising ground waters II footing drains potable water discharges II lawn watering foundation drains II street wash water uncontaminated pumped ground water II air conditioning condensation flows from riparian habitats and VlJetlands II individual residential car washing dechlorinated swimming pool discharges II emergency fire fighting discharges Discharges or flows from fire fighting activities are excluded from the effective prohibition against non-storm water and need only be 'addressed where they are identified as significant sources of pollutants. Minimum Control Measures for Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program BMP 4.1: Prepare a Storm Drain System Map I Justification: A storm drain system map will help the City to identify outfalls with dry weather flows and other suspicious discharges that need monitoring or investigation. It is also essential for maintenance and long-term planning of the storm drain system. Measurable Goal: Completion ofthe Storm Drain Systems Map. BMP 4.2: Conduct field surveys / pipe inspections to identify illicit dischatges. Justification: Poor infrastructure conditions in older sections of the City or outdated building codes may have resulted in the direct connection of waste water pipes. which should be removed or rerouted. Other connections may have been established illegally that are leaking targeted pollutants into the storm drain system. Measurable Goal: Document the number of illicit connections identified; illicit discharge connection locations prioritized for removal; Document the number of illicit connections eliminated. 10 -.--- BMP 4.3: Review existing ordinance or develop an ordinance prohibiting illicit discharges, with appropriate enforcement provisions. Justification: The requirements for non-storm water discharges are changing. Review existing ordinance or develop an ordinance that provides a broader description of what is an allowable discharge and what is an illicit discharge and sites appropriate sanctions for violators is required. It is another tool that the City needs to have in order to reduce pollutant levels in local waterways. Measurable Goal: Ordinance established; Number of violations enforced; Number of informational flyers developed and distributed; Number of City employees trained; Number of citizen complaints received. Target Date for Activities: Year 1 Storm Drain System Map 25% completed; Initial investigation of Illicit 2003-2004 Discharge locations, Training for City employees. Year 2 Storm Drain System Map 50% completed; Training for City employees 2004-2005 completed; Informational flyers developed and distributed; 25% of Storm Sewer System inspected for sources of illicit discharges. Year 3 Storm Sewer System Map 75% completed; Enforcement provisions in place; 2006-2007 50% of storm sewer system inspected for sources of illicit discharges; Ordinance developed and in place. Year 4 Storm Sewer System Map 100% completed; 75% of storm drain system 2007-2008 inspected for sources of illicit discharges. Year 5 100% of storm drain system inspected for sources of illicit discharges; Citations 2008-2009 issued for abatement of illicit connections; Citizen complaints received; Investigation locations prioritized; Develop funding sources. 6 Inspection of Storm Drain System; Inspections for illicit discharge connections. Existing Ordinances I Policies I Programs I BMPs: ~ City participates with Integrated Waste Management Board (SLO) and the Emergency Service Department for Hazardous Materials I Spill Response. 11 --.--..-- --.~- >t SECTION 5: CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROLS This control measure of the Storm Water Management Plan is intended to prevent soil and. construction waste from entering storm water. Sediment is usually the main pollutant of concern; during a short period of time, construction sites can contribute more sediment to creeks than can be deposited naturally over several decades. The resulting siltation, and contribution of other pollutants from construction sites can cause phy.3ical, biological, and chemical harm to local waterways. Objectives and Requirements ~ Develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce the amount of pollutants in storm water runoff from construction activities that result in land disturbance of one acre or more. To meet this objective, the requirements of the Construction Site Runoff Control component of the Storm Water Program are to: .~ Develop an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, requiring the implementation of proper erosion and sediment controls on construction sites, and penalties for non- compliance; and ~ Require construction site operators to implement appropriate and effective erosion and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution; and ~ Require construction site operators to control waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site the may cause adverse impacts to water quality; and ~ Develop procedures for site plan review of construction plans to address water quality impacts; and ~ Develop procedures for site inspections and enforcement of control measures; and ~ Establish procedures for receiving information I concerns about construction site practices from the public. Minimum Control Measures for Construction Site Runoff Program BMP 5.1: Develop an ordinance specifically addressing construction site erosion and sediment control with appropriate penalties for non-compliance and BMPs to implement. Justification: An ordinance provides more specific guidelines regarding implementation and enforcement of erosion control measures. Measurable Goals: Revised grading ordinance established; Number of enforcement actions taken; Number of Contractors and Developers informed; Number of informational materials created and distributed; Number of approved BMPs in place; BMP 5.2: Develop procedures to ensure adequate review of site plans to address erosion and sediment control on all construction sites. 12 - ..- ,.------.-----...- Justification: Planning for erqsion and sediment control on small construction sites is an important activity, best done before construction actually starts. The change from previously requiring approval of Erosion and Sediment Control plans (ESC) for sites greater than five acres to requiring them for sites greater than one acre should significantly reduce the erosion and sedimentation from construction sites. Measurable Goals: Number of Public Works Inspectors trained; Number of reviews completed; Number of site inspections completed. BMP 5.3: Develop procedures for the public to inform the City about construction site runoff problems and for the City to report back on actions taken. Justification: This information will supplement the City's effort to identify and respond to incidents of soil erosion from construction sites. It will also be another way for the public to become involved in the overall program to reduce pollution in iocal waterways. Measurable Goals: Procedures for information to be submitted by the public completed; Number of complaints received; Number of violations sited; Number of corrections certified. Target Date for Activities: Year 1 Revise Grading Ordinance 100% completed; City Inspectors trained; 2003-2004 Procedures for site. inspection implemented. Year 2 Approved BMPs in place; Contractors informed of training opportunities; 2004-2005 Year 3 Procedures for information submitted by the public in place. Contractors cited 2005-2006 for non-compliance. Year 4 Revised informational materials available. Contractors cited for non- 2006-2007 compliance. Year 5 Develop funding sources. Contractors cited for non-compliance. 2007-2008 6 Complaints received from public; Site inspections; Contractors informed of training opportunities. . . Existing Ordinances I Policies I Programs I BMPs: .. Grading Ordinance. .. The Public Works Department reviews discretionary projects submitted for impacts to water quality and hydrology. If a project is considered to have a 13 -... .--....-,---- potentially significant impact to either, the project proponent is required to mitigate impacts to the greatest extent feasible. 14 SECTION 6: POST -CONS1RUCTION RUNOFF CONTROLS This control measure of the Storm Water Management Plan focuses on site and design considerations, which are most effective when addressed in the planning and design stages of project development. Effective long-term management and maintenance are critical, so the best design opportunities are those with minimum maintenance needs. The goal of this control measure is to integrate basic and practical storm water management techniques into new development to protect water quality. Objectives and Requirements ~ Reduce the long term potential for discharge of pollutants into urban runoff from new . development and redevelopment. To meet this objective, the requirements of the Post-Construction Runoff Control component of the Storm Water Program are to: ~ Develop regulatory framework requiring the implementation of post-construction runoff controls; and ~ Develop appropriate structural and non-structural BMP strategies to address post- construction runoff; and ~ Ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of control measures; and ~ Determine appropriate BMPs and measurable goals to meet these lequirements. Minimum Control Measures for Post-Construction Runoff Program BMP 6.1: Develop regulatory framework for addressing post-construction and redevelopment site runoff controls. Justification: Regulations are an effective way to establish performance standards for runoff controls. Urban runoff controls address urban runoff quantity and quality in an effort to eliminate potential pollutant sources from development projects. Owners and developers should be required to provide facilities that minimize the opportunities for pollutants to reach local water bodies. I Measurable Goals: Regulations established; Number of enforcement actions; Number of citizen complaints about erosion from. new developments. BMP 6.2: Develop non-structural BMPs to ensure adequate post-construction site runoff controls are implemented and maintained. Justification: There are many opportunities to establish effective controls for post-construction site runoff without requiring some additional structures to be built. Proper planning and design of a building site can include features that reduce the amount of runoff after construction is completed. 15 - -~..--._---~- - Measurable Goals: Number ~f projects with approved non-structural BMPs in place; Number of informational materials created and distributed. BMP 6.3: Develop structural BMPs to ensure adequate post-construction site runoff controls are implemented and maintained. Justification: There are many opportunities to establish eff~ctive controls for post-construction site . runoff. By requiring innovative storage, infiltration or vegetative practices to be included in the design of a building site, significant reductions in runoff after construction can be achieved, sometimes reduced to a level less than pre- development flows. Measurable Goals: Number of projects with structural BMPs in place; Number of informational materials created and distributed. Target Date for Activities: Year 1 Informational materials for post-construction runoff control developed and 2003-2004 distributed. Year 2 I City staff members trained. I 2004-2005 Year 3 Non-structural BMPs implemented vvith new development and redevelopment 2005-2006 pr01ects; Ordinance developed 50% completed and in place. Year 4 Develop regulatiQns 100% completed and in place. 2006-2007 Year 5 Structural BMPs implemented vvith new development and redevelopment 2007-2008 projects; Citations issued 1br non-compliance; Develop funding sources. 6 Citizen complaints received; Informational material revised. I 16 -----,,-"-~._~"_.._--_.- SECTION 7: POLLUTION PREVENTION I GOOD HOUSEKEEPING FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS This control measure of the Storm Water Management Plan is intended to assure that the City's delivery of public services occur in a manor protective of storm water quality. Objectives and Requirements ~ Reduce the amount and type of pollutants that are discharged from streets, parking lots, material storage areas and vehicle maintenance yards into the storm sewer system. To meet this objective, the requirements of the Pollution Prevention I Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations component of the Storm Water Program are to: ~ Develop and implement an operation and maintenance program for the City to prevent or reduce polluted runoff from municipal operations; and ~ Provide employee training on how to incorporate pollution prevention and good housekeeping into all municipal operations such as park and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, roads maintenance and storm drain maintenance; and ~ Determine the appropriate BMPs and measurable goals to meet these requirements. Minimum Control Measures for Pollution Prevention / Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Program BMP 7.1: Develop a Municipal Operations BMP Manual for City facilities covering the foJ/owing activities (Phase I): a. Veh~~/equ~mentdeanmg b. Vehicle maintenance c. Veh~~/equ~mentpa*mg d. Outdoor materials storage e. Waste handling/storage f. Maintenance of paved/unpaved sudaces g. Sto"" water runoff/drainage Justification: The City should be a leader in implementing BMPs to ensure that the Corporate Yard and other City facilities comply with NPDES Phase II regulations which require the owner or operator to develop and implement a cost-effective operation and maintenance program with the ultimate goal of preventing and reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. Measurable Goal: Municipal Operations Plan for Corporate Yard developed. .. BMP 7.2: Develop a Municipal Operations Program with the following categories (Phase II): 17 a. Street sweeping and cleaning. b. Sidewalk, plazas, parking lots. c. Municipal landscaped areas (parks, medians, landscaping) d. Storm drain inlet/pipe cleaning e. Municipal detention and retention basins f. Repair/maintenance of hardscaped areas (streets, alleys, sidewalks) Justification: The City should develop guidelines for implementing control measures for all types of City-owned and maintained public facilities in order to reduce polluted runoff to local water bodies. Measurable Goals: Municipal Operations Program developed; Number of maintenance BMPs developed; Number and frequency of street sweeping activities; Amount of trash collected; Amount of green waste collected; Length of pipes cleaned; Number of inlets cleaned; Amount of automotive/equipment fluids recycled. BMP 7.3: Develop a NPDES Phase II Storm Drain Master Plan. Justification: As part of a long-term strategy to address urban runoff, a system master plan will target improvements and upgrades needed and provide an opportunity to try out new technologies as they are developed. Measurable Goal: Drainage Master Plan updated. BMP 7.4: Provide training for City Staff. Justification: Training is necessary for City staff to adequately and appropriately carry out the pOlicies and procedures defined in the Municipal Operations BMP Manual. Measurable Goals: Number of employee training materials gathered or developed; Number of Employees trained. Target Date for Activities: Year 1 Employee training materials developed; Contractor training materials 2003-2004 developed. Year 2 Employees trained; Categories of Municipal Operations Program developed 2004-2005 (Phase I); Contractors informed of training opportunities Year 3 Categories of Municipal Operations Program developed (Phase II). 2005-2006 Year 4 Municipal Operations Program for Corporate Yard completed; Maintenance 2006-2007 BMPs develoDed: Number and freauencv of street sweeDina activities: Trash 18 I I collected; Green waste collected; Pipes cleaned; Inlets cleaned; Automotil.. equipment I fluids recycled. YearS Storm Drain Master Plan updated and in place; Develop funding sources. 2007-2008 6 Employee training; BMP activities ongoing, Street sweeping. Existing OnUnances I Policies I Programs I BMPs: ~ Street sweeping activities. ~ Public parking lot sweeping. ~ Catch basin clean-up prior to and during rain events. 19 , SECTION 8: MONITORING AND REPORTING Monitoring and Reporting Requirements The purpose of monitoring and reporting is to document successful implementation of the SWMP. The draft general permit requires annual reports to be submitted starting in August 2004. The City intends these annual reports to cover the fiscal year immediately prior to the reporting period. The City will monitor the implementation of its programs and the overall effectiveness by measuring and reporting the data discussed in the individual Minimum Control Measure sections discussed above. The City will regularly evaluate both current conditions and BMP effectiveness, and as appropriate update BMPs and measurable goals to achieve the objective of meeting water quality standards to the Maximum Extent Practicable. If after implementing the minimum control measures there is still a water quality impairment associated with discharges from the City's MS4, it may be necessary to expand or better tailor existing BMPs. Form and Content of Annual Report Guidance had not yet been provided as to the specific form and content of the annual report. Because the City is required to keep records for five years and due to the intent of the reporting requirements, the annual report will focus on a summary of progress and discuss any changes to the SWMP to be implemented in meeting the Maximum Extent Practicable standard. The focus will be to clearly show progress, to discuss program adjustments, and respond to challenges in implementing the SWMP. Reporting Data compiled for each measurable goal will be compiled and reviewed. Significant variance from target dates will be assessed and discussed in annual reports to the RWQCB. Feedback from staff, permittees, developers, stakeholders, etc. will be used to modify BMPs or measurable goals, as appropriate; the basis for any changes will be included in the following annual report. Pursuant to the "General Permit, " the City will retain storm water records for five years. The Public Works Department will be responsible for implementing substantial elements of the SWMP and will be maintaining records to the extent possible for five years. These records will be the source of compiled data contained in the annual report. C:\Desktop\My BriefcaseIMurry\NPDES\Phase II (SWMP) 20 !:LI Z r/J W ~ C Z ~ C) 0 >- 0 D::: ~ LL 0 ~ .- 0 <( r- z w :;E J: () <( ~ _._----------""~ 8.1. MEMORANDUM. TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.DIRECTO~ SUBJECT: CONSENT CONSIDERATION OF MUSEUM ANNEX (BARN) COLOR, 127 SHORT STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02.010 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council approve the exterior color of the Museum Annex and defer consideration of window shutter versus metal awning details to November 25, 2003. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. No City funds are involved in the design, construction or completion of the Museum Annex other than use of City owned property by the South County Historical Society . DISCUSSION: On April 22, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing and approved the subject CUP for the South County Historical Society's Museum Annex. (See Attachment 1 for excerpt from minutes.) The building is currently under construction and required precoating of the wood siding to enable wood trim and battens to be applied to the exterior plywood walls. As a result, application of the paint was applied prior to City Council review. The metal roof is "core-ten" steel that is designed to rust quickly, creating a historical character appearance. Other building details, such as wooden shutters versus metal awnings over windows, were "subject to review by the City Council at the end of six (6) months from the date of approval and shall.. .address the affect of building color and wooden shutters in softening the overall building appearance." The dark brown paint color instead of red tan or brown gray stain was selected by SCHS builders because the plywood grain was evident, but the knot-hole patches are hidden with the more opaque material. The darker color also tends to blend with landscape and earth tones to make the structure less apparent when viewed from all directions. If the Council does not approve the dark paint color, it could request samples of other colors, white wash or a red-gray spray stain of the exterior board and batten walls to determine if this would add an "aged" character. The Council may also request that the window shutters also be reviewed again when these finish details are installed. S:\COMMUNITY _DEVELOPMENT\CITY _COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr Museum Annex (Barnl.doc CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-010 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 2 AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: - Approve the color and continue the finish detail review to November 25, 2003 Council meeting, as recommended; - Request alternate colors, white wash or stain samples to achieve more antique finish character; or - Provide other comment and direction to staff and the Society for reconsideration at a subsequent meeting. Attachments: 1. April 22, 2003 City Council Minutes. I 09-23-03 cc sr Museum Annex (Barn) 9/19/03 - ATTACHMENT 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 22, 2003 PAGE 3 8.g. Consideration of Authorization to Waive Application Fees for March of Dimes Walk America TUP 03..003. Action: Waived fees in the amount of $105.00 for Temporary Use Permit 03-003; 20th Annual March of Dimes Walk America. 8.h. Consideration 0.' Design.ation of Voting Delegate for a Special Meeting of the League of California Cities General Assembly. Action: Appointed Mayor Ferrara as the voting delegate for th~ Special Meeting of the League of California Cities GeneraLAssembly, May 15, 2003. 8.L Consideration of Revision of. Funding Allocc,tion for Program Year 2003 Community Development Block Grantprqjects (CDBG). Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3669 to revise funding' allocation for program year 2003 CDBG projects. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 02..0;10; Museum Addition for the South County Historical Society at 127 Short Street. Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 02-010 and instructing the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Exemption. Director Strong responded to questions from Council regarding the propos.ed materials for the windows and doors and clarified the building's intended use. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Kirk Scott, President of the South County Historical Society, commented on the terrific working relationship between the City and the Historical Society; thanked the Architectural Review Committee and Planning Commission .for its invaluable input on this project; clarified that the project would be used as an auxiliary building; requested that the shutters be retained on the windows as depicted in the renderings; requested that the condition of approval (#10) requiring window awnings be removed; and clarified the color of stain to be used on the building. In response to questions from Council regarding the roof material, Mr. Kirk displayed samples of the proposed roof material. He further requested that members in the .audience supporting the project raise their hands. Nan Fowler, Planning Commissi()n, stated her reasons for voting against the project and stated that the placement of a tin, rust colorsheg was not appropriate on the Village Green. She commented that the project should follow the Design Guidelines and Standards developed for the Historic District. Ross Konaable, member of the South County Historical Society, opposed the placement of awnings over the windows. He commented that the building would be a museum to display rolling stock and requested that the Council approve the project. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public heari,ng. --~----_._--- -.-----.,---- --...----.-------...- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 22, 2003 PAGE 4 Council comments and discussion focused on the uniqueness of the building, including the building's design, proposed roof material and building color-scheme; whether or not window shutters should be included instead of installing awnings over the windows; providing identifying signage on the site; and modifying the conditions of approval to include City Council review of the project in six months. Following discussion, there was consensus of the Council to modify Condition of Approval #10 deleting the requirement for installation of a 12" - 18" overhang over all windows and replacing it with the requirement for installation of wooden sbutters over all windows. In addition, there was consensus to modify Condition of Approval #8 to state that the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to review by the City Council at the end of six (6) months from the date of approval and that review shall specifically address the affect of building color and wooden shutters in softening the overall building appearance. Council Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution, as amended, instructing the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Exemption and approving Conditional Use Permit 02-010, located at 127 Short Street, applied for' by the South County Historical Society. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Costello, Dickens, Runels, Lubin, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 A YES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. Ilona se ermit Case No. 03-001, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 03-001 and Planned Sign Program 03-001; 5 ta Lucia Bank, 1530 E. Grand Avenue. Council Member bin and Runels declared financial conflicts of interest and stepped down from the dais. Community Development Dire r Strong presented the staff report and responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing. Stan Cherry, President of Santa Lucia Bank, addre d concerns expressed about the proposed number of drive-thru lanes. He stated that th nk strives to offer ten open teller windows inside the bank ard enough drive-up windows service. John Kniqht, RRM Design Group, addressed concerns expresse the Planning Commission and explained modifications made to the project whic include an enhanced pedestrian access/circulation pattern; a reduction in the building's e and .~---_._-,,---_..- -~.._- --~_._-- 8.m. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 99-013 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 01-001: CAMINO MERCADO AND WEST BRANCH STREET DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution, approving a one- year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 99-013 and Variance 01-001. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The City Council approved Conditional Use Permit 99-013 on August 14, 2001, for construction of five (5) professional office buildings totaling 24,300 square feet. In addition, the City Council approved Variance 01-001 to' allow the construction of 14- foot walls instead of the originally permitted 6-foot walls. On August 19, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 03-1894, recommending that the City Council approve a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 99-013 and Variance 01-001. Development Code Section 16.12.140 states that permits, licenses, and approvals for projects not subject to the Subdivision Map Act shall expire 24 months after the approval date. The Development Code further provides that the permit may be extended in twelve-month increments for a period not exceeding three years. On July 10, 2003, the applicant filed a request for a one-year time extension for the project and, if approved, the time extension would establish a new Conditional Use Permit expiration date of August 14, 2004. The applicant has completed the architectural plans and engineering for the project, however, they have been unable to complete the plans required for the issuance of building permits due to the workload of their civil engineering firm. CITY COUNCIL TIME EXTENSION 03-003 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-013 AND VARIANCE 01-001; CAMINO MERCADO AND WEST BRANCH STREET SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration: - Adopt the attached resolution approving the time extension of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance; - Modify as appropriate and adopt the attached resolution; - Continue the item and direct staff to prepare an alternative resolution to deny the extension; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Minutes from the August 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting .- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-013 AND VARIANCE 01-001; CAMINO MERCADO AND W. BRANCH STREET; APPLIED FOR BY STEPHEN N. COOL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande approved Resolution No. 03-1894 recommending the City Council approve a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 99-013 and Variance 01-001 on August 19, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered a request for a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 99-013 to construct five (5) office buildings and Variance 01-001 to construct fourteen (14) foot retaining walls at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the original project on August 14, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is Consistent with the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study and deliberation, that there have been no significant changes in the General Plan, Municipal Code or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande approves of a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 99-013 and Variance 01-001, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The expiration of approval for Conditional Use Permit 99-013 and Variance 01-001 shall now be August 14, 2004. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of ,2003. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE20F3 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J..CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ~ --.-- __~.... -"--0' '~~""--'-'-- RESOLUTION NO. PAGE30F3 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TIME EXTENSION NO. 03-003 CAMINO MERCADO AND WEST BRANCH GENERAL CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This approval recommends that the City Council authorize a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 99-013 and Variance 01-001 for an office complex at Camino Mercado and West Branch in Arroyo Grande, California. 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for ACUP 99-013 and Variance 01-001 as approved by Resolution; 3. The Amended Conditional Use Permit shall automatically expire on August 14, 2004. The applicant may apply for additional time extensions pursuant to Development Code Section 16.12.140. 4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 5. The applicant shall be subject to all currently applicable development fees. ATTACHMENT 1 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2003 CALL TO ORDER: The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Guthrie presiding; also present were Commissioners Arnold, Brown, Fowler and Keen. Staff members in attendance were Community Development Director, Rob Strong, Associate Planners, Kelly Heffernon and Teresa McClish, and Assistant Planner, Jim Bergman. AGENDA REVIEW - The Commission agreed to hear Item II.B. first. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of July 1, 2003 were unanimously approved with a correction to the "motion to adjourn", on a 5/0voice'vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from Patrick Kennedy and Public Works, re Variance Case No. 03-003, sidewalk requirement. 2. Fax and attached letter from Kathy Ann Spencer re Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 03-004 Coastal Christian School. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM II.B. - TIME EXTENSION CASE NO. 03-003; APPLICANT - STEPHEN N. COOL; LOCATION - CAMINO MERCADO AND WEST BRANCH ST. Staff report prepared and presented by Planning Intern, Jim Bergman. Mr. Bergman gave an overview of the proposal, stating that this was the first request for a Time Extension for the previously approved Conditional Use Permit Case No. 99-013 and Variance Case No. 2001-001 for the office project located at the intersection of Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Stephen Cool, applicant, said their project was moving ahead, their plans were already in the City and they agreed with the Conditions of Approval of the Time Extension. Chair Guthrie closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, to recommend that the City Council approve the one-year Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit 99- 013 and Variance 01-001, and adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 03.1894 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ONE- YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 99-013 AND VARIANCE CASE NO. 01-001, APPLIED FOR BY STEPHEN N. COOL The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: ~. - _.~~'----- ----..--- ---.--.-----..-- MINUTES PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2003 AYES: Commissioners Keen, Arnold, Brown, Fowler, and Chair Guthrie NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19TH day of August 2003. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ItA. . AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (ACUP) CASE NO. 03-006 & PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM (PSP) CASE NO. 03-005; APPLICANT - TED MOORE; LOCATION -1401 E. GRAND AVE. (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COURTLAND ST. & E. GRAND AVE.). Staff report prepared and presented by Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon. Ms. Heffernon gave a detailed report on the previously approved proposal stating that the applicant was seeking approval of two site plan modifications, a drive-thru pharmacy kiosk for Long's Drug Store and the inclusion of two outdoor patio areas within the 15 foot front setback along Grand Ave, and a Planned Sign Program for the entire shopping center. The site plan modifications will result in a reduction of on site parking of 16 spaces (or 16%) total, which is within the reduction allowed by the Development Code. Ms. Heffernon then described the proposed signage included in the PSP for the entire shopping center (now called the Courtland and Grand Plaza). The Commission asked that the ACUP and PSP be considered separately. Commissioner Keen asked for clarification on the parking calculations including the ATM. Commissioner Brown had a concern with the grade from Courtland approaching the Kiosk and the traffic circulation from Courtland out to Grand Avenue. Chair Guthrie opened the Public Hearing. Ted Moore, applicant, explained that the grade would be 8-9% and designed to fit large delivery trucks so we know cars will work. The traffic going to the Kiosk would only average 1-2 cars an hour so there should be no stacking problem and traffic would not be queuing up. Commissioner Arnold said he was not on the Commission when the project was first approved, however he could not approve this unless the pad on the project is lowered. Ted Moore explained that he would like to see it lower, but stated that it was not possible due to the depths of the utility lines on Courtland, the required street grade of Grand Avenue and ADA regulations. The contractor has said it will come down somewhat due to compaction. However, he will have his engineer redo the calculations one more time in an effort to lower the pad. Mr. Strong stated staff had investigated the pad height and when grading is done it will be within 6" of the established approved grade height. It is already approved by the City and the ACUP does not change anything. - -~._._-- "~--"---,._,.._---_.- 8.n. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT PARKING IN FRONT (STREET) YARDS DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 10.16.010.B in Title 10 and Section 16.56.030 in Title 16 to prohibit parking in front (street) yards. FUNDING: No cost impact is projected. DISCUSSION: This ordinance was introduced by the City Council on August 26, 2003 and would prohibit the parking of vehicles on front (street) yards (except on a paved driveway), parking on driveway approaches, or parking in such a manner as to obstruct a sidewalk. This ordinance will become valid in 30 days if adopted. AL TERNA TIVES: The following altematives are provided for Council consideration: - Adopt the ordinance; - Do not adopt the ordinance; - Change the ordinance and republish. . - ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.16.010.B IN CHAPTER 10.16 OF TITLE 10 AND SECTION 16.56.030 IN CHAPTER 16.56 OF TITLE 16 TO PROHIBIT PARKING IN FRONT (STREET) YARDS WHEREAS, Chapters 10.16 and 16.56 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code have been established to regulate parking of vehicles on City Streets, municipal lots and other public or private property; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2003 the City Council considered regulation of front (street) yard parking in other Central Coast cities and determined that such regulations help prevent abuse and adverse impacts caused when landscaped areas are converted; and WHEREAS, parking in front (street) yards, except on paved driveway approaches, is detrimental to public street aesthetics and circulation, contributes to possible soil contamination from automobile tluidleaks and diminishes the landscaped character of street yards. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 10.16.01 O.B is hereby amended in its entirety to read: 10.16.010 ParkinQ for certain purposes prohibited. B. Subsection A of this section shall not prohibit persons from parking vehicles on private residential property belonging to the owner of the vehicle nor on the public street immediately adjacent to the private residential property, in accordance with the provision of Municipal Code Section 16.56.030. SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.56.030 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 16.56.030. Location. All off-street parking facilities shall be located to the side or rear of buildings if feasible and be accessible and useable for the associated use or activity. Parking required shall be located on site, but not within any required front (street) yard nor upon any unpaved surface except on lawfully established driveways and without obstructinQ a public sidewalk, except as otherwise provided for in Section 16.56.050 of this chapter. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City. Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrases be declared unlawful. SECTION 4: Within fifteen (15) days after passage of this Ordinance, it shall be published once, together with the names of the Council Members voting thereon, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2003. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTORNEY ! , , , ! .0. 8.0. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL ~ FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO PREZONE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES THE PROPOSED ST. JOHN'S CHURCH ANNEXATION, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-004 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 03-004 to amend a portion of the zoning map to prezone to Public Facilities (P.F.) all properties within the proposed St. John's Church annexation to the City of Arroyo Grande. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: This ordinance was introduced, without modification, by the City Council on August 26, 2003 and will become valid in 30 days if adopted. AL TERNA TIVES: The following altematives are presented for the Council's consideration: - Adopt the ordinance approving Public Facilities prezoning for the proposed annexation; - Do not adopt the ordinance; - Change the ordinance and republish. I i I .._--~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO.' 03-004 TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE ZONING MAP TO PREZONE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES (P.F.) ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED ST. JOHN'S CHURCH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan includes the properties south of the existing City limits adjoining Los Ben-os Road and Valley Road within the Urban Reserve Line and designated Community Facilities and Conservation/Open Space; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission, in February 2003, adopted Sphere of Influence (SOl) amendments to include the subject area within the SOl of the City of Arroyo Grande, enabling consideration of annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, the only private property owner, St. John's Lutheran Church, within the potential annexation area requested consideration by the City and Local Agency Formation Commission, and said application requires prezoning approval by the City; and WHEREAS, consistency with the 2001 General Plan requires that the properties within the proposed j annexation be prezoned Public Facilities, PF zoning district, as recommended by the Planning Commission after public hearing on July 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: A. The proposed zone change will satisfy the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element, which designates the property as Community Facilities - Specific Plan. B. The existing use and the proposed zone is institutional inn ature, and will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. Public Facility use and development within the project area would be consistent with development and design standards under the PF zoning designation and insure orderly development. D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map were considered as part of the 2001 General Plan Program EIR, and are less than significant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Development Code Amendment 03-004 amending a portion of the Zoning Map as shown in Exhibit 'A': ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 SECTION 1: The above rec~tals and findings are true and correct. SECTION 2: Development Code Section 16.24.020 is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "An attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Director of Administrative Services shall file a Notice of Determination. SECTION 5: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative . Services/Deputy City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Couhcil Member , and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: I NOES: f ABSENT: the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of ,2003. -----~._- ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 TONYM.FERRARA,MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES! DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: r- _ ,~_~-.. . ....-. __..._ _n___ --".-""----- EXHIBIT A C 0 +:i CO >< Q) C C <( .c 0 L- :J .c 0 '"' . '"' \D 00 '"' >- t/) ....... ....... u... ~ . C\.J C\.J C 0- <( .c I I "'-/ ~ ~ ~ Z 0 I I >- ::::> J u... u... I- 0 (I) (I) ....... pq . -.J ....... "'-/ "'-/ en ....... \D 00 '"' U Z ....... ....... u... <( 0 L- '"' C\.J C\.J 0- u... ....... ~ u... "'-/ I- (I) I I U <( "'-/ ~ ~ >- ....... x Q) >- >- I- -.J W C >- ....... pq Z 0 -.J -.J -.J -.J ::::> Z ....... ....... ....... ....... 0- <( N ~ ~ ~ U Q) <( <( <( <( ~ ~ L- u... u... u... u... w w a.. w w w u (I) (I) . -.J-.J -.J ....... 0 0 u.. l::J L:J l::J -.J 0- 0- a.. Z Z Z pq 0 0 ::::> ~ ~ . ....... ....... ....... (I) (I) (I) 0- 0- 0- -0 MDDDlrn Q) iI!:;-: :. I t/) 0 ~.< a a. 0 L- a.. I.a. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN th t a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande to consider the ~ lowing item: APPLICANT: City of Arroyo rande LOCATION: Citywide PROPOSAL: Proposed exp nditure of State funds for law enforcement services provided in the FY 2003- 4 State Budget, $100,000 being the City of Arroyo Grande's approximate a location. The FY 2003 04 State Budget continued funding for the Citizens' Option for Public Safety COPS) Program. Under this program, $100 million was allocated to local law e orcement agencies to enhance delivery of services. These funds must be used to augment local law enforcement services and may not be used to supplant ex sting funds. The law requi es that the funds be appropriated pursuant to written requests from the Chie of Police. Governor Gray Davis stated in the FY 2003-04 State Budget that t e intended use for COPS funding is the addition of sworn peace officers. In s pport of this intent, the State of California will provide the City of Arroyo Grand $100,000 per year through the COPS prOQ(am. The Chief of Police will dev lop his requ~sts pursuant to these criteria and will be presenting those request for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE: Any person affected or concern d by the proposal may submit written comments to the Office of the Chief of Police before the ity Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the proposal at the ime of the hearing. Any person interested in the pro osed expenditures may contact the Office of the Chief of Police at the Police Department, 200 N rth Halcyon Road, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:0 p.m.). If you challenge an item in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, th public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body or which the notice was given. Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday, September 23,2003 at 7:00 p.m. Place of Hearing: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Publish 1 time, September 12, 2003 -----_._---~ --"" -. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: RICK TerBORC ,CHIEF OF POLICE q SUBJECT: CONSIDERATI N OF USE OF STATE 2003-04 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC S FETY (COPS) FUNDS DATE: SEPTEMBER 2 ,2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended, after con ucting a public hearing and making any modifications, the City Council approve the xpenditure of $100,000 as authorized by the State for law enforcement services u der the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. In addition, it is recommended that the City Council authorize the expenditure of $3,800 carrie over from the City's FY 2002-03 COPS Program. FUNDING: There is no General Fund im act. This expenditure involves $100,000 received by the City under the COPS Pro ram in FY 2003-04 and $3,800 carried over from the FY 2002-03 COPS Program. DISCUSSION: The FY 2003-04 State Budge continues funding for the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. U der this program, funding is allocated to local law enforcement for the delivery f services. These funds must be used to augment local law enforcement servic s and may not be used to supplant existing funding for such services. As in t e past, the declared intent of the Governor and Legislature is to continue COPS as a multi-year program. However, a new appropriation to fund the pro ram will be required each succeeding fiscal year. The law requires that these fu ds be appropriated pursuant to written requests from the Chief of Police. The City ouncil must consider these requests separate and apart from the proposed la enforcement allocations from the General Fund. Additionally, the City must est blish a separate interest bearing fund (Fund 271) to record the receipt and expen itures of monies received pursuant to this program. The enabling legislation re uires that the City conduct a public hearing in September of each year to co sider requests from the Chief of Police. The funds are scheduled to be transferr d this month from the State to the San Luis Obispo County Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF), which is -~--_.-.. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2003-04 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 administered by the County of San Luis Obispo. The County SLESF Oversight Committee is scheduled to meet to review the requests from the cities in the County on October 1, 2003. This review, which is required by law, is to ensure that the use of the COPS funds comply with the requirements and restrictions set forth in State law. Upon approval of the City's expenditure plan for this year's COPS funds by the County SLESF Oversight Committee, the County Auditor-Controller will forward the designated funds to the City. The allocation for the City of Arroyo Grande is $100,000. In FY 2000-01, funding for the COPS Program was set at a minimum of $100,000 per law enforcement agency. In doing so, Governor Gray Davis stated that the intended use of COPS funding was the addition of sworn peace officers. In order to support the addition of sworn personnel, the FY 2000-01 State Budget contained a provision declaring its intent to provide each agency with $100,000 per year for each of the following four (4) years. However, a new appropriation is needed for each succeeding year and, as mentioned previously, the State's FY 2003-04 Budget provided this appropriation. At a Public Hearing at its September 26, 2000 meeting, the City Council approved the Chief of Police's recommendation to utilize the FY 2000-01 COPS funding to add one (1) additional Police Sergeant, and to upgrade two (2) Police Officer positions to Senior Police Officer positions. These personnel actions have taken place and are currently in force. As stated in the report to the City Council on September 26, 2000, it was the intent of the Chief of Police to utilize the COPS funds to continue to pay for these personnel actions during each of the three (3) succeeding years. At the September 26, 2000 meeting, the City Council was in favor of that proposal. The City Council subsequently approved the expenditure for a second year on September 25, 2001 and a third year on September 24, 2002. Therefore, the Chief of Police recommends that the FY 2003-04 COPS funding be utilized to continue to fund these personnel actions. In adopting the City's FY 2003-04 Budget, the City Council previously gave tentative approval to this recommendation (the $100,000 COPS allocation is listed as an anticipated transfer from Fund 271 to the General Fund in the Budget). However, as stated previously, State law requires that a public hearing be held in September to give formal approval regarding the use of these funds. While the original intent of the COPS Program was to fund new positions for a four (4) year period, given the current financial climate, the funding may be used for a five-year program (through FY 2004-05). Beginning FY 2005-06, the funds will no longer be able to be used for funding the current position and the City Council will need to make a determination CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF USE OF STATE 2003-04 CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 3 regarding the continuation of the supervisory position (Sergeant) currently funded through the COPS Program. Additionally, the Police Chief will need to develop a new spending program for the COPS funding (assuming the program is still funded by the State at that time). Effective January 1, 2001, State law was amended to require that COPS funds must be spent within a two year period or returned to the State Controller's Office (based on the State fiscal year). There is $3,800 left over in the COPS fund from FY 2002-03. This is primarily due to interest earned by the fund over the past two years. These funds must be expended by June 30, 2004. Staff recommends that the monies be designated for use in the Fund's "Special Department Supplies" line item (271-4202-5255). This will allow staff to purchase non-capital equipment and supplies not contained in this year's City Budget. The equipment/supplies would be used to further the Police Department's operations, including its community services/volunteer programs. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: _ Approve the Chief of Police's recommendation to utilize the FY 2003-04 COPS funds to continue to fund the personnel actions originally approved by the Council under the FY 2000-01 COPS Program and to expend funds carried over from the FY 2003-03 COPS Program; _ Modify as appropriate and approve the recommendation of the Chief of Police; or - Do not approve the Chief of Police's recommendations. --,---_.,------,------------ --- ---.-----------'-- --_.-..- 9.b. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande will hold a Public Hearing on the following item: . CASE NO: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-002 APPLICANT: Richard DeBlauw PROPOSAL: The City Council will review th~ Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map to develop a commercial retail, office and residential complex consisting of approximately 37,000 square feet and reconfigure the 37 underlying lots into five (5) parcels. The project site is located in the Village area on the north side of East Branch Street west of Crown Terrace and is approximately 3.5 acres in size. The applicant proposes to retain and enhance the existing office building, relocate the Loomis residences off the project site and remove the E.C. Loomis & Son Feed Store. All of the proposed structures will be linked with a network of pedestrian paths and deck area. The architectural' style is intended to reflect the historic Village theme of Arroyo Grande. The EIR addresses the proposed project's potential impacts on aesthetics/visual quality, air quality, biological resources, cultural and historical resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, public services and utilities, traffic and access, and water supply and wastewater. The EIR also considers several project alternatives, particularly related to historiCal resources. Any person affected or concerned by this application may submit written comments to the Community Development Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) before the City Council hearing, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project and the environmental impacts at the time of hearing. The project application is available for public inspection at the above address. If you challenge an item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Failure of any person to receive the notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the action of the legislative body for which the notice was given. . . Date and Time of Hearing: Tuesday September 23, 2003 -.7:00 f>.M. Place of Hearing: City Council Chambers 215 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 i i Kelly We more, Director of Administrative Services! Deputy City Clerk Publish 1Time on Friday, September 12, 2003 ~ MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ BY: KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~~.. SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-001 AND VEStING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 01-002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER) DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council review the attached supplemental traffic and historical information prepared for the Creekside Center Final Environmental Imp.ct Report (FEIR) and adopt a resolution certifying the FEIR as being adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FUNDING: No financial impact to the City. DISCUSSION: Proiect Description The proposed Creekside Center project is to develop a retail commercial, office and residential complex at 415 East Branch Street on the former Loomis property at the east edge of the Village. The project would involve construction of 37,000 square feet of retail, office and residential space in five separate one and two story buildings and reconfigure 37 existing lots into five parcels comprising the 3.5-acre site. The project proposes to retain and remodel an existing office building, relocate two former Loomis residences, and remove the E. C. Loomis and Son Feed Store. --~- _._-_._~---_._- --'-'.-..----.--.,..., CITY COUNCIL CREEKSIDE CENTER FEIR SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 BackQround On June 10, 2003 the Council considered the Final EIR for the Creekside Center project and directed staff to work with the EIR consultant to further research impacts related to traffic and historical resources (see Attachment 1 for City Council meeting minutes and Attachment 2 for staff report). To expedite consultant response to Council concerns, staff obtained informal addenda to the approved sub-consultant agreements and authorization from the applicant to add the following to work scope services from ATE, at a cost not to exceed $3,700: . AM peak hour traffic analysis; . Intersection accident analysis related to school crossings; . Revised trip distributions for LePoint Street; . Discussion of project, cumulative and build out traffic impacts to E. Branch Street though the Village; and . Attend one Council meeting to present additional analysis and possible contract amendment (if requested by Council). Similarly, Chattel Architecture provided a proposal to attend up to two additional meetings to clarify findings and alternatives or resolve contract amendment scope and cost with the estimated compensation of $1,250 per meeting. (See Attachment 3, addendum letter dated September 9, 2003, accepted by DB&M Property, LLC). The traffic consultant, Associated Traffic Engineers (ATE), has submitted additional information regarding the A.M. peak hour analysis, accident analysis, and revised trip distribution (Attachment 4). Both consultants will be available at the meeting to answer questions. If the Council concludes that the supplemental studies and responses require further clarification from the consultants, both Chattel and ATE are available to assist with appropriate work scope and schedule refinements. The estimated cost of the additional work would be proposed as a contract amendment, subject to the applicant's as well as the City Council's subsequent approval. The historical resources consultant, Robert Chattel of Chattel Architecture, has provided a response to Council comments regarding the determination of a "historical resource" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mr. Chattel's summary of the CEQA Guidelines related to this issue is presented below to help clarify the process: Historical Resources As defined in CEQA Statues at 921084.1: An historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020. 1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024. 1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is CITY COUNCIL CREEKSIDE CENTER FEIR SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 3 not historically or culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be a historical resource. CEQA Guidelines at ~15064.5(a) also provides additional guidance on this subject: (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code ~5024. 1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of.type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information importent in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020. 1 (k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020. 1 (j) or 5024. 1. It is the professional opinion of the historic resources consultant who prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that the grain warehouse fails to meet all criteria including the requirement for "substantial" integrity for listing in the California Register (as described. on page 4.4-4 of the DEIR). The General Plan notes three '10cally listed" historical resources (IOOF Hall, Swinging Bridge and the Paulding History House). Nonetheless, the City of A"oyo Grande does not have a local register of historical resources and the grain warehouse is not identified as one of the three "locally listed" historical resources in the General Plan. Therefore, there is no presumptive significance for the grain warehouse. ----- ---------- -----~------_._--- --~_. -- CITY COUNCIL CREEKSIDE CENTER FEIR SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 4 It may be possible for the City Council to. find the grain warehouse to be a historical resource; however, such a finding would need to be based on "substantial evidence in light of the whole record." The historic resources consultant strongly recommends the Council utilize California Register criteria and base its findings on evidence (physical inspection and historic photographs) contained in the DEIR that demonstrates the grain warehouse lacks sufficient integrity to be considered a historical resource. The Planning Commission recommended that Alternative 2 be modified to include rehabilitation of the existing grain warehouse in conformance with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines. This modification to Altern.tive 2 effectively addresses the City Council's concern for preservation of the grain warehouse without making the finding that the grain warehouse, in and of itself, is a historical resource. If the City Council, under application of CEQA statue s15064.5(a)(3) and (4) noted above, finds the grain warehouse is a historical resource, such a finding would need to be based on demonstrable evidence that the grain warehouse retains "substantial" integrity. As noted in Attachment 2, the June 10, 2003 Council staff report, Section 6.0 of the EIR describes project alternatives including "Alternative 2 - Loomis residence retained in existing location." The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR with the following mitigation measure added: "The project alternatives shall provide for the adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the main house and grain warehouse through repair alterations and additions, while pr~serving those portions and features which convey its historical, cultural and architectural values." Although the historical consultant does not conclude that the grain warehouse is itself a historical resource, it does support findings that the building is an impertant part of the historical setting. Based on the content of the EIR, particularly pages 4.4-30 and 31 regarding substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource (by "physical demolition,' destruction, relocation or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resources would be materially impaired"), chanQe of the settinQ constitutes such a change to the Loomis house according to Planning Commission recommended findings. The supplemental material from Chattel, outlined above, would require project redesign and resubmittal or CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations if the project alternative does not include this recommended mitigation and avoidance of significant impacts. The preliminary research related to potential local historic designation procedure reveals that both a detailed independent survey by a qualified professional and evaluation criteria supported by physical inspection and historic documentation are prerequisites. Until staff and budget priorities enable these studies, or alternative assistance from the South County - CITY COUNCIL CREEKSIDE CENTER FEIR SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 5 Historical Society or other qualified help can be arranged, it would be premature to propose a local historical designation process as part of the current Development Code Update program for General Plan consistency. Based on the supplemental conclusions of the historical consultant, as outlined above, staff believes that the historical resource located on the property (the two-story Loomis house) and its setting (including the Loomis Feed store) are adequately addressed in the Final EIR as clarified. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration: 1. Find that the FEIR is in compliance with CEQA and adopt the resolution to certify the FEIR; or 2. Find that the FEIR is not in compliance with CEQA and do not certify the FEIR and direct staff to revise portions of the FEIR, re-circulate, and return to the City Council for consideration of the revised FEIR. Attachments: 1. City Council Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2003 2. June 10, 2003 City Council staff report 3. Addendum letter dated September 9,2003, accepted by DB&M Property, LLC 4. Supplemental Traffic Analyses from ATE (Note: The Draft EIR is available on the City's website at www.arrovoarande.ora under the Community Development Department, and a hard copy is available at City Hall) 1 I I I S:\COMMUNITY _DEVELOPMENT\PROJECTS\CUP\Creekside Center\CC FEIR 2 Staff Rpt.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO. GRANDE CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKING FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 01-002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER PROJECT) WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for Conditional Use Permit 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-002 (CUP 01-001 and VTTM 01-002, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), was prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (the "Consultant") for the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental QuaHty Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter the II CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse and to those public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and the comments of such persons and agencies were sought; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested and to incorporate comments received and the City's response to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande for review and consideration; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2003 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, whereby and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 10, 2003 and September 23, 2003 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, whereby and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented, incorporating all comments received and the response of the City as of the date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: --- RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 Section 1. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution. Section 2. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Planning Commission further finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 ofthe CEQA Guidelines. On motion by Council Member I seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2003. I I ----_......_._-~.._- _.~--- RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK > APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY f ----..._---------- --..---- ---- A TT ACHMENT 1 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE 7 AYES: Lubin, Costello, Dickens, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Runels There being 4 AYES, 0 NOES, and 1 ABSENT, the motion is hereby declared to be . ,. passed. Mayor Ferrara called a break at 9:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:00 p.m. 9.c. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact ~eport (FEIR) for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-002 (Creekside Center); 415 East Branch Street; Applicant - Richard DeBlauw. Community Development Director Strong presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for Conditional Use Permit 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-002 (the Creekside Center "project") as adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He introduced Alison Imamura, Denise Duffy & Associates, who gave an i overview of the EIR. Mr. Robert Chattel also addressed the Council with respect to how the EIR was organized with regard to cultural and historical resources. Mr. Chattel responded to questions of Council relating to structures in Arroyo Grande listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and whether or not moving a historical structure would impact its historical significance. Mayor Ferrara opened the Public Hearing. The following members of the public spoke regarding the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-002: Joe Boud, Joseph Boud & Associates, spoke in favor of certification of the EIR. Nancy Loomis, Arroyo Grande resident, expressed concerns with traffic impacts. Chuck Fellows, Arroyo Grande resident and Chairman of PreseNe the Village, spoke in opposition to conclusions in the EIR and referred to correspondence submitted which outlined specific objections (on file in the Administrative SeNices Department). Gordon Bennett, Arroyo Grande resident, expressed concerns with traffic onto Le Point Street and safety concerns related' to the children walking on Crown Hill to school. Susan Flores, Arroyo Grande, spoke in favor of certification of the EIR. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the Public Hearing. -- -. --,--'- CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE 8 Council Member Lubin supported approval of the Final EIR with the exception of the comments added by Commissioner Brown. Council Member Costello expressed concerns with the traffic study with regard to traffic impacts on Le Point Street. He stated that he could understand the community- . ,. based arguments for historical significance of the warehouse; however, it could be difficult to determine the structure as historical based on the State criteria. He agreed that the main house is historically significant. He supported any efforts to restore the warehouse or incorporating elements of the warehouse. into the design of the project in order to maintain historical integrity of the project. He concluded by stating he had difficulty accepting the traffic study as accurate. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens commented on the historical significance of the Loomis complex and the proposed traffic mitigation.. He stated he was not able to certify the EIR as being complete without some additional mitigation measures. He referred to cumulative impacts f9r traffic and stated that paying of traffic mitigation fees was inadequate mitigation. In addition, he referred to cultural resources and suggested placing historical significance on the complex as a whole. Mayor Ferrara acknowledged the effort that went into the preparation of the EIR; however, he stated there were some issues with the EIR that make certification difficult. He disagreed with the findings with regard to the warehouse structure; disagreed with the traffic analysis ratings for peak hour p.m. traffic and felt that the traffic data needed to be revisited. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens moved to direct staff to work with the EIR consultant to revise the portions that have been identified by Council, recirculate the document if necessary, and return to City Council for consideration of the revised Final EIR. Council Member Costello seconded the motion. City Manager Adams requested clarification of the specific issues the Council would like staff to follow up on. Mayor Pro Tem Dickens responded that the items to be revisited include the Loomis complex as having potential historical significance as a whole and looking at appropriate mitigations; and review of the traffic circulation and additional mitigation measures over and above the acceptance of fees. In response to traffic and circulation, Council Member Costello requested examination of Page 4.11-3, third bullet, and whether or not there is a substantial increase in hazards due to the design feature of the project. City Attorney Carmel asked for clarification on whether the Level of Service (LOS) issue was to be revisited. Mayor Ferrara said yes. There was consensus to include each of the items specified in the discussion. On the following roll-call vote, to wit: _._~---_. ---~-'- -"'~--- -"-"- --,--_.~ ,,-, CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE 9 AYES: Dickens, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Lubin ABSENT: Runels There being 3 AYES, 1 NO, and 1 ABSENT, the motion is hereby declared to be . " passed. 9.d. Continued Public Hearing Item - Consideration .of Development Code Amendment Case No. 02-006 to Revise . Zoning 'Regulations for the Village Commercial District and Portions of the General Commercial and Office Professional Districts. Community Development Director Strong recommended the Council cont~nue this public hearing item to June 24,2003. Mayor Ferrara opened the Public Hearing, and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Costello moved and Mayor Pro Tem Dickens seconded the motion to continue the public hearing to the June 24, 2003 City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Mayor Ferrara called a recess at 10:10 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:20 p.m. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.a. Consideration of FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 Bi-Annual Budget. [COUNCIURDA] City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the CouncillRDA: 1) Adopt Resolution approving the FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 Bi-Annual Budget; and 2) Approve the proposed changes to the City's Financial Policies. " Mayor/Chair Ferrara opened up the item for public comment, and upon hearing none, he closed the floor to public comment and brought the item back to Council/RDA for consideration. Council/Board Member Costello moved to adopt a Resolution approving the FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05 Bi-Annual Budget; and approve the proposed changes to the City's Financial Policies. Mayor Pro TemNice-Chair Dickens seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: A YES: Costello, Dickens, Lubin, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Ru nels - --.- - -_._-~ A IT ACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR CONDITIONAL .USE PERMIT NO. 01-001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO..01-002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER) DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for Conditional Use Permit 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-002 (the "project") as adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements Qf the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FUNDING: No financial impact to the City. DISCUSSION: Proiect Description The proposed Creekside Center project is to develop a retail commercial, office and residential complex at 415 East Branch Street on the former Loomis property at the east edge of the Vii/age. The project would involve construction of 37,000 square feet of retail, office and residential space in five separate one and two story buildings and reconfigure 37 existing lots into five parcels comprising the 3.5-acre site. The project proposes to retain and remodel an existing office building, relocate . two former Loomis residences, and remove the E. C. Loomis and Son Feed Store. Backoround During the initial studies for environmental determination, the City received two conflicting opinions from qualified historic consultants concerning the historic significance of the two residences and farm supply store building. In accordance with the California Environmental ----- - --.---" - -----~_.__._-_.._--~~-- -----...-- - - ---_._-~--~~ ---~ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 01-002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER) JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE 2 Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 1506(1)(1), the City required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address primarily the historic significance, but also traffic, biological, drainage and flood control, aesthetics, noise and other potential impact issues associated with the development. This environmental determination was made on August 21, 2001. The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR in September 2001, and distributed a Request for Proposal (RFP) the following month that produced nine (9) responses from qualified EIR consultants, several including separate historic consultant subcontractors. After interviewing the top four (4) firms that staff determined to have the best proposals, the City selected a preferred EIR firm, negotiated certain work scope clarifications and revisions, and conferred with the applicant regarding potential contract cost. The preferred consultant's proposal was submitted by Denise Duffy and Associates (DD&A) of Monterey, California and the City Council approved the contract on January 22, 2002. The table below summarizes the history for the project to date. Creekside Center Pro'ect Timeline January 3, 2001 Applicant submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit 01-001 and Vestin Tentative T Ma 01-002 Janua 10,2001 CUP 01-001 deemed com lete Ma 10, 2001 VTTM 01-002 deemed com lete Ma 22, 2001 Staff Adviso Committee SAC meetin June 4, 2001 Architectural Review Committee ARC meeti July 20, 2001 "Historic Resources Peer Review of the Loomis Properties" submitted by San Buenaventura Research Associates August 21, 2001 Letter sent to applicant regarding environmental determination that an EIR must be re red September 2001 Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse and assigned the EIR the State Clearin house Number 2001091085 October 16, 2001 Request for Proposals (RFP) to prepare an EIR sent out to consultin firms Janua 22,2002 Council a roved contract for DD&A to re reEIR A ril2, 2002 Kickoff meetin for EIR September 24, 2002 Council approved contract addendum to include additional traffic and circulation analysis and hazardous materials anal sis Janua 28,2003 Notice of Com letion NOC March 31, 2003 Public review eriod ended A ril29, 2003 Distribution of the Final EIR -------~--- - -------- _._---_._~- ---"-.--...- ,-..---"- CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 01-002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER) JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE 3 CEQA Review The purpose of the EIR is to identify potential environmental impacts, inform decision- makers of the potential impacts, and make recommendations to mitigate the potential impacts. CEQA requires that the decision-making body for the project must certify that the CEQA process has been completed, and that significant environmental impacts created by the project have been mitigated where feasible, before approving the project. The Planning Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the environmental document in meeting the CEQA requirements. The 45-day public review and comment period for the Draft EIR started on January 28, 2003 and was extended to March 31, 2003 to allow time for additional p~lic comments to be submitted. The Final EIR consists of the written comments submitted on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and corresponding amendments to the EIR as appropriate. If a Final EIR concludes that a project would have a significant impact on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the project cannot be approved unless the City Council adopts a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This Statement, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, would document the benefits of the project considered by the City Council to override its impact on the environment. What constitutes the threshold of significance for an environmental impact is somewhat discretionary, and must be determined by the body that certifies an EIR. Proiect EIR Review All of the impacts identified within the EIR document were determined to be less-than- I significant or mitigable to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of the impacts to cultural resources. These Class I impacts are listed below: I ! Impact 4.4-1 : The proposed project includes demolition of the main house, which I appears eligible for listing in the California Register resulting in a physical destruction of, or damage to, all or part of an historical resource. I Impact 4.4-4: The proposed project would result in the loss of the grain warehouse, r which is an important feature of the setting of the main house. The magnolia tree and Branch Street would remain in situ, however, their relationship to the main house would be lost due to demolition of the main house resulting in a change of the character of a historical resource's use or of physical features within the historical resource's setting that contribute to its historic significance. Impact 4.4-5: The proposed project would introduce 31,000 square feet of new residential and commercial uses on the 3.5 acre project site, without maintaining the main house or its relationship to its setting resulting in introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of a historical resource's significant historic features. ~_.~_._...__._.._------ -_..._-~-_._-_._--~-----~ ------- ---_._..~----_._.... CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 01-002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER) JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE 4 Section 6.0 of the EIR identifies and discusses several alternatives to the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternatives identified in this section, other than the "no project alternative", include Alternative 2 (Loomis residence retained in existing location), and Alternative 3 (Loomis residence retained within present site context). Both of these alternatives would require project redesign and resubmittal. If the project were approved as submitted, CEQA requires that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Since the "project" is not being considered for approval at this time, deliberations on overriding considerations are not necessary. Plannina Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission discussed the FEIR on May 6, 2003 (Attachment 1). After public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the completion of the FEIR with the following mitigation measure added: The project alternatives shall provide for the adaptive re-use and rehabilitation of the main house and grain warehouse through repair alterations and additions, while preserving those portions and features which convey its historical, cultural and architectural values. The consultant has provided revisions to Section 6.0 of the FEIR entitled Project Alternatives to include this added mitigation measure (reference Attachment 2). Consideration and Certification of a Final EI R CECA requires that the decision-making body certify that the following ci(Cumstances exist prior to approving a project: . The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; . The Final EIR was reviewed and considered by the decision-making body; and . The Final EIR represents the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis. If the FEIR is certified, the project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council along with a mitigation monitoring program and a submittal (jf CEQA required findings for each class one and class two impact per CEQA Section 15091. Certifying the FEIR for the project does not predispose the decision-making body to approve the project. --_._--~- .-- --_.._-~._-~._--_.__. .----.- CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 01-002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER) JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE 5 AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are presented for City Council consideration: 1. Find that the FEIR is in compliance with CEOA and adopt the resolution to certify the FEIR; or 2. Find that the FEIR is not in compliance with CEOA and do not certify the FEIR and direct staff to revise portions of the FEIR, re.circulate, and return to the City Council for consideration of the revised FEIR. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2003 2. Revised Section 6.0 of the FEIR entitled "Project Alternatives" - .~- ~_._---.._~----~~-~--~-- -- .... ~Uy 0/ ~ 8l~. P.O. Box 5SO 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . ,~Phone:(805) 47~5420 FAX: (805)473-0386 E-Man: aadty@arroYOIrande.org September 9, 2003 Mr. Richard DeBlauw . ATTACHMENT 3 DB&M Property, .LLC! 411 EI Carnino ~eal . . Arroyo Grande CA 93420 ." . . '- . , Subiect: Creekside. Center FEIR - CLJP01-001 and vrTM 2426; 415 East Branch Stteet, Arroyo Grande , .- ,',. " -', - Dear Mr. DeBlauw, Per our telephone conversation ,today, this letter confirms ouradmin.istrative agreement to amend the. prior contracts and to pay actual additional costs not to' exceed $4,950 for additional EIR professional consultant .. services as outlined below (see attached proposals from Associated Transportation Engineers and Robert Chattel for further information). To expedite completion and/or facilitate discussion of proposed work scope; staff is requesting these additional services without fo~mal cohtract amendment. ' ATE . Conduct A.M. Peak Hour Analyses: N/A . Accident analysis regarding safety of school children: . $800.00 .. . Revise trip distribution: $900.00 . Revise mitigations for cumulative impact to E. Branch Street $1,000.00 . Attend one (1) City Council meeting: $1,000.00 Subtotal: . $3,700.00 Chattel Architecture . Attend ohe (1) City Council meeting: $1,250.00 TOTAL: $4,950.00 Please note that.the City wfll be contracting directly with these EIR sub-consultants'instead of with Denise Duffy & Associates to avoid unnecessarY administrative c()sts. 'Staff is requesting preparation. of the above- '. referenced informatiohto be submitted to the City before oratthe September 23,2003 City Council meeting to enable Final EIR certification. If certification does not occur, the meeting will clarify appropriate work scope, schedule and additional costs required. . .. Please sign and returnthe enclosed copy of this letter to serve as an administrative addendum to the prior approved contract. ctor ~~Pt~l4?l#~ RicharKD ..lauw'for,DB&M Property, LLC . Attachment cc: Scott Schell, ATE Robert Cnattel, Chattel Architects Tim Carmel, City Attorney . Steve Adams, City Manager --~_._- -~------_.. ---- itiJ ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 83110 · (805) 687-4418 · FAX (805) 682-8509 Maynard Keith ~rankJin, P.E. Richard L. Pool, P.E. ATTACHMENT 4 ScottA. Schell, AlCP . September 15, 2003 02017L 11.WP Rob Strong/Kelly Heffernon City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFfiC ANAL YSIS FOR THE CREEKSIDE CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Pursuant to your request, Associated Transportation Engineers' (ATE) is submitting the following supplemental traffic analysis for the Creekside Center Mixed-Use Project EIR. It is understood that the supplemental analysis will be provided to the City Council for their consideration of the EIR on September 23, 2003. 1. A.M. Peak Hour Analysis. Because of the influence of traffic generated by the Paulding Middle School, the EIR included an analysis of the East Branch/Crown Hill intersection for both the AM. and P.M. peak hour periods. This intersection operates at LOS B during the AM. peak hour. The project add 10 vehicles to the intersection during the AM. peak hour period and the level of service would remain at LOS B. Potential impacts to the remaining roadways and intersections in the study area were assessed based on Average Daily Traffic (ADn and P.M. peak hour volumes. The focus of the traffic analysis during the P.M. peak hour period was chosen because traffic on East Branch Street in the Village area is about 30% lower during the AM. peak hour than during the P.M. peak hour. In addition, the project is expected to result in a net increase of 43 trips during the AM. period and 55 trips during the P.M. period. The AM. trip generation is about 22% lower than the P.M. trip generation. Engineering. Planning. Parking. Signal Systems. Impact Reports. Bikeways. Transit __>_.___n_ Rob Strong/Kelly Heffernon Page 2 September 15, 2003 Two counts taken on East Branch Street in the Village area show that traffic in the A.M. peak period is lower than during the P.M. peak period. The count taken in October 2002 shows a volume of 702 during the A.M. peak hour and 994 during the P.M. peak hour. This count shows the A.M. peak about 29% lower than the P.M. peak. The traffic count completed in June 2001 shows a volume of 662 during the A.M. peak hour and 903 during the P.M. peak hour. This count shows the A.M. peak about 27% lower than the P.M. peak. Table A summarizes the A.M. and P.M. peak hour count data collected on East Branch Street in the Village area west of the site. Table A East Branch Street Count Data Comparison . ..... .......... ,. . ,.... .... .. ...................... '. ....... ........ .-.. ... .................... ". ...... ....".... ..", ...................... .. ....... ........ .... ........-....................... .... .................'....,'...... ........ ;...;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.~.:.:.:-:.: :.: .:.' : : : ...... . '.:.". . :.;.: .:. .:.:.::::::::;.;::::::::::::::;:::::::::::....,....::::::::,.;::..:::::;:::::::........ ::/:: ::;::::::::::::;::;;:;::::::::~jl:I;::IC;::::j:::::::::: :::\: .............. ....... ........... .... !.....:::!/:I:::.!.:!!..::I~I\~.i!:..::,:!/:lil//.:;..ililjj::':!::!!I.I!!j:j:,I!".:!!!/iiHI:/:: October 2002 702 994 29% June 2001 662 902 27% a % P.M. Increase.... P.M. Volume/A.M. Volume. The lower volumes experienced during the A.M. peak hour period are attributed to the level of commercial activity in the Village area. As with other roadway corridors serving businesses, traffic volumes tend to be lower during the A.M. peak hour period because many of the adjacent business are not open during the A.M. peak hour period (the A.M. peak hour period is defined as the highest 1-hour period between 7:00 and 9:00 A.M.). 2. Safety of School Children. The traffic study completed for the project included an analysis of vehicular traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle flows at the East Branch/Crown Hill intersection during the morning peak period just prior to the start of the Paulding Middle School and during the afternoon peak period at the end of the school day. Figure 6 from the traffic report (copy attached) shows the number of pedestrians and bicyclists using the intersection during morning and afternoon periods. There was 1 pedestrian and no bicyclists crossing East Branch Street at Crown Hill Street during the A.M. peak period; and there were 2 pedestrians and no bicyclists crossing East Branch Street at Crown Hill Street during the P.M. peak hour. Most of the pedestrians and bicyclists were on the north side of East Branch Street and crossed Crown Hill Street when. traveling to/from the school (15 pedestrians and 5 bicyclists during the ~...,._--_.- ----- ,--- --- --- Rob Strong/Kelly Heffernon Page 3 September 15, 2003 A.M. peak period and 71 pedestrians and 5 bicyclists during the P.M. peak hour). The majority of students that walk and ride bikes to/from the Paulding Middle School from the areas. south of East Branch Street cross at the East Branch Street/Mason Street intersection, where there is a traffic signal and crosswalk to aid in their crossing. Observation of the intersection's operation during the peak hour periods found that vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists moved through the intersection in an orderly fashion and no problems were observed. Providing a painted crosswalk for crossing East Branch Street at Crown Hill is not recommended unless there are the additional traffic signal controls. Since the existing traffic and pedestrian volumes are below the minimum standards for traffic signal control, traffic signals would not be implemented by Caltrans. A more detailed review of safety at the intersection was undertaken based on the accident history. Accident reports are generated for each accident and .are reviewed and cataloged by jurisdictions so that roadway safety is monitored on an ongoing basis. Review of accident histories can be completed to determine if the rate of accidents for a particular facility is higher than average. Additional review of the frequency and types of accidents can also be undertaken if the rate of accidents is higher than average to determine if there is a pattern of accidents and if there are corrective measures that can be taken. East Branch Street is a state route (SR 227) in the Village area of the City. Caltrans provided accident records for 1999, 2000, and 2001 (copy attached). Table B compares the accident rate for the intersection to the statewide average for similar faci I ities. The Caltrans accident rates are calculated based on the number of accidents per million entering vehicles at the intersection. Table B East Branch/Crown Hill Accident Rates ___I 0.06 0.14 Rates ... Number of accident per million vehicles using the facility. As shown, the rate of accidents at the intersection is lower than the statewide average. There was 1 reported accident at the intersection during the 3-year period. The accident was a multi-vehicle accident and did not involve pedestrians or bicyclists. ---------------- --. ~--_._- -~--- . Rob Strong/Kelly Heffernon Page 4 September 15, 2003 3. Project Trip Distribution to Le Point Avenue. The trip distribution model developed by ATE and City staff for the project is based on existing travel patterns, knowledge of the City's land use development pattern, and the consideration of the most logical travel routes for drivers accessing the proposed development. The model shows 5% of the project's traffic using the le Point driveway, resulting in 30-40 new ADT on le Point Avenue. le Point Avenue east and west of Crown Terrace is a local residential street. Although le Point Avenue has the capacity to accommodate significantly higher volumes from a pure capacity standpoint, local streets that serve residential uses are intended to carry 2,000 to 4,000 ADT to maintain a reasonable quality of life for the residents. The Existing + Project volumes would be about 680 ADT east of Crown Terrace and about 50 ADT west of Crown Terrace. Thus, le Point has the capacity to accommodate project's traffic addition of 30-40 ADT. Revising the trip distribution model to direct 10% to 20% of traffic to the le Point driveway (two to four times that assumed) would result in 60-160 ADT being added to le Point Avenue. As such, the Existing + Project volumes would be 710 to 810 ADT east of Crown Terrace and 80 to 180 ADT west of Crown Terrace. These volumeswould be accommodated with the 2,000-4,000 ADT capacity. 4. Cut Through Traffic. The issue of potential "cut-through" traffic affecting le Point Avenue was analyzed since the project site has a connection on East Branch Street and on Le Point Avenue. In this case, the traffic that may cut-through the site would be that traveling between East Branch Street and le Point Avenue east of Crown Terrace. The primary route is Crown Terrace and Crown Hill between the two end points. Any cut-through traffic would reduce volumes on Crown Terrace and Crown Hill, while increasing volumes on Le Point Avenue west of Crown Terrace. Cut-through traffic occurs when the travel time on the primary route is longer than the travel time for the cut-through route. A travel time model was developed to compare the travel times for the two routes. The model is based on the travel speeds on the two routes and includes the additional time for turning at intersections. There is very little friction along the primary route, with minor delays for turning at intersections. The travel speed on Crown Terrace and Crown Hill is :1:25 MPH. The travel time for the primary route is calculated at 26.6 seconds. There is also very little friction along the secondary route (cutting through the site), with minor delays for turning to/from East Branch Street at the site's driveway. The travel speed within the site's parking lot is estimated at 15 MPH. The travel time for the secondary route is calculated at 32.6 seconds. Thus, there would be no time saved by cutting through the site. --------------- --~------ ---.-- -~ - ~--_._---------"~ Rob Strong/Kelly Heffernon Page 5 September 1 5, 2003 There is a brief time period from 7:30-7:45 A.M. just prior to the 7:50 A.M. start time at the Paulding Middle School when traffic peaks at the East Branch Street/Crown Hill intersection. Similarly, a short peak of traffic occurs in the afternoon when school is let out of the school. The traffic observations found that the left-turn queue for eastbound East Branch Street to northbound Crown Hill ranged from 2-5 vehicles during the A.M. period and the southbound Crown Hill to westbound East Branch , .. queue ranged from 4-10 vehicles during the afternoon period at the end of the school day. It may be attractive to cut through the site during these short peaks. It is recommended that the traffic patterns be monitored and that traffic calming devices be considered for the on-site parking and circulation system should traffic begin to cut through the site. Devices such as speed bumps, speed humps, traffic chokers, etc. could be implemented to discourage traffic from cutting through the site. 5. Cumulative & Buildout Traffic Operations on East Branch Street. The traffic study found that East Branch St~eet would operate at LOS C or better with Cumulative + Project traffic, meeting the City's level of service performance standard. The traffic study also cited a recent report completed for the Village Center that found that East Branch Street would degrade to LOS D at buildout. Buildout assumes full development of the City's land use plan. The buildout level of service was noted in the traffic report for the Creekside Center Mixed-Use Project EIR for informational purposes. LOS D will occur with or without the project's traffic addition and is not caused by the project. Although no specific improvements have been identified or adopted for East Branch Street that would provide LOS C at buildout, the project would incrementally add to the future volumes and should be required to contribute to future improvements via the City traffic fee program. Since East Branch Street is a state route, a Project Study Report will be required when the City begins to study the long-term improvement solutions that will be required to accommodate the buildout traffic volumes. The Project Study Report is the first step in the Caltrans long-range planning process for assessing major modifications to facilities that are part of the state highway system. Project Study Reports include 20- year traffic volume forecasts and assessment of project alternatives - such as roadway widenings, intersection modifications, turning lanes, by-passes, etcetera. ..- .._~---~ --- -------- . Rob Strong/Kelly Heffernon Page 6 September 15, 2003 This concludes our supplemental traffic analysis for the Creekside Center Mixed-Use Project EIR. Please call if you have questions or need additional information. Associated Transportation Engineers ,. d~ .A- ~ By: cott A. Schell, AICP Vice President SAS/DLD I attachments I copy with attachments: Alison Imamura, Denise Duffy Associates ~----- --- -----------~--- ~~~~ -----------_._--,-~---,---- - \ lJ cJ') ~r--.N ~ - ~ @CO ::> 0 ~ cJ') - O~rt'I U. UJ \ C0- G cJ') ~ ~OO - v eCO cJ') o .... 0 UJ Co- ~ cJ') ~lnr--. - ~ Bco cJ') :;> Oln.... 02 UJ....r--. Co- ~/.. cJ') ~oo cJ') \;: - ~ tf') e: 3 lJ Z- OON 0 UJ ;> - C0- t; ln 0 ~ - - ~. ')( .... rt'I co UJ ." .' 0 u.J ZOON I I _ ln 0 ~ I- .~ ~ , r--..... ~ o .~ CZ 020 t; \ CZ .0 UJ UJ <( - 0 Co- 2 UJ Co- ~ ,. ::> 0 ~ ~ , UJ Co- \. .. * \ ~ \', "2- ~ ~./ \ t: rJ) () z \' - .. ~ uJ \1) ca >< Z____~ U r.FI \J,J \,~ 9 '0 3 z -. _ _.-1.1.0. r_ Mbced use PrOject E\R . 1"".Au '\8 ... ... ~~ '"' '" .... ... ... III r- &II I .... .... ... ... ~ ~ ... r- \01 . - : . . 1'1 '" '" ... i ~ CI )of \0 CI\ '" ... .... 0 III CD C't. .0 ~ + o. ... '" ~ ~ .... ..... C'I ell ~ 110 . . . g, .. . ... ... '" " ~iIC~... " " ... ... ... 0 ~ '"' .... 0 0 0 O. 0 ~ f'I C't f'I fI:I \iOI 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ tJ . . .. tJ jI; ~UI ID ... \0 CI .... f"- ell CD fiI ~ ~ .... CO CD '\11 '" CI\ r- . . . . . '. i~ .", f"- .... N ... ~)ofCl\ III ID \SI CO ID \SI ID CJ\ ~ "} i. oil: :. ~ 0 .... CI ~ \II '" \II ((I' e . ... ... ... \0 ~.' ~ ~ CI CI CO 0 0 0 0 CO 0 CO CO 0 0 0 0 CO. ~ .iIk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '0 C). 0. I ... + -+ + + + ~ g ~ CO! 0 r- \II III .... ('I CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \II .... r: ~il~ all r- III \II '" ... .... .... ... ... ... ~ ':210 ~ 0 ... 0'. 00'" 0 '"' f"- 0 0 C ~ ~ ... CII . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. i'" ..,. .... ... ...... ... '" ... ... .... ... ~... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ~~""ClCI\O ",0 \0 CI ~ CI 0 0 .... 0 '"' 0 .... 0 CD ~ g, a '" ... \ ~. ~ ~ ~ 0 0 yo!. '"' '" ('I ... .~. ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 . ~ $ . .fiI ':210 'f~CI)of c r- III '" f'I ... CI\ ('I 0 ,fiI ~.~~ '" '"' ('t ... ., ~fI:I " i ... \It ",... '"' ... 0 0 '"' r- III '" III +'" ... CI\ Q \iOI :: :: '. ia ",,"':'" .... -,..4 0 0 .... t":- III ... iG jI; a :: ... CI\ :: . 110 ,. 0 , ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 , fa> "-, ~ 0 CI\ r- r- ... tn,'" ..... CI\ ... r- ('t III CI '" ... CI\ CI\ '"' CI\ ... CI\ ('t CI\ '" '" I I :: :: :: :: -= :: t ... - . g,Cllr--'" _..._r--I"'- ...."'- _...- 'f' ~~~~e~ e. ~ e ~ e. ~ e. -= e. 9. e. :: e-:a E. ~{ i i i i i. i i i i , . ; ~. ... .. ... ... \D ... ... \It 0 '" '" ....,'"' .... ,",.'" C'I .... >t ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... )of c;'. ~ '"' '"' ,",~,",CI\""CI\,",CI\"'o'" . . I I .... I ... I .... ' \0 ' :~'. ~ ~ CII ~ ~ ~\~.~.~.~~. ... 01 ... ... ... ..... '" .... .... .... . SIt ~ a: I . ' I CI ' CI ' 0 ' C I ... ... ... ... 0'" 0'" 0...0'" )of CI ~ CI CI 0 0 CI CI 0 C 0 CI ~ CI t. ~ (01 ... :a:: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...t tJ CII '" .t...._.s.s.s.s.. 1" ,e) . "CII I III' ' ' ' . " '= " )of " . " " "CII" III ('I CII C"I 111 ". t ~.~ 111 tJ ... to< ~~~,,~\~ ~ ~ ~ - I fiI ~ ,110 I ..' I 0 . 0 . ::! ,.::! · 1 ': ~ .i. · ...~.!:!.~., . '" CI\ ti CI\. G\ i: CI\ CI\ (01 CI\ CI\ Q III . I 0 ... 0 0 0 ;i~i;i~~ ... \0 '" .... ... z ... ... .... In ~ .......0.......'" . '"' . ... . ('I . CI , 0 0 0 CI 0 CI o . c . CI . CI . , . )of o 0 CI CI ". ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ':':'. t S ... S ~s.s.s.s.s~s.s: ..!f.-' -....~, I 111 0 a:\ o 111 0 111 CI CII CI CII CI III CO 111 0 111 0 o 0 CI 0 CI 0 CI c ..... 0 CI 0 0 CI 0 CI 0 ' r- I f"- I r- ' I'" ' r- I r · r- ' f"- I r- " 1ft COt eft " .... " III " III C'I III " '" ('t III C'I C'I 0 C'I o ~ 0 " 0 C'I 0 C'I 0 C'I 0 C'I 0 ('I 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,. " ~-----------------/- . ----------- ,....-.~-,.-,,,.,--"'-- MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: ~ KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, ITEM 9.b. FINAL EIR - CREEKSIDE CENTER DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Attached you will find an amended Resolution for the Creekside Center Project. The additional language has been highlighted on the first page and includes Exhibit A that revises Alternative 2 of Section 6.0 in the FEIR entitled "Project Alternatives". c: City Manager City Attorney -<.,.'"'- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKING FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-001 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 01-002 (CREEKSIDE CENTER PROJECT) WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for Conditional Use Permit 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-002 (CUP 01-001 and VTTM 01-002, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), was prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (the "Consultant") for the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter the" CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse and to those public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and the comments of such persons and agencies were sought; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested and to incorporate comments received and the City's response to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande for review and consideration; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 6,2003 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, whereby and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 10, 2003 and September 23, 2003 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, whereby and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and ,....- RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: Section 1. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution. Section 2. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The Planning Commission further finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines. On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2003. ~.','.8,"_ RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELL Y WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESI DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY ""'- EXHIBIT A 6.0 Project Alternatives Ability to Meet Project Objectives While the No Project Alternative is environmentally ,superior to the proposed project, it does not meet any of the objectives of the project. The blighted condition of the property would stay the same, and the existing non-confor~ing uses would not be removed. With this alternative, Tally Ho Creek would not undergo restoration, and there would be no addition of pedestrian and visitor-serving uses. Alternative 2: Loomis Residenc~ Retained in Existing Location Description This alternative retains the potentially significant main Loomis residence and the magnolia tree in their precise existing locations. The house and tree would also maintain their current relationship to the origin::1I 1910 existinQ grain warehouse building envelope and to East Branch I Street. This alternative also proposes a different arrangement of new buildings in order to provide adequate parking and still meet the project objectives for the addition of needed commercial and office uses. The proposed site plc:m for Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 6-1. Environmental Impacts This alternative allows for the retention of the potential historic resource on the site (and in its present location), thus eliminating the significant unavoidable impacts. As stated in Table 6-1, impacts to cultural resources would be less-than-siqnificant with implementation of mitigation measures 4.4-A~~ 4.4-B2, and the followinQ additional mitiqation measure for desiQn review: tho imp3cts to cultur31 resourcos would be legg th3n E:ignific3nt. . 4.4- The Communit Develo ment Director shall ensure the rain warehouse is reviewed ~ throuqh desiqn development and construction documents phases for conformance with ~~ the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines. As part of their established responsibilities, the Architectural Advisory Committee shall conduct their own, parallel review for consistency with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines. Alternatively, if the City did not have these desiqn review mechanisms in place, in conjunction with qualified Architectural Advisory Committee members to review the project, or if the Community Development Director requires additional professional review, the City shall enqaqe an outside preservation architect meetinQ the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in historic architecture to review the rehabilitation of the qrain warehouse for consistency with the Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines. No buildinQ permit for the alternative shall be issued until the final desiqn for the qrain warehouse has been reviewed and found to be consistent with Secretary's Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines in accordance with the process described above. All other identified significant impacts for the proposed project would remain with implementation of this alternative; however, the project density would be slightly reduced, therefore, impacts would be incrementally reduced. It is anticipated that all mitigation measures required for the proposed project would also be necessary for this project to reduce environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. Denise Duffy & Associates 6-7 Creekside Center Project Draft EIR -- 6.0 Project Alternatives . Ability to Meet Project Objectives i , Alternative 2 involves the reconfiguration of the proposed new buildings compared to the proposed project. This adjustment would cause the reduction of available parking spaces from 1 09 (proposed project) to 80. The Village Core district requires one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area of commercial or office building space. Using this calculation, Alternative 2 would. only allow a maximum of 24,000 square feet, which is a reduction of approximately 25% from the proposed project. According to the. City's Community Development . Department, this differential is sufficient in magnitude to justify potential concerns of economic feasibility. In addition, the parking spaces allowed by the configuration of buildings proposed in Alternative 2 would be particularly inconvenient for Buildings A and C. See letter from Rob Strong, Community Development Director, in Appendix I for more detail on this conclusion. Alternative 2 would still me.et the project objectives, though possibly not to the same extent as the proposed project due to the necessary reduction in sqiJare footage of commercial and office space. Also, this reducti~n in scale could cause the project to be economically infeasible. . :.. Creekside Center Project 6-8 Denise Duffy & Associates Draft EIR CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE I.c. PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande will conduct separate Public Hearings on the following proposals: CASE NOS. General Plan Amendment Case No. 03-002, General Plan Amendment Case No. 03-003 and DeveloplT)ent Code Amendment Case No. 03-005 APPLICANT: City of Arroyo Grande LOCATION: See Map Exhibits" A" and "B" PROPOSALS: I. General Plan Amendment Case No. 03-002 - a proposed resolution to: i. Amend the 2001 General Plan Land Use Map, redesignating the land use of the following four (4) parcels: a. Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 007-621-023, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue between Pacific Coast Railway Place and Traffic .Way, consisting of approximately 7.4 acres, owned by Dorfman Homes Inc., current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed back to Agriculture; b. A portion of APN 007-621-073, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue between Pacific Coast Railway Place and Traffic Way, consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, owned by Dorfman Homes Inc., current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned" Development proposed to be changed back to Agriculture; c. APN 007-621 ;,,001, 1.6 acres, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue near Pacific Coast Railway Place, owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association, current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed back to Agriculture; d. APN 007-761-022, approximately 4.9 acres, located at 1273 Branch Mill Road, owned by Bruce Vanderveen, current land use designation Single Family Residential - Low Density proposed to be changed back to Agriculture. ii. The resolution for GPA 03-002 also includes an amendment deleting Policy Statement LU5-13 of the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element, consistent with the proposed land use redesignations. iii. The resolution for GPA 03-002 also revises the 2001 General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and" Open Space Element, Implementation Policy AG 1-4.2 to indicate that mitigation for Iqss of prime farmland soils include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of up to 2: 1 instead of a ratio of 1: 1, with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use. II. General Plan Amendment Case No. 03-003 - a proposed resolution to create an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and an Agricultural Enterprise Program.. . III. Development Code Amendment Case No. 03-005 - a proposed ordinance amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Chapters 16.20, 16.24 and 16.28, creating an Agricultural" Buffer Overlay. District, establishing expanded findings for rezoning and subdivision applications, modifying allowable uses and standards in Agricultural Districts and establishing mitigation" requirements for conversion of agriculturally zoned land. L_.____~.._. ---. - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the proposals are within the scope of the Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update because no new environmental effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required, pursuant to Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council will consider the proposed General Plan Amendments and Development Code Amendment that were initiated by Resolution No. 3699 at the July 22, 2003 City Council public hearing to implement recommendations from a recent report on the ConseNation of Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande. These items have been continued from the Planning Commission Hearing on August 19, 2003 and the City Council Hearing on August 26, 2003. Any person affected or concerned by these City initiated proposals may submit written comments to the Community Development Department at 214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) before the Planning Commission or City Council hearings, or appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the project and the environmental determination at the time of hearing. THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MAY APPLY ANY ORDINANCES, POLICIES. OR STANDARDS ENACTED OR INSTITUTED AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS HEREIN REFERENCED, ON TENTATIVE TRACT OR PARCEL MAPS WITH APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT. CODE SECTION 66474.2, IF SAID ORDINANCES, POLICIES, OR STANDARDS ARE IN EFFECT ON THE DATE THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVES OR DISAPPROVES SUCH TENTATIVE TRACT OR PARCEL MAPS. IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR ANY COURT TO INVALIDATE THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR-WHICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. Time, Date, and Subject of Hearings - All Hearings will be held at the Arroyo Grande City Council Chamber, 215.E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California: PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16,2003 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIAL MEETING AT 6:00 P.M. CASE NO. 03-002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDA V, SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AT 7:00 P.M.. CASE NO. OJ.002 PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAV; OCTOBER 7, 2003 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIAL MEETING AT 6:00 P.M. CASE NO. 03-002 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25,2003 GENERAl,. PLAN AMENDMENT AT 7:00 P.M. CASE NO. 03-002 AND DEVELOPMENT CODe AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-005 ( fruO'1tL- more, Director of Administrative Servicesl Deputy City Clerk Publish 1T, 1/8 page, Friday, September 5, 2003 ,---....- - --~-~-- ..---- .. Proposed Redesignation CJ City Units III Agriculture Par~ls CJ Parrels o . 0.5 1 1.5 2 Mles I I . Parcels Proposed to be . Designated as "Agriculture" -,.-...~- c=J Oty Units III Agrirolture Parcels .. County Agriculture Areas D Buffer D Buffer I . I Parcels 0 0.5 1 . 1.5 2.Mles I I . Proposed tOO foot . Agricultural Buffer Overlay District MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03.002; AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR FOUR PROPERTIES TO AGRICULTURE AND MODIFICATION OF LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE ELeMENT, AND. AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TO REVISE IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR MITIGATION OF CONVERTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: 1) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment 03-002 amending the land use map to change the land use .designation of four parcels to Agriculture, modification of language in the Land Use Element; and amending the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element to revise implementation policy for mitigation of converted agricultural lands, as recommended by the Planning Commission. \ 2) Continue General Plan Amendment 03-003 and Development Code Amendment 03-005 to November 25, 2003. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: Background On August 26,2003, the City Council considered a draft resolution for the first series of actions based on Planning Commission recommendations from the Report on the ConseTVation of Agricultural Resources in the City of AffOYO Grande (Agricultural Report) and initiated by Resolution No. 3699 (please see staff report in Attachment 1). The draft resolution included a General Plan Amendment to change back to Agriculture the General Plan designation of four properties containing prime farmland soils that are currently zoned Agriculture (See map, Attachment 1), a revision to Land Use Element Policy Statement LU5-13 regarding parcels on Cherry Avenue consistent with the 09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 B 9/19/03 CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 10 proposed land use redesignations, and a revision to the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Policy AG 1-4.2 to indicate a mitigation ratio of at least 1:1 and up to 2:1 for loss of prime farmland soils. The Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendations of August 19, but no action was taken on the draft resolution. The Council continued its public hearing to September 23, 2003 and requested that staff review alternatives with the Planning Commission prior to the continued hearing. The Planning Commission Recommendations: On August 19, 2003 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 03-002 and adopted Resolution 03-1899 by a 3-2 vote, recommending that all four parcels be redesignated Agriculture, General Plan policy LU5-13 be deleted and implementation policy Ag 1-4.2 be modified. The Commission heard. the item again on September 16, 2003 to consider additional information and alternatives pertaining to the individual properties proposed to be redesignated to Agriculture (please see the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission in Attachment 2). After hearing testimony by the public, and after further discussion and deliberation, the Commission voted again on Resolution 03-1899, which was reaffirmed by the same 3-2 vote (Attachment 3). Consistent with their recommendation, changes were made to General Plan policies LU5-13 or Ag 1-4.2. Additionally, no proposed changes to other General Plan policies not otherwise initiated by Resolution 3699 were proposed for consideration at this time. Proposed Land Use Redesi~mation Analysis The following four properties proposed for redesignation are discussed in Table 1. S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT\CITY_COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 B.doc 9/19/03 ---_.~---_._------- - -~- - ~---- TABlE 1 Loc8IIon Site ch.-.ctlerl.uc.l PatenII8I to Perpetullle .... Allowed u-. PrIoItCunent/PropoHd Alternatives or Frlllllllenblllon of AgrIcullur81 Zoning l8ndaIMlIIIIaIIOn . Assessors ParoeI Number (APN) Flat, Prime (Class II) In "llr1cu11u181 use, surrounded The 1981 ZonIng Map shows aI AgrIcuIIInI It Is Impor1ant to note that l1WIy 007-621.023, gen8l8lly located by 8 mobIe home park. lingle hmlly reskIentI8I, propeItIes ZIXI8CI RA - Resldenti8l . altemallYes wwe considered on the southerly side of E. Cherry chun:h end low density residential. Agriculture. The Intent of the RA district was during the 19110 end 2001 Avenue betwMn Pacific Coast to.pennIt mbIed fIIrm end residenIIIII uses'. General Plan updsles. R8IIwBy Place and TraIIIc Welt. If parcels 1 end 2 are COIIVMed to non- agricuItuIaI One single -fwnIIy dw8IIng lidding lite AlternatIves to the JHOPOS8d consisting c1 1Ippi<WI,oaieIy 7.4 designation it should be in conjunction with the (40,000 sq. It) was 8IIowed In the RA dlsbict. General Plan redesignIIIion to 8CI8S. current land use COIMInIIon c1 pan:eI 3. Other uses Included those sImIIa- to the Agrtcuaure Include the following: designaIIon MIxed UseIPtanned current AgrIcuIure district acept for 1. '--land use Development JHOPOS8d 10 be Less then Iignillc8ht potentI8I to preclpitllte fwther ccrnmen:I8I dillies or I8rgtHcaIe ccrnmen:I8I deslgllllllon as MU-PD changed to AgrIcuIlure; fragmeliIIItioI, or COIMIISIon c1 any other agricuItunII IIIIeskx:k. In 1989 the prqIIIIty _ ZIXI8CI with IIICIstIng land use lands due to aI other parcels 8UITOUIICIIng are 'AgIIcuIIuI8. . policy statement LU5-13 A patIon c1 APN 007-621-073. alNady converted. In place (_ text g8ll8l8lly located on the ~ If the General Plan Is not MI8IICIed to section on LU5-13 side c1 E. Cheay Awnue ConversIon IIItematiYes are dIIcussed In the redesIgnIIIe propeItIes to Agriculture. then below table); betwMn PacIfIc CQBSt RaIIw8y PRlgrwn EIR for the 2OO1Genera1 Plan pgs. ElR-61- the MunIcipIII Code must be 811*1ded, with 2. '--land use Place end TnIIIic WrIt. conIisting 54 end Appendix E. A project- specllc ElR tiered 8I1YiIonmenIIiIIWI8w, 10 nIIIIct the ament deslgllllllon In place end c1 appIQICirnIIUIy 2.8 acres, han the prognmI ElR would be required for GenenII Plan desIgIIIIIIon 01 MU-PD. The ImeIICI LU5-13 by current land use designation COIMIISIon end 8 ~0I OverrIding IIIIcIIwd .... III8Y IIIcIude IingIe-fImIy adding the YisIar Mixed UseIPIanned DeYeIopment ConsIcIenItIana end IIndIngs required by the resIdenIIIII, any IIIoMbIe egIIcuItunII uses seMng use I8IbIction JHOPOS8d to be changed to Munlclplll Code end by Resolution 3699 must be IncIucIng IIgIIcuItuIIII seMces andfar fIIrm as pIOpOI8d In the.. Agri;ulure; considered. MItigIIIon coukI be OIHfte, or cIf-lite supples, IIUIHIIes or other uses 8IIowed or section on LU5-13 by placing an egrIcuIunII ~ ~OII ccndlllonaly IIIowed In the HigIMBy below table; "llrlcuitunllland In or pracIrnID to the CIty or !lIlY an CcmmeII:III district or pIOpOI8d TraIIIc Welt 3. '--land ... in Ueu fee 10 purd18se such ..emem 1118 raIIc c1 Mixed Use district. designation as MU-PD at least 1:11111d up to 2:1. and ImeIICI LU5-13 by Including 'end PUD or rnuitf.IImIy residentW in the second ___ to IacIitIIIe mbIed reskIentiIII with mixed cornmen:iaI....: 4. Change land ... desIgIIIIIIon for the patIon c1 the parcels that do not fIont TnIIIc Welt, to 8 comblnllllon c1 PUD Slngle-{amly and MuIII-FInIy Res1dant181 cIesIgnaIIDns without minimum let size. 5. Change land use desIgIIIIIIon for the pcrIIons c1 parcels thIt do not fIont TraIIIc WIlt .. to 8IngIe-fIImIIy : ReskIentIaI-medkm densIy willi or wIII1cut II min/nun let Iize 01 55OO....ft. APN 007-621-001, 1.6 acres, Flat, Prime (Class II ) willi liliiii_ c1 non-prfme Property was prWouIIy -.eel ResIdanIIIII- It Is ~.Io note that many generally located 011 the ~ sells, not fmned, developed with one quail public AgrIcuIIure (RA) untI19111. See the IIItematiYes wwe CICIIIIIdenId side c1 E. Cherry Awnue ~ ccmrnon bIcIg. end -.cIY IIInIctIns, adjoins dIscuIsIon 011 the Intent end 8IIowed uses for during the 19110 end 2001 o..aI PacIfic CQBSt R8IIwBy Place, agrIc:IAnI pan:eI (Par1:eIs 1 end 211bcM1) owned the RAdIstIIct for parcels 1 end 2 above. Plan updItBS. ~ InaIude ament land ... deIignaIIon by Mr. DoIfnBn, lingle family resIdenIIIII, c:hun:h those for parcels 1 and 211bwe MIxed UselPtanned DIMIIcpment and low cIenIity reskIentIII. If the pqIeIty Is not recIesIgnIIIed to &: pIOpOI8d to be changed to AgrIcuIIure, the MunIcIpal Code wi! be 6. Designate the pan:elas Agriculture; If COIIVMed to non-egricuIunII district, it would amended with ~ IWI8wto Community FecIIIy end impect the ~ agr1cu1ur81 parcels 1 and 2. l8ZICIIIe the prqIIIIty 10 MIxed Use Planned ImeIICI policy ~ ConversIon IIItemIIIIves are discussed In the DweIcpment. See dIscusaIon for parcels 1 LU5-13 to Include PRIg...... EIR for the 2OO1Genen11 Plan pgs. EIR-61- .-.d 2 above. CCIII1IIU1Ity fIIcIIIIIes; 54 and AppencIbc E. A project speclllc ElR tiered 7. DesIgnate the pan:elas han the PnIgnm EIR would be required for Community Fedlly end COIMInIIon. Slnc:e agrIcuIural COIMInIIon cannat be ImeIICI pcIIc:y staten.nt rnIIIgated on4e, 8 SIatement c1 0verricIng LU5-13 to IIIICIude thIe ConsIcIenItIana and allIndIngs reqWed by the property. Munlclplll Cede and by RescI,*-, 3699 must be considered. MiIIgdon would require 811 0<<- agricultural CCIIII8MIIIon _ent 011 other egricultunJlland In or pIUICirnIIIe 10 the City or !lIlY an In Ueu fee to purd18se such ...".m It 8 raIIc c1 It.... 1:1 end up to 2:1. SIIIIf beIIwes 8 100 ft. buffer coukI be a..cc".~oOcIIad 011 the IIpp/tIIdmIIte 146ft. wide pan:eI by II ... plan placing 811)' resJdentIaI stNc:tures along the ...... edge 01 the · DIOII8ItY. . APN 007-761.022, appraxImsteIy Flat, Prime (Class II), notfmned, ~~ with The prqIIIItywas -.eel .AgrIcuIture" In ~ to the pIOpOI8d 4.9 8CI8S, Iccated It 1273 8nInch one nISkIence, sImIUIIded by single family 1988. .pnlp8ltylsnot~1o General Plan redBSIgIIIIIIon to MIll Read. current lend use residential, Residential SubuIbBn County land. and . AgrIcuIIure then the MunIcipIII Code wII be AgrIcuIIure IIIcIude the~: designation Single Femity Agrtculural zoned land (on two skies). 8II*Ided with envIIanmenIIII nMew 10 1. '--land ... Resldenllal- Low Density rezICII18 the prqIIIIty 10 RuralI8IIdenIIaI with designation as SIng. pIOpOI8d to be changed to If converted to ncn-agrIcuIuraI deslgnallon, 8 resldenllal deveIcpment IIIowed It . densIy family ResIdentiaI-Lcw Agricullure. ~ent could be set for actacent N3 parcels and 0I1unJ1acre. . Density, wi. lkeIy precIpIIte requests fer COIMIISIon c1 2. Revise land use adjacent and pnIOCimIIte agricultural land (as deslgnallon 10 SIngle- demcnsllllted by testtmcny at the 8l2III03 cay family ResIdenIIaI-Lcw- Ccunc:I '-Ing and requests for redeslgnation Medi..... DensIy; during the 2001 General Plan updlte). 3. Revise land use deslgllllllon 10 SIng. ~ for this pan:elwwe not reviewed as part family Residential- 01 the ProgIIIIn EIR fer the 2001 General Plan MedIum DensIty. upd&te and any NZDIIIng pnIpOI8I for COIMIISIon would require 8 project-epeclllc EIR and consIderaIIon c1 tIndIngs end II Statement 01 0wIIIIdIng ConsidenIIIons. Nt tkIdIngs reqWed by the MunIcipIII Code and by RescIuIIon 3699 must be met. r.tIIgItIon coukI be on4e andfar cII'sIte and would Include. minimum 100 ft. agricultural bulrer and placing an agricuIuraI~-.-t 011 other agricultural land In or pracIrnID 10 the CIty or !lIlY an In'" fee to ~ such--.t It. raIIo c1 It.... 1:1 end "'10 2:1. 2 -.----- - ------------..-.---- ---..---- CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 4 OF 10 Land Use Element Policy Statement LU5-13 The existing policy statement LU5-13 is proposed to be deleted, consistent with the recommendation for Agricultural designation for three of the four parcels: "The. 14+acre area southeast of Traffic Way and E. Cherry Avenue is designated as 'Mixed Use, Planned Development' (MU-PD), including residential, agriculture related, and commercial components. The residential planned development component may include single-family residential development with lot sizes of 5,500 square feet or more. The agricultural related component may include organic farms, teaching farms, or similar specialty uses (not involving pesticide applications). The commercial component of the Mixed Use, Planned Development may include agricultural services and/or farm supplies, nursery, or other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the Mixed Use district fronting on Traffic Way." If these three parcels are not redesignated Agriculture, alternatives to amend this policy statement as part of the General Plan amendment are discussed in Table 1. If desired by the City Council, an additional text amendment may be considered by insertion of the following sentence at the end of the policy statement for consistency wit... the proposed Traffic Way Mixed Use (TMU) zoning district and proposed overlay district 2.11 which encourages a visitor-serving use on the portions of the parcels that front Traffic Way: "For the portions of the properties that front Traffic Way, uses shall be those that facilitate visitor services, such as a motel, restaurant, and/or Agricultural product sales" (similar to Avila Barn). Other Related 2001 General Plan Obiectives and policies The City Council can propose clarifications to the following General Plan objective and policy statements related to the conservation or conversion of each partel and outline similarities and differences that distinguish urban versus agricultural land use potential. The proposed redesignation of land use for each of the four parcels involves consideration of all applicable General Plan Policies. Policy Ag 1-4.3 includes the explanation that "The City's aim shall be to maintain contiguity of Ag and C/OS parcels and avoid fragmentation of area having prime farmland soils and that "The City shall avoid development of prime farmland soil areas by directing growth potential to more suitable (urban) locations." This policy also clarifies that "Only after the imposition of available mitigation and cQnsideration of alternatives to avoid the proposed (conversion) action, may the City COuncil approve development on prime farmland soils subject to overriding considerations as permitted by California Government Code (CEQA) Section 15093." Objective Ag 3 provides "Current acreage of agricultural uses within Arroyo Grande's (Planning) Area of Environmental 'Concern shall be maintained." Policy Ag 3-3 S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT\CITY_COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 B.doc 9/19/03 - _._~~--- --------- -- CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03..Q02 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 5 OF 10 emphasizes that "...prime Agriculture areas shall have the highest priority from conversion to urban uses..." (In comparison with alternatives involving non-prime). Policy Ag 3-14 provides that the City "Consider reclassification of an Ag parcel (or contiguous set of parcels), only if and when the parcel or set of such parcels is less than minimum size (e.g. legally non-conforming as to area) and is isolated from other agricultural uses." Policy Ag 3-14.2 explains: "Isolated shall refer to a parcel or set of parcels being predominantly separated from other nearby Agriculture areas or predominantly surrounded by existing non-agricultural uses, such that it lacks contiguity with or connection to other areas of existing or potential agricultural use." These descriptions were reflecting and distinguishing the potential conversion of agricuttural parcels adjoining East Cherry Avenue near Traffic Way from other parcels or sets of parcels that are contiguous or connected with larger agricultural use areas. In this regard, the set of parcels located north and east of the Greenwood tract on outer Branch Mill Road (including APN 007-761-022) are clearly distinguishable from those three located south of East Cherry Avenue near Traffic Way in that they are not "isolated." In fact the parcels on Branch Mill Road are located in what is generally considered a strategic agricultural area on the City's rural fringe, while the parcels on East Cherry are located in close proximity to the City's urban core. Policy Ag 3-14.2 specifically states: "In cases considered for conversion, the parcels shall be adequately served by appropriate infrastructure and any development application shall be subject to environmental analysis as referenced in AOSCE policy Ag 1-4." This policy was intended to reinforce the requirements of CEQA that "consider the loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact," and therefore mandate the preparation of an EIR. Table 2 summarizes the current water, sewer, drainage and road "infrastructure" available to each parcel. The City Council should evaluate the similarities and differences evident in Table 2 regarding City infrastructure and consider probable cumulative impact on additional Agriculture conversions prior to recommending redesignations. Parcel 1 adequate ~ot adequate. adequate Not adequate; Dependent upon Fair requires on-site Oaks upgrade (priority retention and/or #1 (high) according to off-site CIP) improvements. S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT\CITY_COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 a.doc 9/19/03 CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 6 OF 10 Parcel 2 adequate Not adequate. Adequate if used Not adequate; Dependent upon Fair in conjunction with requires on-site Oaks upgrade (priority Parcel 1 retention and/or #1 (high) according to off-site CIP) improvements. Parcel 3 adequate Not adequate. adequate Not adequate; Dependent upon Fair requires on-site Oaks upgrade (priority retention and/or #1 (high) according to off-site CIP) improvements. Parcel 4 Existing 4" watermain Not adequate Potentially Not adequate; and fireflow not currently (dependent in part on adequate. If site requires on-site adequate (dependent in Lift Station #3 upgrade specific retention and/or part on Coach Road and - priority #3(low) and development off-site East Cherry Extension Huasna Rd -prority #2 access from improvements. upgrades - priority #1 and Fair Oaks upgrade adjacent (high) to 8" watermains -priority #1 upgrade. subdivision and according to CIP) according to CIP) length of potential cul-de-sac. Policy Ag 3-15 provides: "Redesignation requests shall avoid leapfrogging of parcels in agricultural use that would result in other Ag parcels being widowed, including uses within County jurisdiction as well as uses within (the) City." Any reduction is considered significant, but if it creates or contributes to additional conversions, isolation or widowing of other prime farmland soils areas, it is cumulatively more substantial. Policy Ag 5-3 states: "Land use conversions shall not adversely affect existing or potential agriculture production on adjacent lands designated Ag." The intent of this policy statement distinguishes between the conversion of the few parcels described as isolated or widowed and the many parcels which compose the much larger non-isoJated Agriculture designated areas of prime farmland soils. Aariculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Poliqy AG 1-4.2 Another recommendation of the Agricultural Report is to revise the 2001 General Plan mitigation policy described in Ag1-4.2 to require permanent protection in the form of dedication of a perpetual agricultural conservation easement or other effective mechanism, for conversion of areas having prime farmland soils at a ratio of "at least 1 : 1 and up to 2: 1" (instead of 1: 1) with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural uses. This revision would more effectively implement Ag1-4 to conserve the remaining prime farmland areas within the City and provide for adequate mitigation for loss due to development. The forthcoming ordinance to implement this policy will include prioritization of lands to be permanently protected through mitigation, focusing on lands within the City, and secondarily, on lands adjacent to or in the Urban Area and thirdly within the City's Area of Environmental Concern. Other mitigation that will be considered in forthcoming Municipal Code Amendments include a buffer overlay district which would be intended primarily as. an extension of the S:\COMMUNITY _DEVELOPMENT\CITY _COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 B.doc 9/19/03 --'- CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03..Q02 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 7 OF 10 Right-To-Farm ordinance. The intent of the Overlay district would be to provide notice for current and future owners adjacent to agriculturally zoned land that changes in use prohibit additional residential use within one-hundred feet of these lands. Further Implementation Programs It is important to note that Resolution 3699 included several related actions that are intended to comprehensively comprise a program of resource- protection. Part of the actions initiated by Resolution 3699 included the development of an Agriculture Conservation Easement (ACE) program including appropriate funding sources and processes for acquisition, as well as Agricultural Enterprise incentive programs to promote and benefit local agriculture. These programs while still in the formative stages, are important to the implementation and long-term success of the other actions required by Resolution 3699. Other actions initiated by Resolution 3699 include Municipal Code Amendments that expand allowable uses, provide more consistent property development standards, clarify required findings for proposed conversions and mitigation requirements, and provide a buffer policy to acknowledge and address the urban/agricultural interface. All of these actions are interdependent and require time for implementation and augmentation. Objective Ag 1 provides: "Avoid, minimize and/or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. II The word "minimize" was added during City Council adoption of the plan when the term "no net loss" was eliminated. It was recognized that some prime farmland soils were previously developed or already zoned non-Agriculture and that some additional properties, surrounded by urban uses, might eventually be converted. The Council directed staff at the August 26, 2003 meeting to initiate the process and propose a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the word "minimize" from the policy. That proposal will be considered by the Commission and Council at a later duly noticed public hearing. Public Comment Several comment letters were received and distributed during the public hearing process concerning the draft resolution proposed on August 26,2003. Meeting minutes for the August 26, City Council meeting are included as Attachment 1. 958 notices announcing both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent within a 400-foot radius of owners of agriculturally zoned properties. Environmental Review The potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan and Municpal Code Amendments were analyzed and considered in the Certified Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update and have been determined to be adequate for evaluation of the subject General Plan Amendment alternatives involving land use designations for these four properties. S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT\CITY_COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 B.doc 9/19/03 w_.~__ -~-- CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 8 OF 10 Required findings and mitigation measures outlined in the General Plan and initiated in Resolution 3699 would require project related EIR's for applications involving change of zoning and/or development proposing conversion of prime farmland soils. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission. Alternatively, the City Council may further consider at this time General Plan Amendment concerning the redesignation of four properties (Item I.a., above), and the amendment regarding mitigation requirements prior to bringing forward the implementing ordinances. Consideration of the other proposed actions initiated by Resolution 3699 were continued and will be heard by the Planning Commission on October 7, 2003 and City Council on November 25,2003. Since items concerning the agricultural conservation and enterprise programs require substantial coordination, it is recommended they be incorporated into the Community Development Department work program and initiated following completion of the other items. In the event that the City Council does not concur with the Planning Commission recommendation, pursuant to Planning and Zoning laws, Section 65356 of California Government Code, it "may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission." Staff advises that the Council consider each parcel and set of parcels individually and collectively to provide direction for preparation of the appropriate resolution. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Adopt the Resolution as proposed; 2. Modify and adopt the proposed Resolution from alternatives listed below; A. Exclude Parcel 3 (APN: 007-621-001) (owned by the Japanese Welfare Assoc.) from the proposed redesignations. If the General Plan designation is non-Agricultural (such as mixed use, single family residential or community facilities), consistent zoning must be considered, but requires separate discretionary review and approval, presumably by property owner initiated application for rezoning and development. At that time, however, the City Council would have to address the 2001 General Plan policies requiring an EIR, findings, Statement of Overriding Consideration and other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils..."acceptable to the City Council" (see Ag 1-4.2). If not mitigated on-site by MU-PD including an Agriculture component, this could take many alternative forms such as off-site conservation easement in or around the City, in-lieu fees, or some other proposal acceptable to the City Council. S:\COMMUNITY _DEVELOPMENT\CITY _COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 B.doc 9/19/03 -~---- -.-..--.--- CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 9 OF 10 Further, if the adjoining two parcels (APNs: 007-621-023 and -7-621-073) are . re-designated Agriculture, the JWA property development would be constrained by the proposed Agricultural Buffer Overlay District that would be applied to the western 100 feet and preclude new residential uses in that portion of the site. B. An additional alternative would be to exclude all three adjoining parcels from redesignation as Agriculture (leave the plan as is), or revise to another combination of non-Agriculture designations. The same process as discussed for Alternative 2.A. would be required, except no Buffer Overlay would be involved. Findings should include the following findings proposed as part of Resolution 3699: 1. That the uneconomic nature of the agricultural use is primarHy 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 2. The proposed change in zone is for a parcel, or for a contiguous set of parcels, that is legally nonconforming as to minimum area in the Agriculture district; and 3. The proposed change in zone will not result in, intensify, or contribute to discontiguous patterns of urban development; and 4. The proposed change in zone will not likely result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use; and 5. The proposed change in zone is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City General Plan; and 6. 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. C. A third alternative would be to redesignate the Branch Mill Road property (APN: 007-621-022) as non-Agriculture, Single Family Residential, low- medium or medium density. The same policies prescrt>e the same prerequisites to Development Code Amendment, Tract Map or other development involving loss of areas having prime farmland soils. Assuming that one or more of these properties is converted to non-Agriculture designation, now or in the future, it should be understood that the proposed additional findings initiated by Resolution No. 3699, if adopted, would also be applicable; 3. Do not adopt the proposed Resolution and accept rezoning proposals from each potential applicant and consider potential impacts through environmental review for each individual project; S:\COMMUNITY _ DEVELOPMENT\CITY _ COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 a.doc 9/19/03 -- -------------- ------- CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03..Q02 SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 10 OF 10 4. Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. City Council staff report August 26, 2003: 2. Planning Commission Resolution 03-1899. 3. Photos of four parcels proposed to be redesignated.. 4. Letter from Ed Cardoza, August 31,2003. 5. Excerpts from Program EIR for 2001 General Plan Update. Pages EIR-51-54 and Appendix E. S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT\CITY_COUNCIL\2003\09-23-03\09-23-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 B.doc 9/19/03 -~-_._..._----- ---------- _.._~- ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002; AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR FOUR PARCELS TO AGRICULTURE AND MOOf=ICAT10N OF LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND AtlENDlNG THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TO REVISE IMPLEMENTATION ,POLICY FOR MITIGATION OF CONVERTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS DATE: AUGUST 26, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: 1) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment 03-002 amending the land use map to change the land use designation of four parcels to Agriculture, modification of language in the Land Use Element; and amending the Agriculture, . Conservation and Open Space Element to revise implemenQition policy for mitigation of converted agricultural lands. 2) Continue General Plan Amendment 03-003 and Development Code Amendment 03-005 to November 25, 2003. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: Backaround On July 22, 2003 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3699 to initiate General Plan and Municipal Code amendments necessary to implement selected recommendations from the Report on the Conservation of Agricultural Resources in the City of Am>yo Grande ("Agricultural Report"). The preparation of the Agricultural Report, required in conjunction with Ordinance No. 536, consisted of an inventory of existing agriculture parcels, agricultural conversions, City growth issues, and available alternatives to conserve prime farmland soils. 08-26-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 9/17/03 ---~~-_...- ------ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002; AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR FOUR PARCELS TO AGRICULTURE AND MODIFICATION OF LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TO REVISE IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR MITIGATION OF CONVERTED AGRICUL TUFtAL LANDS AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 5 Final recommendations from the Agricultural Report included in Resolution No. 3699 consisted of the following items: 1. . Adopt a Resolution to initiate consideration of certain General Plan Amendments and other implementation programs that: a. Change back to Agriculture the General Plan designation of four parcels, containing prime farmland soils. (See map, Exhibit 'A'). b. Develop an Agriculture Conservation Easement (ACE) program and identify funding sources and a process for acquisition. c. Work with other organizations to develop Agricultural Enterprise incentive programs to promote and benefit local agriculture. 2. Preparation and consideration of specific Municipal Code Amendments that: a. Create and apply a 100 foot Agricultural Buffer Overlay District that extends from all Agriculture zoned parcels, and b. Expand the findings required for approval of development, rezoning and/or subdivision applications involving the conversion of prime farmland soils to non-agricultural use, and c. Revise allowable uses and property development standards in the Agriculture districts, and d. Establish mitigation requirements and additional buffer requirements for proposed developments in Agriculture districts. Staff recommends the City Council consider at this time General Plan Amendment concerning the redesignation of four parcels (Item La., above), and the amendment regarding mitigation requirements prior to bringing forward the implementing ordinances. Consideration of the proposed actions described in Item 2. above are proposed to be continued and heard by the Planning Commission on October 7,2003 and City Council on November 25, 2003. Since items concerning the agricultural conservation and enterprise programs require substantial coordination, it is recommended they be incorporated into the Community Development Department work program and initiated following completion of the other items. 08-26-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 9/17/03 ------,--- ----- "~---- - -~---- ._-~--_._--- - CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002; AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR FOUR PARCELS TQ AGRICULTURE AND MODIFICATION OF LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TO REVISE IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR MITIGATION OF CONVERTED AGRICUL TUItAL LANDS AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 3 OF 5 The Plannina Commission Recommendations: On August 19, 2003 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 03-002 regarding these four parcels and by a 3-2 vote recommended that all four be redesignated Agriculture. Representatives of property owners for each of the four parcels proposed for redesignation, including Mr. Hayashi and. Mr. Kubara, on behalf of the Japanese Welfare Association, Mr. King on behalf of Mr. Vanderveen, and Mr. Dorfman, testified in opposition to the proposal. Additionally, two re$idents from the Cherry Avenue neighborhood spoke against the redesignation proposal specifically for the three parcels off East Cherry Avenue. Mr. Gullickson cited a previous consensus of Cherry Avenue neighborhood property owners for a residential land use designation during the General Plan Update process. Mr. Ross spoke of the potential for harmful he'alth effects from farming a property that is surrounded by residential uses. The Planning Commission resolution is contained in Attachment 3. Chanae in Land Use Desianation on the 2001 General Plan Land Use MaD During the 2001 General Plan Update the Agriculture land use designations for six Agriculture zoned parcels were changed to Residential, Public Facilities and Mixed Use land use designations. However, the zoning map has not yet been amended. Two parcels are hillsides not involving prime farmland soils, a portion of APN 006-095-01, owned by Lucia Mar Unified School District located south of Arroyo Grande High School, and the other APN 007-621-032, located southeast of the Japanese Welfare Association property on East Cherry Avenue. Neither of these hillside parcels are affected by the Agricultural Report because they do not contain prime farmland soils. The four other Agriculture zoned parcels were recommended for Agriculture designation by the Planning Commission, but during adoption hearings the City Council reclassified three parcels as Mixed Use Planned Development and one parcel to Low Density Single Family Residential. The Council added policy LU 5-13 to define the components of the Mixed Use Planned Development on the two parcels APN 007-621-023 and 073 and the one parcel APN 007-621-001 southeast of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. APN 007-761-022 is located northeast of the Greenwood Tract adjoining Branch Mill Road near Coach Road. In preparation for the Municipal Code Update to maintain consistency with the General Plan, these conversions were comprehensively reviewed as part of the Agricultural Report. Four parcels that were redesignated as part of the 2001 General Plan Update are defined by the City to be parcels containing prime farmland soils (GP Policy Ag 1- 1.1). The four parcels to be returned to an Agriculture General Plan designation include: 08-26-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 9/17/03 -----~ --_..__.._--~-~---_._------'---- CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002; AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR FOUR PARCELS TO AGRICULTURE AND MODIFICATION OF LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TO REVISE IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR MITIGATION OF CONVERTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 4 OF 5 1. Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 007-621-023, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue between Pacific Coast Ra;tway Place and Traffic Way, consisting of approximately 7.4 acres, owned by Dorfman Homes Inc., current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed back to Agriculture; 2. A portion of APN 007-621-073, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue between Pacific Coast Railway Place and Traffic Way, consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, owned by Dorfman Homes Inc., current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed back to Agriculture; 3. APN 007-621-001, 1.6 acres, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue near Pacific Coast Railway Place, owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association, current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed back to Agriculture; 4. APN 007-761-022, approximately 4.9 acres, located at 1273 Branch Mill Road, owned by Bruce Vanderveen, current land use designation Single Family Residential - Low Density proposed to be changed back to Agriculture. Further, the Planning Commission recommends amending language in the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element by deletion of Policy LU5-13 in its entirety since it relates specifically to the above 1, 2, and 3 parcels' Mixed Use/Planned Development designation. Additionally the Planning Commission recommends amending language in the 2001 General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Elements. The amendment would revise the 2001 General Plan mitigation policy described in Ag1-4.2 to require permanent protection in the form of dedication of a perpetual agricultural conservation easement or other effective conservation mechanism, for conversion of areas having prime farmland soils at a ratio of "at least 1: 1 and up to 2: 1" with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural uses. This revision would more effectively implement Ag1-4 to conserve the remaining prime farmland areas within the City and provide for adequate mitigation for loss due to development, with the exact ratio to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Council depending on factors involving the nature and location of land and soil class of both the converted and replacement lands. The forthcoming ordinance to implement this policy will include prioritization of lands to be permanently protected through mitigation, focusing on lands within the City, 08-26-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 9/17/03 __ __n_"______ CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002; AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR FOUR PARCELS TO AGRICULTURE AND MODIFICATION OF LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ,ELEMENT TO REVISE IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR MITIGATION OF CONVERTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 5 OF 5 and secondarily, on adjacent lands within the urban planning area and parcels within the City's Area of Environmental Concern. PUBLIC COMMENT: Several comment letters received during the public hearing process for the preparation of the Agricultural Report are included for your convenience in Attachment 1. Meeting minutes are included in Attachment 2. A total of 1 ,269 notices announcing both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent within a 400-foot radius of owners of agriculturally zoned parcels. An additional 67 notices were sent to agencies, organizations and other interested parties. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment were considered and analyzed in the Certified Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update and are considered insignificant. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: - Adopt the Resolution as proposed; - Modify and adopt the proposed Resolution; - Do not adopt the proposed Resolution; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Public comment letters submitted during the preparation of the Agricultural Report. 2. Planning Commission and City Council minutes of public hearings on the Agricultural Report. 3. Planning Commission Resolution from August 19, 2003. 4. Program EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update. 08-26-03 cc sr GPA 03-002 9/17/03 ! I ------.---_....- --~_._-- . __J A TT ACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 03-1899 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF tHE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002; AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR FOUR PROPERTIES TO AGRICULTURE AND MODIFIYING " CORRESPONDING LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE '. ..~ . ELEMENT, AND AMENDING THE AGRICUTLURAL, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT TO REVISE IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR MITIGATION OF CONVERTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande adopted the updated General Plan on October 9, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary revisions to the Development Code and zoning map for consistency in accordance with Government Code Section 65860; and WHEREAS, the City has a responsibility to assure adherence to the General Plan in meeting the needs and desires of the residents and the community; and . WHEREAS, 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 Conservation of Agricultural Resources for the City of Affoyo Grande (Agricultural. Report) attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council initiate the prepatation of an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map for four (4) prime agricultural properties among other recommendations from the Agricultural Report; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2003, the City Council 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 made the following findings: A. Proximate prime agriculture within the City of Arroyo Grande is integral to the character of the community and directly affects the City's economic and historical' I -~~-~-_..._-- ---.-- ---- / , RESO_LUTION NO. 03-1899 PAGE 2 signi~cance; 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 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 finding$ 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 ih both private and public sectors that demonstrate an economic benefit for agriculture in urban and suburban areas; , - WHEREAS, on July 22, .2003, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3699, a portion of which initiated the preparation of a General Plan Amendment redesignating the land use for four (4) certain properties and modify the Land Use Element policy statement LU5-13 and Agricultural, Open Space and Conservation Element Implementation Policy AG1-4.2 among other recommendations from the Agricultural Report. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all Qtherinform~ti().n and documents that are part of the public record; and I ---------...--- _._~-_._..,.- -~ "-~--_.._.- ---."- RESOLUTION NO. 03-1899 PAGE 3 . WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following General Plan Amendment findings can b~ made in an affirmative manner: 1. The proposed amendment land use designation provides consistency with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the general plan and remedies internal inconsistencies within the plan; and " 2. The proposed amendment conserves agricultural resources and will not ,. adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; an.d .' ,. '. t ~ . , 3. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are considered and analyzed in the Certified Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update and are considered insignificant as the change in land use designation reflects the land use designations prior to the General Plan update as well as current Agricultural district zoning and will have no potential environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby recommends the following: I. The land use category for the following properties shown in the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map shall be redesignated to Agriculture as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporate" herein: 1. Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 007-621-023, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue between Pacific Coast Railway Place and Traffic Way, consisting of approximately 7.4 acres, owned by Dorfman Homes Inc., current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed to Agriculture; 2. A portion of APN 007-621-073, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue between Pacific Coast Railway Place and Traffic Way, consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, owned by Dorfman Homes Inc., current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed to Agriculture; 3. APN 007-621-001, 1.6 acres, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue near Pacific Coast Railway Place, owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association, current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed to Agriculture; 4. APN 007-761-022, approximately 4.9 acres, located at 1273 Branch Mill Road, owned by Bruce Vanderveen, current land use designation Single ..-- .---- Family Residential - Low Density proposed to be changed .to Agriculture. I -------.._---- I , r RESOLUTION NO. 03-1899 PAGE 4 . II. The Land Use Element Policy Statement LU5-13 of the 2001 General Plan Land Use Element shall be deleted in its entirety. II. The Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element, Implementation Policy AG 1-4.2 shall be amended as follows: ~ "- .' . ,. "Possible mitigation. for loss of areas having prime farmland soils shall include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 2:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use. Permanent protection may involve, but is not limited to, dedication of aperpetual.agricultural or conservation easement or other effective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen as mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime. farmland soils. Suitability of location. shall be determined by the City Council. The aim shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and contiguous to City boundaries, secondly within the Urban land Use Eleme~t area, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La Cienega Valley within the Area of Environmental Concern. Other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include. payment of in-lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council. n On motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Guthrie, and by the following roll call vote" to wit: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Arnold and Chair Guthrie NOES: Commissioners Fowler and Keen ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of August 2003. ATTEST: - , L YN REARDON-SMITH,- JAMES GUTHRIE, CHAIR COMMISSION CLERK AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR . ~ -,-~~--._--- --- I . . Exhibit A1 EXHIBIT A .........." .:' { .. '~ ,.. Shaded area to change land use designation from .. Mixed-Use (MU) to Agriculture (AG). . Exhibit A2 i I t I I i I I j Shaded area to change land use designation from Low Density Residential!LD) to Agriculture (AG). ~ ".; ;'-, '-, ..... "-','" ". .-', .r,_,. ". r'\ ATTACHMENT 3 ._i l~~\ i~..: ::; ) .c? .:." ;:::. t:~! C1 t c: i\ t...... C' .r-.. (~,. '"', _i.. ~ . -~, Y. 1 ,"-\ ....,., .~! ~. J .'-; J; [ J i .; .\ ~_.I ~~ '-..=" ,/. _": ~~ 1 ~......" ! ~! J 'L. "'''~l'-'''' ,~.. -, .....- \ I l' 'i i ,.-,,' I j '.. , 1 I,'~J' 1 l.V : ./ ---~.~.':..~:~:;-. .~: ~-~.j~:~'-;~.:~~_..- .~.'~' . ~-:.:.-~-:' ::'._~~:7~;:~~1;.:~::,~ :!~~~~~~j~I~~~- ---- . - - J a'''I!O\~'::> I;\lelr"" i\-.' "',,;-- 'i rt / ape. Iv::'.... ,,; ,a, e ,-'..:'~~'--:'::'..on prope 'J looking southeast frc:~i Cherry Avenue. _., M"~~~-;:">''''':. - -::;'.-r:~:7:.~::~~? - -. .. . " . \/ -..-.'.' ".-'-'" ..... . . ----~.. -.-' -. -.- '...--- .......-_., '- " \l~"r;,,,,,-\!q-::!-. :~"'(),;ert. :,.,-::~. 8,",=11l''"1 fviil! Road ; n~~: (:'~:' tt;-; _...-...........,.....,~.: :-:,'-',",''''' ?~""'" ~- .'~--:-'::,,:,:;.'~~:':"~.- I \ i \!;:>,~ri""nJ"'c.'; nronOrf'! :,.,:".~ 'p.';:>n"f-) ~):!; KI);:Jrl '. _' .1.1..... ,.... '.., '_. _ ~~ . -" _ / ,_" ..-. . "_" L~' , . II ,'. - -'.;..' :e. j;,: ;";.:: :lD:-~"I\"'i2S~ ---,:-,.~::,:",,""'-:~.-:' .:.~...... " ;:'-7"::-;::::':"'.-- WI . - - -~ .... .. ~ , ...... ~. ."" \ -"\ ' . \. - . . - .- .~.-. '.;:.~=- ...-,----- " \ \ " ~ "" , _" ' , ' .,.. ,'0 "'0." ',om ue,' n ,"" c" o"art~ ',' J""'''' >JU,I ,"eo'" ' ...J~'i6n~'J ,~~..i;:~;\.dB. ~~'1~p .,":- .7:"';::'~""''--- Dc:""3~ c, '')oe:\'/ \OcC,"'U "Nt" 'j"" ~3' -" _.--..,-..-.,...~ .... .~.. ..... ---:'~.-:--.;:_..----..-. -,.-- --------------- -------- -- ATTACHMENT 4 Dear Councilman, p,-.'-p'-n ..._. _,;:;.;.1 tt.. . 31 August 2003 ~ ~.: "4' n". .\ 4' -:. ~i"'/ 0 i~ ",' ..., .. - r- o. J. ! "". ..-;. \i \ ,,., , 1.;. ~.~'..' _ :..... 03 SEP -2 PH ~: 13 The Cherry Ave. land is perfect for a new housing tract. It's surrounded by houses and commercially zoned property. The neighbors are tired of the mud, fertilizers and pesticides. Please let them build our badly needed housing on Cherry Ave. It's the most logical place for it! .' On the other hand, the Branch Mill Rd. Property has such a poor and hazardous road access to it, that it's hard to believe anyone would consider allowing more homes and traffic out there until the road is significantly improved and made safe. Branch Mill is a narrow shoulderless road between a cliff and a ditch. If it ever gets repaved it will be a "well paved" nalTOW shoulderless road between a cliff and a ditch. . Branches and rocks from the steep side hill will still continue to create hazards. More cars will end up in the ditch (like the one last January). More cars will scrape the cliff spinning out of control (like last December). And it's only about a half-mile stretch of road! One house per acre was a shortsighted compromise. The community isn't ha.ppy with it. You'll find Mr. Vanderveen isn't satisfied eith~r. Mr.King, his representative, has repeatedly offered "affordable" housing indicating a development much more dense than one house per one acre. Mr. Vanderveen's reasons for building 15 homes on his property will be the same reasons his neighbors have for building 15 homes on their 5-acre parcels. (Troe discrimination would be to deny those neighbors what you give to Mr. Vanderveen.) However, with that much profit to be made, the city can have the developers pay to widen Branch Mill Rd. making it safe for all of the area residents. Until the city is ready to make that commitment. to use "long range" vision, the council should avoid shortsighted, inflammatory compromises that create problems and solve nothing. The Branch Mill Rd. property decision is that kind of compromise. Sincerely, Ed Cardoza 428 Greenwood Dr. Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420 - 0: ~~ . . ~~d t1-~ q /,jc, ______n ---~. .~ ATTACHMENT 5 e. Classify as RC, enabling Regional Commercial uses between the nearby Five Cities (Walmart) and Oak Park (K-Mart) Shopping Centers. Regarding altern~tive 'a.', the General Plan Update attempts to avoid the PD classification used in the 1990 pla~ because that .classific~tion did not identify the actual uses allowed by Planned Development, revealed only by research of related zoning and Development Code regulatiol)s. . Alternative 'b.' to enable Community Facility and/or Office uses would not reflect the diversity of -.: . existing development that includes a motel and office complex. Neith~r CF -nor 0 classification . .-. would enable the opportunity for special needs_ residential or small scale vIsitor-servIng or community-serving commercial uses such as hotels, restaurants, convenIence and $pecialty stores. Alternative 'c.', classification as SFR-or MFR-PD would also restrict development to residential Planned Development, making existing development legally non-confirmIng precludlog further non-residential Planned- Development. Traffic, noise and other compatibility iSSUes and - impacts make Single-Family Residential or Multi-Family ResIdential subdMsion or Planned Developments unlikely and less feasible than alternative.Mixed-Uses. Alternate ~e.' classIfication as Regional Commercial. would enable a'nd encourage remaining undeveloped lots. to be . developed for regional shopping. The undeveloped lots are generally too .small and sloping for retail commercial development which would cause major grading, tree removal, aesthetic, traffic, drainage and land use compatibility problems with existing office and motel and adjoining Single c:::- Family Residential uses. While Mixed-:Use Planned Development .may also Involve commercial uses with similar Impact implications, the diversity of existing. use and nearby Oak Park Plaza and adj~cent Five. Cities shopping centers may warrant small scaie regional commercial us~s among the MU-PD pot~ntlal uses considered at this location. Commercial Mixed-Uses would probably require projeet $pecitic. EIR, depending on type, design and ~ite modifications required. Cumulative and growth Inducing impacts would be consIdered as part of possible commercial project EIRs but smaller scale, less I intensive MU-PD appear to Involve less than significant Impact potential. . 7.) ViI/age NIxed-Use Boundades and Uses I ExistIng Conditions, Pdor Plans and RegulatIons I I The 1990 adopted General Plan has a Village Commercial specl~c boundary defined on the land use map which includes several PF, SR and O-zonesbut excludes adjoining Residential and General Commercial areas to the west, north, eastand south. The 2000 draft map expanded the Village Center classification to include these internal and adjoining areas, but the enlarged r boundaries and allowed uses may create numerous non-conformlng developments unless clarified. For example two automobile. sales -agencies and at least 3 service stations exist ~n Traffic Way and East Branch/Gra-nd Avenue entrances to the Village. If classified VC, these ! would be legally non-conforming and constrained from expansion or replacement If destroyed or ~iscontinued. These areas are currently zoned Highway Commercial which a.llows v~hicle- oriented and general commercial uses. . The 21-acre Myrtle and Cherry SFR-LD area was shown as SFR-MD on the 2000 draft map, implying increase from 20du to approxlmateiy 100du potential. existing Single family Residential development adjoining the Village to the west, north and east are not logical candidates for Mixed-Use -expansion, particularly commercial uses of the type encouraged In the Village. The Office district southeast of the Village also extends to Whitely Avenue which is also exclusively Single Family Residential use. . _ . . .~-^"'-_._--- - -.. -------- - . . The 2000 draft map indic~ted Single Family Residential and Village Center land use on a 12-14 acre remaining 1990 Agriculture designated property south of Cherry Avenue east of Traffic Way and a S-acre adjoining hillside property. This subarea south of the Village is a significant Ag preservation or conversion issue that must be addressed. . Each of these expansion areas is separately considered in the following descriptions because "- each Is already developed differently. ,. Impacts or the Proposed General Plan The 2001.General Plan Update proposes to classify: 7 W,-N), & E) Single Family residential areas to the west, no.rth, east and southeast of E. Branch commercial and civic uses SFR-MD rather than Village Core. 7 W&s) existing Highway Commercial and General Commercial uses, both classified as General Commercial on the 1990 plan, will be reclassified as MU, Mixed- Use rather than VC, Village Core because each .contalns some uses that ~ would become legally non-conforming if classified VC. -7S The untleveloped 2 acre portion of properties southeast of Traffic Way and . Cherry Avenue, classified General Commercial on the 1990 plan reclassified Mixed-Use despite current Agricultural use and prime Ag solis. This MU classification would require mitigation measures outlined in the ~eneral Plan Agriculture,. Conservation and Open Spac~ Element t~. The 12 acres south of Cherry Avenue and east of Traffic Way frontage classified Agriculture on the 1990 plan and was proposed" as Single Family Residential-Medium Densit.)' by the draft 2000 Land Use Policy map, a "widowed" area of prime Ag soils implying exception to or mitigation of loss of prime Ag use and soils. The 2001 General Plan Update proposes retention of the Agriculture classification as an environmentally superior alternative. The adjoining S acre hillside property (Hayes) not involving Ag use nor prime Ag solis would be reclassified from Ag to Single Family Residential, Low Density and ClOS, Conservation/Open Space. This parcel Is accessible from Cherry Avenue and Huebner Lane, a private drive also used for malnbenance access to a City water tank further southeast adjoining Frederick! ALC properties discussed as subarea. 8 hereinafter. (The steep vegetated hillside traversed by Huebner Lane off B",nch Mill Road Is an environmentally sensitive Conservation/Open Space area while the water tank site Is classified Community Facility.) . One change to the 1990 General Pian and current zoning different than the :prior proposals . discussed during formulation of the 2001 General Plan Update, Involves the approximat~ly 21- acre area south of Arroyo Grande creek. east of Garden Street along Myrtle and East Cherry Avenue. The 2000 draft Land Use Policy map proposed this area of existing large lo~ as a poten~ial Single Family Residential, Medium Density, which would enable almost 100 dwellings compared to the existing potential for 22 i-acre lotS. The 2001 General Plan instead proposes consideration of alternative from LD to MD ranging form 20 to 100 du [Single F~mlly Residential, Low Medium Density which would enable approximately S5 dwellings at a density of 2.Sdu/ac., an increase of about 33 over existing potential]. It should be recognized that this fragmented large . lot" area may require area owners to cooperate for future subdivision planning since street, drainage, water, sewer and other infrastructure for single family residential development are currently inadequate. If coordination or cooperation is lacking or more Intensive residential . . . EIR - 52 -.-...- -~ -- . . . subdivision is proposed, a project EIR for mitigation of potentially significant impacts would be .' ~~~. . ' Other than this subarea and Village Core Mixed Use projects, the impacts of the proposed 2001 General Plan Update are not substantially different than 'Considered with the 1990 General Pian.. Avoiding Village expansion Into existing Single Family Residential subdivided and developed areas ~o the west, north and e~st reduces potential change to less than significant. Similarly; , , ,,: . classification as Mixed Use rather than Village Core or General Commercial to the west and south better reflects ~tablished existing uses Including auto dealerships, service stations, motel, highway and general commercial service uses. The more confined Village Core potential along East Branch, Traffic Way and Station Way may involve potentially significant traffic, parking, flood protection, historic resource and other impact issues discussed below but also associated With the 1990 General Plan, the 'no project' alternative. The most significant proposed'land use and planning change and impact potential to the VC classification Is allowance for residential uses. The potential for additional population and housing is somewhat speculative and will depend on Individual VC Mixed Use developments that. will be subject to subsequent environmental determinations and possible project EIRs. Most of the VC area is subject to seismic, safety and bUilding design mitigation measures to address geophysical, fire, flood and other safety hazards. Cumulative water resource concerns assodated with projected urban use exceeding current water supply entitlements are relevant with VC Intenslficatio~ or expansion,' but the service infrastructure for delivery and fire suppression Is already established and required regardless of proposed changes. Water quality impacts due to increased Intensity and urban pollution of storm drainage directly into adjoining Tally He;> and Arroyo Grande Creeks is an issue requiring further City analysis and mitigation. R~lonc.1 Water . Quality Control basin plan amendments and recent EPA storm water pollution prevention plan requirements will influence future development proje~ potential and required mitigation measures. The "multi-modal" mixed-use of Village Core development will reduc~ potential air quality impacts and' transportation/circulation Issues compared to alternative single purpose Regional Commercial development. But the . recognized parking defiCiencies and circulation constraints apparent along East Branch Street through the Village Core will obviously complicate proposed expansion or Intensification proposals or projects. Specifically, it Is very doubtful that Village Core projects could comply with LOS 'c' traffic mitigation criteria required by current development policy. . Portions of the Village Core also adjoin Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho Creeks which inherently Involve biological r~sources, flood hazards and drainage/water quality Impacts. Energy and mineral resources are not at Issue, with Village Core development.. Fire, seismic and flood hazards and related mitigation such as unreinforced masonry building retrofit, flood protection and fire suppression problems related to historic buildings are all unavoidable Impa~ Issues. If residential uses are Integrated Into the Village Core, noi~~, parking and public services and facilities .are Increasingly complex, reg~rdless of general deslrabJlity of such Mixed Uses. Both aesthetics and land use compatibility issues. will require refinement of Village Core design guidelines and development standards. Additionally, the .preservatlon of historic buildings I~ a project-related as well as cumulative impact Issue particularly in the Village Core where nume~~u~ substandard but historic or culturally significant structures remain. Recreation related impactS can be mitigated to less than significant by project design linking creekside and streetscape pedestrian areas and plazas to the Nelson Green and other urban Village Core amenities as well as contribution to park In-lieu fees for recreation improvements. Village Core intensificati~n and expansion does not introduce new growth inducing or cumulative impact Issues despite increased -employment and economic development opportunities Identified by the Update compared to the 1990 General Plan and EIR. . . ------"- " --- f . .' I " j Alternatives" Evalvations and Explanations 1 , Village Core enhancement ancf expansion of the historic pedestrian-oriented resident and tourist- . , serving commercial, office and compatible mixed uses Is a basic planning objective. This does not, however,requlre redevelopment Qf any areas adjoining the existing Village Core.. A gradual i transition and more dispersed character, while still pedestrian oriented, .Is more characteristic of . the "rural small town" qualities already evident In these predominantly non-residential areas. Several Core E:XpanSion opportunities are apparent without encroaching Into the single-family subdivisions and development west of Wesley, north of le Point, east of the foot of Cr~n Hill or south of the "Nelson Green" frontage. The basic alternatives focus on Station Way, Traffic Way and E. Branch adjoining the Village Core, excluding established residential areas. , The Station Way commercial development known as "Village Center" Is one opportunity for I evolution into a more diverse, pedestrian oriented shopping, dining and office complex with different ~'rural" rather than historic architectural character. As Bridge Street and Traffic Way I b~come more intensive extensions of t~e Village Core, the Village Center can also. evolve into a compatible, connected and more concentrated activity "node" as part of the Village Core area. Similarly, Village Core expansion easterly on E. Branch Street to the foot of the Crown Hi!1 is I already In progress and evolving with "Creekside Center" proposed on the 3.5 acre loomis property. This mixed-use development would contain approximately 33,000 sq.ft. of retail and office use al')d four dwellings. r The current City Hall, Council Chambers office buildings and convenience store and converted residential structures near Mason Street can aU be retained or evolve to a more concentrated pedestrian-oriented shopping, service, dining, Civic and. cultural activity . center 'wlth 'addltfon~i I buildings added aiong the street- frontage. To the extent feasible, historic bUifdingsshouid be retained an9 restored, but If replacement or relocation is necessary, the new stru~res should emphasize the design characteristics of the historic Village Core: Two or three story, finely f detailed storefront and pedestrian streetscape Is essential on E. Branch. For the most part, parking behind or beside buildings with minimum driveway crossings of E. Branch Street will best achieve the Village Core expansion and encourage the desired design character. I The preliminary concept of Village Core expansion propOsed by 2000 draft land Use policy, extended south of Poole along Traffic Way to Freeway 101. This alternative would encompass I two ~utomobile sales and service agencies which are clearly different character than VBlage Core. . Many other existing uses, including motel, swim club, service station and auto repair shops, storage and various other general and highway commercial uses make this area a diverse Mixed Use area as reflected In the proposed 200l General Plan Update. Classification as Village Core I while an alternative, would make the prevailing use pattern legally non-conforming and Imply . relocation and redevelopment rather than. recycling buildings and retention of many. existi~g uses. Another.alternative for the Traffic Way frontage would be to classify it General Commercial f. . or Highway Commercial to encpurage these uses rather than. enabling offices, retail and residential components In the proposed Mixed-Use district. Either aCcommodates e~ting auto sales and service and enables similar automobIle-oriented businesses and commercial services In f the'Traffic Way area. The most controversial alternative in land Use study.~ubarea "]-5" involves the 12 acres of f . residual Agriculture land on the south side of Cherry Avenue, cur.rently cultivated. The range of uses possible on these .12 acres spans from Agriculture preservation to allowing Village Core Mixed Use or Business Park. Because single-family. homes front on the north side of Cherry Avenue, adjoin to the east and are above on the hillside along Trinity Avenue, residential Is a I consistent, compatible development alternative, Neo-traditlonal or other compact subdivision for . . r EIR - 54 -~--_._----- -- ~ I \ t::-\-, r~ Allan Real .Estate Investments July 5,2001 . City of Arroyo Grande Planning Department 214 East Branch Street, P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Re: Proposed conversion of Cherry A venue property from agriculture Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff: This letter is written in support of converting the 10 acre parcel owned by Ed Dorfman and the 2.5 acre parcel owned by the Japanese Welfare Society from agriculture to residential zoning (except for the 2 acres on the comer of Traffic Way and Cherry A venue proposed as commercial). .The property would provide much needed affordable single family homes. Arroyo Grande.is facing a crisis for first time and "move-up" real estate buyers. Quite simply, single family homes below $350,000 are extremely scarce. Opponents of the change cite the loss of prime agricultural property. In reality, the Japanese Welfare Society has not farmed their property in decades! Eight acres of the Dorfman property would not provide an economical unit The only reason it has been farmed in recent years is due to low rental rates, or in essence, a subsidy from the landowner to the fanner. The chemicals and noise associated with the fanning are inconsistent with the adjacent homes. The property, once developed, would improve the look and function of the neighborhood. Although a small contingent of very vocal people opposes the change, I believe the change is supported by majority of the community. I Thank you for your consideration. - "W~ ::!:- i:' tVr:- n : 1..~ . :........ . ,. . .. . 135 N. Halcyon, Suite A . Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 · (805) 473-7500 FAX (80s) 473-2753 I (800) 44ALLAN · www.allanrei.com r- -. 1 . . .. J Mark B. & Martha L. Bell 462 V'Ul Bandolero Arroyo Grande, CA 934io .] (805) 489-6897 July 3, 2001 ] City of Arroyo Grande PI~g.Department .J 214 East Branch Street P.O. Box 550 " ] Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Re: Proposed Conversion of Property along Cherry Avenue and TrafticWay from Agricultural to .J Residential and Commercial Use Dear Commissioners and Staff, ] My wife and I have been residents of Arroyo Grande since 1970. Over the last 31 years., we have seen ] many changes in our community. As a civil engineer in a local finn for 25 9fthose yeari, I have even participated in some of those changes. I feel that I am somewhat familiar with the forces coutributing to the development cycle in Arroyo Grande. 1 Let's face it. Growth happens. Inevttably, eventually, and sometimes in dramatic fashion much to our chagrin. But growth and good planning need not be m~ally exclusive.h ~ importantthat 1 development be sustainable and contribute to the character, heritage and quality of life tbr our community. I believe that this can occur when reasonable guidelines balance economic and practical realities with sensitivity to our community goals. We should be able to recognize and acknowledge 1 when a particular development can provide economic and social benefit within the context of those guidelines. I believe the development of the Cherry Avenue property represents such an opportunity. Yes it is ] currently under cuhivation and we have an agricuhural heritage. But this particular property is essentially a small, isolated island of row crops surrounded by residential and commercial' development. 1 Concern continues to grow regarding the dispersal offerti1izers, pesticides, dust and noise from fannland adjacent to homes and businesses. It has become vi(tually impossible to generate enough fann income from this property to remain eco~omically viable in that use. , On the other hand,this is an'~infill" proposal that could provide much needed housing in an attainable range and perhaps help ease the pressure on our other undeveloped agricultural land. The residential , development will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The commercial portion fronting Traffic Way will provide a nice addition to the business corridor entering Arroyo Grande. For the most part, the supporting infrastructure already exists. Attention to appropriate architectural styling and 1 siting guidelines will enhance the village character. In my opinion, the proposed development of this property with residential and commercial uses is both reasonable and desirable. .' . ";""" ~ ~..' ;... -. :...... po ...:-.. 1 Thank you for this opportunity to express my views on this proposal. ...., ~.. -. ~.... : .", . . " Very truly yours, ~J ~&L{ Mark B. Bell ~~..,--_..-----------_. - -~- E.-~"I Shawn and Denise Blethen 517 Starlight Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 .~ -....:. ...~.: M:- r'\: . .:. - ". -~';~.. ~ t . .' '. . - - .. .', . July 5, 2001 . !"' . '. Planning Department City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 . Gentlemen: We are writing to tell you of our support for the conversion ofthetenacreagric:ultural property on East Cherry A venue from agricultural to residential use. We are a young family who has been lucky enough to obtain a small home. However, many of our mends have not been so lucky. There are not enough homes available to younger families in our area. We need to choose carefully, where we locate,new home developments. This particular site makes a lot of sense. It is located on an existing street, close to the heat of town, and close to the freeway. At one time, our whole village was prime agricultural land. This small parcel, is the only remaining close in farm land. I am aware of the City's "right to farm" ordinance, however, residential and agricultural are really not compatible. I would not put my family across the street from an area where they are applying many types of pesticides and fertilizers. I have read in the paper articles about the dangers of some of these pesticides. It seems that some pesticides that were legal yesterday, are no longer legal today. Every wne they do a study, it calls or more stringent regulations. In addition to pesticides, there is the danger from the farm vehicles, and the dust and mud I incidental to the farming operation. This land is truly an island surrounded by I residential and commercial uses. It makes all the sense in the world to convert. it to . residential and give many additional young and olqer families a chance to have a house of their own. Thank you. . i ( I --.----- I .- r ~ J' I t,:-'~I- . ~ " , ...." ::r.. .. :-~ ! r..... r-": ....... j r '-i:""" n -.. L .. _ 'l. . _ V ~.-:.... ,.:: " Planning Department '; ., .: f", . I - .. . I City of Arroyo Grande " .. . -w ~,. . n..-".... , -. 214 East Branch Stre~t ....... .. : -"T' I Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 .. f ; -yJ " Re: Cherry A venue Property Conversion j ! -~ Dear Planning Department: I I am writing to you regarding the 10-acre piece of property on Cherry A venue. I wish to -..i express my approval for the change in designation from agricultural to residential. J I believe there are numerous reasons for approVing this change including the practical ..,; reason that agriculture is limited by the restrictions on certain pesticides. However, my primary concern is the need in this area for moderately priced homes. I relocated to this I area in 1998 and have been concerned and dismayed by the changes I have seen in the J real estate market. Affordable housing for middle-income fiunilies is rapidly disappearmg. If this trend is not stopped, we are in danger of becoming a community J comprised only of the wealthy. The chanD, character and diversity that have long been associated with this area may be lost. I have unfortunately been a witness to this before. I relocated here nom the Bay Area where I had lived for sixteen years. I lived in J Pleasanton, which was a small "bedroom community" in 1982. Today the average home is well over $500,000 and my adult children could not possibly afford to live in the town 1 where they were raised. I am not suggesting that you should build everywhere without consideration.. But I see this as an opportunity to take a small parcel ofland that makes more sense to be J designated residential and build moderately priced homes on that land. I believe you have an obligation to our community and our children to take advantage of this opportunity~ J I Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, J I '. " ~~.~ . ".I Diane Burnside 546 Morning Rise Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 J ( 'f , J -I ----~ ! -- .._.__._~ . '. E..S"" ( ~ . - ("'... . ~ . . ....' : :man - _.' 'I ... )ffieS :. \' . ... . nD07 ..... ooe: 31.3144 S$: July 5, 2001 a Qata Dr. J~. 1420 ,81.3195 Planning Department City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 . Re: 2001 General Plan Update - Cherry Avenue land Conversion Gentlemen: . As the owner of the above referenced property, I wish to inform you of the facts about this property and what our concems are. First, let's look at the property its~lf. It is an island of ten acres of agricultural land located right in the middle of residential and commercial uses. It Is not connected to any other agricultural land. It is the only island of agricultural land like this in the City. The City has it's -right to farm" charter saying that farmers can continue to use their land for farming use in the City. H<?wever, the real world intrudes on us. The farming operation itself requires trucks and . tractors, pesticides and fertilizers, water pumping and application, planting . and plowing and lots of laborers. These operations are truly not compatible with residential uses. Most of the neighbors there, whether for or against this conversion, will agree with this as they have to live with the noise, dust, mud, congestion, and the residues from spraying. looking closer at the actual farming operation. there is a City requirement that there be buffers between the residential and the agricultural. In this case there is no buffer between the mobile home park and the agricultural land and the homes and Boy Scout Camp and the agricultural land. The only buffer is the informal one of Cherry Avenue, which is only a partial street. In the real world. there is a specific 100 foot buffer required by the state. Therefore, we have the buffer on the farmland next to the mobile home park and Boy Scout Camp and on the farmland adjacent to Cherry Avenue. There are larger additional buffers required when you use certain "restricted" pesticides. Our farmer has dealt with the issue by selecting crops that are less pesticide intensive and staying away from restricted pesticides. For J example, if we were to plant strawberries, one of the better cash crops in our area, we would have to use methyl bromide, which is a restricted pe.ticide. We would have to give notice to the neighbors as to when we would be I -- --~ . t.. - -,' · - ....,:..... .~.. .. . · JII -. . ~ . I ! . \ . - applying it. The burden of the buffers and restrictions, greatly reduces the i' use of the land. ' , . . Next, let's look at our General Plan. Some of our City officials say they want , to support the General Plan. However, it seems they only want to. support the General Plan when it agrees with their views. The present General Plan J / clearly provides a guideline for the retention of some farmlands and the ;. conversion of other farmlands to other uses. Under the agricultural policy, .. page LUE-3, Paragraphs 1.2d and 1.2e tells us when agricultural can be , . converted . The criteria is the economic viability of the farming operation. The General Plan is saying 1hat we want to retain. agricultural lands, however if it is not economically feasible the land may be converted to other uses. -- Specifically,.it says that viability "will be based on the. projected average .J annual taxable income for farming activities being equal or greater than the county median taxable'income for a family of four.. We know that it would be . difficult to support a family of four on twenty acres and virtually impossible to , do so on ten acres. Third, let us look at the planning aspect. Assuming that we follow our , General Plan, which we all support, the question is wheth~r this property makes sense with a residential use. The answer is a self evident yes. This property is what we call "infill." It is located on an existing street which has' , the proper utilities. It is close to the village core and to our main transportation highways. It's very presence would lessen the pressure for developrnentoutside of the City's boundary's. This is called "Smart Growth." , It recognizes the real world inthat our population is growing. Seniors are living longer, the birth rate is up and legal and illegal immigration is growing. . I Do we have any volunteers to leave our area? Obviously people choose our , area because they like it and want to s~ay. This is why planning is so important and why we go through periodic updates. The City has over the past four plus years hired two different planning firms to study our situation. , First, Envicon and second, Rob Strong. Both firms at separate points in time created land use maps showing this site as residential. They did this based on their professional expertise, not withstanding the pressure from the no growth element in our city. Envicon, called the site "windowed,. meaning the. , land is surrounded on all sides by existing urban uses so that it lacks contiguity with or connectivity to other areas of agricultural use. Both firms knowledge, judgment and experience are important to thewhole General , Plan update process, jncluding this site. We could put a fence around our town with a locked gate, but that is not the real world. . We have been good neighbors during the farming operations. We have , selected crops, to our own detriment, which require less fertilizers and pesticides. We have tried to farm during regular working hours. We have , tired to keep the streets clear of dirt and mud from our operations. However, even with good intentions the incompatibility of professional farmi!:ig operations and residential homes is there. We know that the dust from our , land coats our neighbors homes, cars, and yards. We know that the sound of our water well pumps is disturbing to our close neighbors. We know that the noise from our tractors and trucks is an additional irritant. We also know that 1 - .~----- - - - --.."-- t --- . \~ r- ~ ~-':)~::, the long term affect from the pesticides and fertilizers is unknown. We do know that the rules are constantly changing, as what is legal today may not be I~gal tomorrow. This process of studying and evaluating these sprays is a continual process and only goes in one direction. That direction is towards more restrictions. The property across Cherry Avenue from our site was subdivided in 'the 1890's. It was at that time that the ultimate disposition of our site was determined. The entire village core of A"oyo Grande and most of our city . " was farmland at one time. We cannot undo what has been done, as I am sure that the people across Cherry Avenue would not lik~ to see their homes bulldozed to return the land to it's former use. There is nd'"compatibili\, between those homes and our farming activities. The City fathers ga\te us a road map to follow in the 1990 General Plan, when they made a provision for taking land that is not economically viable out of farming. operations. Let us have the courage and good sense to move forward. Sincerely, ~'/J~ Edwin S. Dorfman . ., : .." -:"0., I .' ". ..,. J'. . " . ' I I I " ----..- - ~~- ) - co - t;-. I - PI . D - ,,~) annmg epartrnent . _ ... . v' .... .... _ . ..,. ... t. .. City of Arroyo Grande -; .0 r. .:. - : . . 214 East Branch Street . . "'~' Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 - ~......., 00' Dear Sirs, \,; - .. - .. We .support the conversion of$e 10-acre parcel on Cherry A;venue .. .from agricultural to residential for the following reasons: 1) We need more affordable housing for people of average income to enable new residents to support our family . style community. j .. 2) This acreage at the present is restrictive from certain crops that require pesticides that are a health risk to surro\Dlding ! residents. This health risk can only get worse as our ...J c~rnmunity flourishes. [ I wJ 3) The city's own general plan states that agricultural land when no longer profitable to even pay the property taxes ! 'Wi may be converted. i In summary this a property when converted will benefit all interested ..J parties and add to the city's coffers to enable our city to flourish. , I ! "J Sincerely, J ~~ -, Clifton Edgerly _ . j -, ,.. f u.o<>.- t.c1r J Susan Edger y . - . ~ ....... ~ ,i.. ..;' . yt'P ..,.. .... '- '" ...... f.. t .... '\ f.. . " "\ . .'. '. . - ~. '0 .. eo :.. .. .. .." . . ~._._ _0_- _ _ _~_.._.__._. __.._._~~ _____._________...._.~ ~ .-- ~~!~. : ~ I . ""i-t:,...~"..;-tt/.""~ . . \i..... ." .' .' v' _... ~ t_ . July 5, 2001 .; ; ,'t! . . .. ~ to. _ ~~T ..... .. To Whom It May Concern: I am writing on behalf of John Farnsworth and myself, Jayme Wachtel. We are in general agreement and would support Ed Dorfman on the proposed residential project on Traffic Way 'and East Cheny Avenue. We have both lived on East Cherry Avenue for many years and have seen changes through the years. This small piece of agricultural land seeni~ out of place considering it is completely surrounded by h<;>mes. ". We believe the new homes would increase our property values and of course would help eliminate the dust problems we have encountered for years, not to mention getting rid of the pesticides that are always a threat to our health. There have been very few days that Ibaven't had some kind of sinus problems and watery eyes due to the dust and pesticides. Also, during the winter months the mud from the field makes a mess of Cherry Ave. The choice of moving is not a viable alternative because of the rising costs of real estate. . John and I would support the proposal ifthe following conditions were part of the overall plan: - 1. Proper drainage. 2. The homes are built facing inward, away trom Cherry Ave.; a concrete block wall is constructed along the back of the homes and general landscaping is done. 3. The street is widened with sidewalks, maintaining two lanes with parking on the streets permitted; similiar to the residential development across trom Garden Street on East Cherry Ave. Under no circumstances would we support the property conversion if East Cherry Avenue was ever considered a general bypass for Hwy 227 and Lake Lopez. We know that changes are inevitable and we would like to see the changes made with the best interests of the current residents taken into consideration. A well thought ~ut property I conversion would be of great benefit to the city of Arroyo Grande. Sincerely, . -2! / ~./ C",,-,. - ctle.,-,n./ /We..- 1-c(~/"}")l.t... .:/.~ <" II ~ .;;..Ivv c:. . .. 7 '. . ..41 J- . .~~ I. L..._- (".....'"\ 'b &. " ""1 f~ n \"'~07 G. Che.ri"'f /Jv(/ -~- .. E C"; I I 1 .- .. 4 July 200 I \.." I 504 Morning Rise Lane Phone 805-473-3845 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 . 1 Planning Dept. cc: Mr. Edwin Dorfman J City of Arroyo Grande, 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Subj'ect: Cherry Avenue Property Conversion 1 Gentlemen: 1 Our names are Anne and Lee Gregory. We are senior citizens who ~ere fortunate enough to be able to retire here in 1 beautiful Arroyo Grande in 1991. We are refugees from Orange County. As a child. when we were able to again buy gasoline, we would sometimes drive here to see distant relatives. I always thought itwouldbea wonderful place to live, and I was right. It is quite obvious that over the years the city planners have been good custodians of our lands and environment. We 1 think one of the reasons is that managed growth has been a main concern of residents and ~e civil servants that represent them. 1 It is our understanding that as long as forty years ago and possibly longer, the City Council voted to urbanize the Cherry Avenue Property (a 10 acre island of property being used for agriculture) by surrounding it with residential and commercial uses. This decision is irrevocable. 1 Mr. Edwin Dorfman. the current owner of the property, approach~ the City Council almost 5 years ago and ~bmitted a pre-application to change the designation of this property from agricultural to residential.. The City 1 Council voted 5 to nothing to do so. At the time, Arroyo Grande was beginning to work on a new General Plan and this property became part of the study. The city has spent over $300,000.00 for professional planning. All planners that the city has hired have said that this property is considered "infill. .. and should be used fOr development 1 before the outlying fannJand is approached for development. This expertise that has been paid for should be used. Also, this property is surrounded by existing residential and commercial use. It really is quite ineffectual as optimal fannJand, when some pesticides ~ot be used because of the proximity to existing dwellings. There would be 1 noise pollution, dirt, dust and damage to existing streets from large fami equipment. Mr. Doriinan is an excellent builder. He builds a quality product. All of the homes planned are good sized, 1 one-story homes. The owners will landscape, and in a short time, there will be new green trees and plants. The side of the hill next to the Mobil Stati~)D will continue to be a green backdrop. We know that people such as Soar are good intention~. However, growth is bound to come. Wouldn't we rather 1 stand behind the vote of 5 years ago and the suggestions of the planning finns that we hired, and have smart growth. We should support one of our owri'~ho always complies with the suggestions of the council, instead of the large firms, sometimes based in another state, who are looking for profit by building these very expensive homes that the 1 majority of longtime residents in our city cannot afford. It would be very nice if our young people could stay in our city and find affordable housing. They either leave the area, or go over the grade daily (which, of course,' adds to the air pollution and the stress that they live with.) 1 Thank you for your counosy and cooperation ~dering this very imponant change to the Cherry Avenue property from agriculture to residential. . }, j ~v'tt . ,'or,", 1 '.. . -'i"~~' -;::,\i S~YOUB. ~ ~. ~ "t~~~,,-. _,>4 J ' I. 1.-' . ~ .. .- 1/ ".~ u. ," . (j; . . '-:T. 1 _.. --~--~ . ---- ----- ---~- ~ .. cl. I _ !'..b-4~~oo/ /0-''' . /?~~ 0-/' /1'FOYOct/,"6 ~~ ~XJ/t)/~6 C?oIY1/SSIDN - ~ --- .------.- -fI<'Un"'l. JJo~ e~L-LIc..KSo~ - - $"1'3 ~. C2~er"'7 4L~-&1-"'4~ a>~ ~ /1.:5 .LL.. Al'197/;~ .-7D,v ~ ~ ~,-~t:LLi!/'a-,uk.F ,hl...v~' 4 LOA~~~<'?' re.::r/~&2.:T ~r 7i5~'7 A'V~I . c..\r'e~ / ..::fr/'~.dd.&i/-7 .--S-~~L)r7 /~~ r'~~~/;y~ ~~~~-LP-/?~~ ~~~~t:Ju:J& a ~ -r-~~ w..~/u.aL2ZS_;:zc..0/2er0 On ~b!..$r (lA~rr/ ~V~, ~~'^ ....... . .LJ ./. . , ..,.-- ~ !-to. ~~~o.e..~L2Z/L~_/~ G&l~~€ ~,,;HI . r 123.:.. ..- .~~LZ2J::ld-L$~<1CP7J$pL'~/n2Ar'Z'1. /Z;~~..y- __-O.-L~~Clt:/.~-?4'L:.~-L..s L,.....oJ!.:Qr~d' 4.~?U.~<!!'~ ___ ___.._____.-1~-'~.s /d-E.&..7'" ~ / t:177d t2~~/'d~r4/i!/ d~c.'L.-O,;?n?;D,z).1':3:_ ___' ..__ ..._{(/ ~_t':S ...No...z: ~~~r/~%.k-,-/~ N~/.s.~-L!..L,e..B.. red '__' . ---L.___.) L ~ ______~---"~~~--<!7~.S"rC"r~~ 7 ce,a-lU t'.7. 4.&_ . -~~z..-.S:T;--4>.7d ~e. p~~ ..A2d4~ aL/ .JdPLL<: . <!f4L"v;,$T..:::n1."" ..e.,J'/.>fl'IYb % ,or /l<GR/. ~N._ .. --.--- ---O/!-c:L4.:/2t2M:s.._ 4J7d .r~5J-. .__':/.(.,rrf!Z.Lu,)t:::.5-~/J/~c_6~!__ -.---..--... ..... . d..e.-P.D?-f!Jp~L~e<L'ck~"-'Q/ a.se f&l.r::_-zh/~ ._..__ -------!?(O;:ze.r-~_4P~ef(~-1-~..--~p-./ie ~~~..red tt:l.5 \ -.~.G-4_L7~1.~~~ -/ ~~;r -;th~_,t2k27...2:LLAJ&, _.._-_...chL22/.sS;JJ..,J~~q&l..~~~~ nL:. f'e.9~~c5S~ I 'V':3o.;u ./~6 P . '. ....:' ' -...- - . - .- ., ... . .- . ~ .-.--- j I ----.---------..- -- I ;- : J', I .-.. _: -. ) . . ., , " John Hayashi 2626 Sevada Lane '1 . " Arroyo Grande, California 92~420 "1 July 5,2001 "1 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 214 East Branch, P.O. Box 550 ., Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Re: .cherry Avenue property -. Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff: .... The owners of the 2.5 acre Japanese Welfare Society would like to urge your support for changing the zoning on our parcel and the adJacent 10 acre Dorfuumproperty from agriculture to residential and commercial. 'r Our property has never been farmed. I do not feel it would be economical to fann our property or fann both of the two parcels together. The size and configuration of the 12.5 -. acres does not justify the risks associated with fanning. The properties are too close to - residentiat' developments to conduct a commercial agricultural operation. ~ If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 489- - 6112. . I - .. Sincerely Yo r ~VJ\ "":' .-r~p J Hayashi ,.. ..-.;;: \ \!, !...., I ~-; r'. fc: ...0 .. - , "" , . .. . -.:: .. -. . .. : '-:0:1. . . - . . 10... . -' . - ~ - - : . ( .. - . July S, 2001 ,. Planning Department . '. City of Arroyo Grande Dear Planning Commissioners: We're.writiDg this letter offering our support fortbe Cherry Avenue Property Zonina Use Conversion from agricuhure to residential . Historically, our previous City goveunnems have supported this concept through their polit- ica1 actions.. Just as many other California commUnities have enacted this change, now is time to consummate our past governmental decisions. , Agric~ is not this land's highest and best use. It is economicaDy obsoleScent. It does not appropriately support the community by property tax revenue. . It is 8kinto a publicnui- sance and is perhaps, enviromnentally hazardous to the surrounding community of home- owners. Inftastructure to ~pport development is readily available nearby. We are a young, working fiuni1y who recognize the need for adequate housing in our com- munity. This would expand the supply to meet those futUre families' needs. In snmpry we cannot justify in our minds any current J.:eJative value of a ten acre commercial gardcoing fa- ~iIitY in the heart of an existing residential community. Sincerely, I . ~ . j" ')~.. 7;" . '. ....;.:,:. .' ... Desi and m offinan -~~ 239 La Cresta Arroyo Grande, CA . . ,....,.'.4 ,. e ......~. . ... , C'!'..~~. r,\\' -~. :"\ .o.:t.o .0 . ...... .." .....'; . \ . '. - . . '. r'" .' I ---- '-. -~---~"^ "- r" _ '.. j. .- . .. , RECEIVE . ..,-., Jt" ARF."v - .." ~ : . .' ..u a ( o I JUL - 3 p':/ .'. , I Jun~ 26, 2001 " I. . . . - . Arroyo Grande City Council City Council Chamber : - 215 E. Branch Street ~~ c.~'~ M~ ' . Arroyo Grande, California ,. c..o~.1)e..J. 1 r GL--\nr- Re: AIroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare R...5ty.~~1 Association property on Cherry Avenue - Dear Sirs: I In May. of 1979 I received a No'tice of Hearing of Proposed Zoning Change on t- ,Properties for APN 007-621-002 and APN 007-621-023 from IRA-3B" Agricultural District to "A" Agricultural District. Our property, APN 007-621-001, which was adjacent to the above properties, was not included in that proposed zone change. r- Many years later, when discussing building options for the property with the Planning Department, it was still zoned IRA-B3". Unfortuna~ely, a few years ago, I was surprised to find oU:t that the zoning on our property was changed, without our knowledge, to a r straight "AG" zone. 1 was extremely disappointed to learn that the city chose not to mail notices to r- property owners about changes that gr~atly.affects the use of'their property, but instead, chose only to meet its legal obligation by publishing the changes in the newspaper. In addition, I can't understand the reason for the change because the r property is so small, only 1.3 acres, and has never been farmed during the 72 years I have been living in the area. Our wish all along had been 'to build something in memory of our parents r who struggled, often against prejudice, and purchased this property for a language school where we were taught, not only our parents' language but also the cOre values of r becoming good U.S. citizens. In the early 1980's we examined the possibility of building a multi-purpose gymnasium on the site, but the lot was too small to accommodate adequate parking. Consequently, our plans shifted to selling the r property and using the proceeds to build elsewhere., We spoke with a YMCA representative about such.~ plan to build a complex on the city property below the Women's Club, but a lack of funds at the time scuttled those plans. Unfortunately, a zoning change to "AG" completely halted all plans due to the r extremely large decrease in property value. When I heard about Mr. Dorfman's . request for zone change from "AG" to "RSF" in 1998,1 requested a zone change on our r property at the same time. But, whether the Dorfman property zoning is changed or not, we would like a zone change of our property to Rl, which will maximize our return on a sale so that we can commit all of the proceed to the city. And along with r possible funding from the state a multi-purpose community center may become a' reality for the benefit of everyone in the community. We have already contacted our r r~ r- : '":) ... . , - .. -- . state representative who expressed such funds may be. available as soon as energy problem is solved. Japanese community of Arroyo Grande respectfully request rezoning of our property to Rl. Respectfully submitted, ,. L~ - ~eirin Il~~da, Trustee I I ! I I I I - -----.-..--"--- ----~.~ ;:: F. .~... ~~: ~ \;"~.!:: ,I'; ., ~ ,~. I ~.. I - j.jL '. ~ . ~ :.:0': .. . Ed and Sheila Lynn ," ...... -, :. . ~ . '.'"T ....t.. .., .: . I. 132 Andre Drive - Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 July 3,2001 - Planning Department - City of Arroyo Grande .. 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 ~ Subject: The 10 acre agricultural island of property located at Cherry A venue WIder consideration for conversion - Gentlemen, - As new residents of Arroyo Grande we would urge.you to favorably act on this conversion from agricultural to residentiaVcommercial zoning. It is our understanding this property is considered "infill." It's location on developed streets with existing infrastructure will relieve the pressure to - develop the larger farmlands located on the city's borders. It is also our WlderstandiJlg the city has hired several professional planners and spent at least $300,000 for their professional advice as to the use of this land. They have al1 recommended that this property is infilland should be - used for development before the city branches out into the outlying' farmland. Arroyo Grande's existing General Plan clearly states that prime agricultural lands may be .. converted when the property is no longer economically viable. Viability means taxable income on the property is high enough to support a famity of four. The rent on this property does not even pay for the property taxes. We believe our elected officials must fol1ow the General Plan. - Many of Arroyo Grande's new residents, such as ourselves, have moved here from far more congested areas of the state and there is a temptation on their part to maintain the status quo by - curbing growth as much as possible. That simply is not realistic, nor was it the wish of 63% of - the city's voters who voted against the SOAR initiative. - Attainable housing within the city limits is an asset to the community with little or no strain on - the city's services. Develop@ent ofthis.property will eliminate the use of pesticides and fertilizers which are proven harmful for the people and groundwater. Citizens living adjacent to . this property in.ful1y developed neighborhoods would benefit from the cessation of this - agricultural activity. - Again, we urge the Planning Department and our elected officials to convert this' particular - property from agricultural to commerciaVresidential. - Sincerely, - CLI-7.' . ,I- ~ ~ - Ed and Sheil~ - .. I \ - ,1 ~+_._-~--~ . f:" '.: . : :.- l ...... .. . Ronald P. McEvoy 390 Platino Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473-2773 July 5, 2001 ~'-'. . -' : .. .. ...."r n Arroyo Grande Plarming Commission ." -", ~... ," .. r !.~ . .' .... , 214 E. Branch Street . . - . . Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 - i. "':, '.. ..- -...... .. .. Subject: Cherty Avenue Property Conversiori- Gentlemen: Please receive this letter as one additional input on your upcoming decision to allow the conversion of 10 acres on East Cherry Avenue nom Agriculture use to Residential use. I have been a resident and homeowner in Arroyo Grande for the last ten years. In those ten years I have seen mostly wise decisions made by the Planning Commission and the City Council as related.~o growth in our city. New housing developments always seem to be in. the right locations within our city. Some examples are the residential. developments off of Farrol Avenue in the last three years, as well as the Village Homes development located 'on East Cherry A venue, in close proximity to the ten acre parcel before you. I believe the conversion of the ten acre parcel on East Cherry to Residential development is warranted. The property in question is currently surrounded by residential homes and commercial property. I can't image the continuing use of this property for agricultural purposes is beneficial to the surrounding residents, what with the use of pesticides, noisy tractors, and the dust generated from cultivation. As far as additional costs to the city, there will be no need to expand the infrastructure because this acreage is already located on developed streets and existing infrastructure. This small island of agriculture property within existing residential and commercial developments is now incompatible. I believe it is time for the PI arming Commission to make another wise decision and allow this property to be changed to Residential use. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. Sincerely, y IIYV 1JJ!~' Ron McEvoy I : ' I (' , - . . . '. - RC:CtI'/E~i E .:-iT',' J? ~'\Ri::QYO ~::.::.: ::.. .... 7/2101' o I JUL - 3 Ai-I 8: 50 ~ Dear M.i)'or Mike Lady and .Councilmen: I :11.n wriLing in regards \0 the ChcfT)' Ave Propcny Conversion. 1 Jh'c on ChcT1)' Ave.. J was born in S;!U . LU1S Obispo, and' ~ve Ii\..c:d in ArTo}'o Grat1dc for Lhe pQSt 15 years. This 1 O-acre n8ric:ulLtac u.';e property is in Lhe middle of rcsidcnLhal and co1\\n\crc:iol properties. It is locaLc:d ~ " on developed streelS ,.,;Lh c.,<ist~ng in:adcquatc parking. , EvcIY planner tbe Cit)' h:ls hired has said that this properLy is inft)) and shouJd bellSed rordcvclopmcnL before we branch out inlO lbc outl)'in8 farmland. The City spent over $300,000. Por professional planning. . gh-ing \IS cxp::rUsc that suggested dcvclopmcnl The city 11M alrc:ldy taken property owners property awoy to build si&3wolks on Lbe nor\.h sick:: ofChcny. I! And stilt we hnvc and c"ttcn\Cly busy cOlnmercinl street "ilh enrs and 11\1c:ks going way to n~st nnd without ~l'lci\'\g on eitl1cr side 'of the street. The City's existing Geucrdl.Phu1 aUs for a buffer zone between the agric:ultun\l use aad residential U5CS. . The only buffer zones in this c:ase are on the agri~lturcd laud itself. Thefarmcrs~'ehad to 4ealwiththis b}' obsel'ojng is buffer between the !ann land and the existing mobile home pIUk Mcltbe hODles across CherI)' A.ve. The street itself provides a partial buffer. In addition, the f'a.nners have had to linit their . choice of crops; for cXlul1ple. strawbcuies CISD Ot be grown because they lequirC pesticides. 1 feel the property will be d~'cloped no mance what zui)"One says it wID bejust a matter of time. So 1~ . thoughts are. why !lot ask for cxactlvwh.,t wewul11 is ncis}1borso M}' wisldist is fOla four-blne t03d Wirll . two lanes for plrking. 011C on each ~ck: of the street and mo IMcsfor ingress anc1 egress. AlSO it.Ed , Dorfman is planntr)g on building another Morning Rise:. ~.cro 10L line, wc c:oUJdusc a scniorpar1c, ~'C , would have less aUlOS gcneraUy n mnximum of:! per fan\iI)'. 1 would also like 10 sc:c planted \JC:C hned . walkw:lYs and greenbelt. All of \bis would cut down ol1l1tc: dct\Sily. the incviUlblC traffic and would b: a ",. great place: for scnior housing. The Village: is a greal place to live and to stroll through. that's wh)' we all I I lo\'e it ond want to'live here. That's wh)' T rcgulnrly refer to it as living iu"Mayberry". Tha'nk you fOT )'O\\T lime. . .. I I cXZ~ . Unda Os\apowiC'- 309 Eo Cherry . Arroyo Gr.ulde i '. - .. . . e, ~ 04 MAA~eY . ! CQ'h\.M.' \Jeaj, U\r~ i e. ~ 1\'\'1 i - --.- --. E, \~. \ . i..... -_ . . ... July 2nd, 200 I ' ,.... . , . ..,.... ~ t '.. ~ ". ....: 1,. .... .' . The City of Arroyo Grande, Planning Department ~.. ~. '..... ~ . - .. . 214 East Branch ,Street ! . ,. Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420 ,,~, 00 \..... o. '" .. .. RE: Property Conversion of 10 acre parcel at Cherry Ave and Traffic Way: To whom it may concern ; I have worked and lived in the area for the last 16 years and I am in favor of this property conversion from agricultural to residential. The following are only a few of my reasons. Cities in our area have consistently stated, it is best when considering land for home development to utilize existing areas of "infill" to relieve pressure to develop the larger farmlands located on our City's borders, they have labeled it "Smart Growth". The Arroyo Grande City Council voted 5 to .6 years ago on a pre application for this parcel 5-0 in favor of converting this land due to its location in the City. The only reason it hasn't be~n done is because they have been working on the new General Plan since tbat time. Every planner the City has seen fit to hire bas stated this property is "inflll" and I would be best used for development before moving out into outlying fiumland!..The City .. has sPent hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring planning expertsto aid' in the new I General Plan and they have come to the same conclusion about this parcel!. TbiSParcel meets all the City's own criteria for "inflll" it is bordered on 3 sides with some t)pe of housing, (Some very recently built, All approved by tbe city!) and on the forth si4e by existing commercial businesses or commercial property soon to be developed. This I eliminates the so called view conidor to 'the City tbat one council member said the I property held. This property is only being farmed at the present time because the owner is leasing to the farmer at a cost less than the yearly taxes on the property! Any farmer will tell you that it is not economically feasible to buy this land and earn enough by fiuming it ! to support a family of four. This is not is not an issue .about saving the farmland, it's an I attempt by a few in the minority who alre.ady have their homes in the area (some even I across the street) to prevent others from achieving the same dream. I Stop stalling, the City has seen fit to convert most parcels around this 10 acres years ago setting what I would call a precedent, convert the property and allow some nice homes in that neighborhood, it's the American way! . R~fullY~ G~ -Y Tim Price, 316 La Paloma Shell Beach,Ca. 93449 I ------ ~-~ -.- I E-I-~!- I r 1 J . I . 4 July 2001 ._ I""'; J .-. -:.., \,"'"Ii ~ . J To Whom nus May Concern ...,,~: "fo." ..: ~:.' , . ~ ,. #' .. City Hall. : i:" I'" - Arroyo Grande, Ca.li.fornia .' J Gentlemen'i ".. " ,. -' This is in reference to a plot. of a.gricul tura.1 land surrounded by j residential homes and commercial property on Cherry Avenue in Arroyo Grande. J I would first like to ask a question. Would you like to buy or live in any of the homes surrounding this agricultural land? I am sure J your answer would be a big NO: : !ersonally I want to raise my family where there is fresh air and good water with .nocontaminated. particles. J The major problem is the chemica.).s used to ster&1ize and fertilize the ground and growing plants. I would want fresh air a.ndgood water during .J and after the reQuired chemicals are sprayed. A wordca.1led contamin- ation qreeps into thiswr1ting. A very small portiol) of the particu- lates (chemicals) that are spre8.d by . wind, water, autos,people and' J animals, will in time disintegrate b1t what about the particulates that will stay. active? Some eventua.1ly get into our ground water that we use J for cleaning, cooking and drinking. We need farm land but not areas that are of small acreage surrounded by ] houses. With our growing population our farmlands will become a major factor in our lives. Today a news cast on 'IV stated that From Jan. 1, ] 2001 to A~il 1, 2001 (:3 months), 313,000 immigrants had been sworn in as citizens of the United States of America. I i Chemicals that have to be used in farm lands that are a safe distance ] .. from residential-.areas can be -properly used by wearing protective clothing, res1Jerators and 1J.['oper eauipment in order to accOJiiplish .their job. ] Please give this letter consideration toward changing the classification of this property from agricultural to residential. ] ~~ ZJ ....... ~_Aj~lftdr .d/-,~~ ] Ben G. zich . . 0 Gladys . Sama.rdzich 'J':"~ I ,.. . I ~'. ~ ..,.... ...:... \.. ~..,! ". ' I -- . .' . , . .... ~ . J i r~. 1-. ~ ~ o':.~.... ""' '- , ...- r ___ --"~--- --',..---- -- ------_._.~ ---..-. lJ " , _. ,ro j'~ .. .... . . " . . ~~ s~. ~Z--.~ ~, -:J.J901 Clly of :lE 6~-€-';L~~'~1YFib'" . Co 7 ~~'- VI'l. vz,c,Ul-lU . .....~/.(. ~" . ..,(I(}; . -. . " . -.",. (:. ~. . r. :.' '., '. \":.C' 1'", -tk.... c~tJ J ~ ( t!Avt I f eZ>;/~ :; JU (J~t).e, ~ ~JM. l~.. ~r -rh.e.v-e- ks ..eN\...s0 1'>1."- c. h b ....; LJ~. fVL4 p_l'l.e. i 1'\ -fh e... "V'I n>,,-r~ ~><1- ~~ :k=s. . I /1~(f ~:;z,+--'/'~ ha-. .h.e.eYI m I I ~ ~ ~v"" A. fcu^J" . TJ\e- 8o.rl.<-.,vd-QJ\;. 0 wly ~ b~ hU'~cSJ~ J9olf... ! FdV'lNl1'L hAS 1ow,>o1,c. v~ dJtfl.;-c:u./+ I ~.e. of Vt...o~h:-:;/ ):./kFTA~. a.J/~ I !.O~'Je, . c.o~fJloJY\"., e.Jf)8td-~) J1.P ts-'7 I i , i :u.J. sl1.if1-'L t"c9~/ I~c..h{~ I h.e..rC? tch::R.fJ$ I I U{\,J [ Lt$L ef- fv-fflJ 2-U's... I ., ft{~. fU7pk ~J1~,,-J'Y ~..JA.... kt!j . f I [ I J-h~ ol(!)Yl't .~14-t ~ ~~:;.M ..JAAI--(o.rwy ;> <L "'^-<A"'L5~ I "",,-r.- 0- k.. b"J · A- rf-; t.~ X~ / ~ / d-'-(J!.t I J.~ I;..-tk ~~ - ~1; ~ PLCt sf bt<.7iIU.$S.' . ~ {'o y.. ~ VI cld.-r. xf {ev.YI<.I 'j C4Jt~. ~ vth\\t.l~ -fe"'-oY\~H'f';' .~e,.. f-~lh(l.$.. _. 4/J)l{ .. ~ -{-b.. ,e-II or- fl/'L- + .<t4 {~, -+k.o+ ", 1!,;YL1 /12-T/D:f L1~J~:€.. j i7~ 15 tL.~e,J.Jfg~ --- "...,.- . ,. .. t ~., , '- ~ . . \ \ ~ \ ;/L ctf well wilv oCJ:.cJ.i'!J I -th~ L~ \ ~ , )( lufL. or I rffJ.L- ~I~ . jl/o <?YI...e.. uJO..1P \ J o.vi;I- ~ blUf' d-- if Jh'$ lodr.ed ltA-fc, \ ~t~~ .5<8-~' ~ w~ib \ r~pJ~ ~>i1 L~ I . rJ/e- !uwf heL~ k ~e.d -r.o ~~Lt< ~1"1 a.vr.d *' " ,- pMIJtJ.e..- if\-~-J,(~ 1-e>" ~-Ft~L(.-L ~I~ ;d; \ ~ Q.t\E- n-uf-IZ- ~fI'14 ~ d~' tJ~-w Jp.ck +kP- {et~ ~ /.....pf-"u-U'. .~ \ ~ a.bo l"c.k.J1 fk.e.- ~l)..e-- o...~ ~ t",N/ o 1'1.':1 G-i\. ~ e> i ",-f9.,.ar (J ('0 ~c.$ MJ-T It \ Cb '1/1.1.1. Q.. -h=> (I'" ~ :Cf vJ~ ~ <:-1YJ I CP.;fly J ;f<tk nftftovl ~ 1 L~ ~ erl-z' cpUJ(.1 I ~~ ~ ~c.1 ,o~~/c$ ~." MP.... ",p,..-hl W 12.- .".kA> ..1.11ltJ"-~.fke... rW'- ~ w\..es1-the. ~l\ t.oV~ (1'" Pf. t7'l"" c.oJI.V\.t>t c.c",-J;.,.ufL. o..~"ffl ~.p Jl-IJb.-rtr pr-~' ~ +h.e ~ ~ 1"\.VJ1.1! ~1? 1?>. f ~vt-<J-f.. ~ .f...tl'\ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a-1:? 0... ~~\.. -v- -f..,.r: ." ~ f'1<<. . ~"'" ~. p"'" ~~. " (tJ t'" ~ fo..l" M,e4'9 --\t1. cJ.~j ..C<{Y'" t1 \'\-....4... tkl,.V\. . I. .~.., y. ~ tU vQ.Iu..e.. ~ 1UT' . /.. .....------ ... ,,,,,. - . . d1 if uJ7ll al ~$- Io.e. +kfl.J'f4 !he. . J iItP" ~ 1..Qb D~(' yVlQl'.e.-., '- j:S ~ ~ ..{k-IM-if . . ~..41 - -to ~,j. fbr ~lAhJ ~\$ . ;~tJA ~ r-vVr o1f-Z:~ ~t' ff~ ~ ;1royLt )')0 . fP' ~ . ~6>t1!- ,e-H5 ~f' ~m.e- of' . ~, r -ft.,R.. V-tJ~ fC7Jj'cJ.e ftTc.e.-- p V'fJ,w-tr J-o ~ faJz.- v--O J,~...+: 1M- ~if 7 .. srfu.~or\ ... -, . . . *.s tJI Ji( j".e- C<- W M - WI I VI. ItI/ .;f~{ ~ p-wfJ.e. ult ~I 09;;: . ~ePf ~lo.l r e J jp,d \v>.""'- 102>\ ~ (Jo(' UJ'/- . j ~ .w ~illd .s\,pI(.1.l ~ cv1. ()J-.~ f' 7 . fr;~ rto-t ~~j ~ ~J ~-r;;:;~ ~ f~iZ -{h:e.. ~j., ~. 1v& ~ +k\S 0.. <J f ~ .f.. \ . ~~ M~~ ~~ w-~ ~J'r R:~8: · K -/kL ~'j +~iho'" e>. ." CAD1- ~ o-S tJ-.e- · . . .' ." . ...- . ~ ... - .... - ~ . .. I ---------. . ------------ .' "..., ......". .... ,....- . . . . \ - \ \ ~. -Th~ C-J7 a[~r N>-s ~ -\ ~~~/~~~ . ... \ \ \ ~ (9olr.s. . ~ &>~ hftP \ \ \ o..l~ -r~~ . fu"~ ~ f-'- .... \ \ \ ~ \ If+t;~ /,'0 ( ~ ~ t9V1 0.4 rAf i \ .. \ f".~ ~ r:, ~~? ! \ \ fl~ csJl ~ bf-~4P'-- ~ . .-oi ~1 ~~~_o:r 'I~-I,~' . ~k \ J y{)~ of' ~us/' CJ;>1A.~~' ~ a.vl.e. 5 a.V'<.(J.A);]A.r-] . \ J 'I p r; 7. e,QJI. t'"t- erf'c.k ..... J A-rr;&J 6,...,.dfLJ CA C(:J.'f$!D 1 .' . - ,j . -. - , : . .- ." - - . .. . . - //~-- .-.- - In.! ~. ... '-',. ; \-" , , fro", the desk of. . . " F. JOSEPH S CHIMANDLE, CPA w - 1108 c;.rud AVeIlue TelepboDc: (805) .ca1-221O Fod omce Box 11" VacdmU.: (8~ "104213 Arroyo Grinde, CA 93421 E-maD: JOCIcpa@ao1.eom . July 3, 2001 . _.-- "'-n Planning DcplU1mcnt :.... r" :.- :.',"..~ t........ City of Arroyo Grande ~ _ _ _ . 21'4 East Branch . ...._ - ": ~ Arroyo Grande, CA93420 ~,..._ ... -.::-" :- .:~-:-.F. ,... .. '. ""-...-rT . . . a . ._e. ... .- .. . Re: IO-acre parcel- Cheny Avenue'" Traffic Way C':" ::::..'. .--:-. -: :'..:. . ...-. .. ... -. . Gentlemen: I have been following the progress of the use-revision request related to the above-mentioned parcel of land currently being used as agriculturaJland. I wish to offer my perspective. as. an accountipg and tax professional and as a citizen and resident of the City of Arroyo Grande for over 24 years. J have personally witnessed the "squeezing" offanners in our community - the. allowance by the City of residential development near and adjacent to farm land, This process has recurrently made it more and more difficult for the farmers to profitably lUIran agricultural opcrationon their lend,~ is because of the adverse concerns between. the homeowners and the fanners. Neighboring homtownen voice concerns of health, noise, dust, and harm to their pets caused by fanning. The City has;goDe 80 far as issuing directives to fanners to stop them from using certain pesticides and chemicals tlat are vital for them to bc able to efficiently grow crops using widely accepted methods. - The City feels it has the right to restrict bow a farmer should operate his business, in effect taking away any possibility for the farmer to make a profit. These actions (by the City) bave caused extreme fmancial hardships to the owners of agriculturally zoned land that bas been squeezed by residential development. It seems the farmer is the party that is always the damaged party when a coDflict exists. The subject property is located adjacent to and is surrounded by residential and commercial property. It is "infill" property - property that does not conform to tbe zoning of adjacent and surrounding properties. Residential and agrlculturalland owners both believe their property values are reduced by the incompatibility of their adverse zonings. I rll1Dly beUeve tbe OWDen of the .ubJect laud Ibould be allowed to convert the property to residential ule aud develop tbe property In . maUDer"" conslltent with the surroundlDg properties. Your approval of the rezoning from agricultural to residential omy makes sense, Sincerely, ~11. ~. f)Jl F. Joseph Scbimandle, CPA . I \' ' - . ..- ..' " ~,' '* :If)/ -. \ .' \ #, , ~ 7. ./, . ' ' \ , ~_. ,1 ~ " , . ' . \ 'I, ~,~'~ ,~p;o" ~ l' "\ " ~~'~ ~~- . ,~~;%~' -\ J~~ ~~ . - ~~~~ r/ 1 ~~ j;P/~~ ,/f. -'~' - ~~~~~' ~~'~ 1 hP:~~{2~~~~7>~ 1 ~~~~j;f~~;:: 1 .' jP~~ ~~_ J ~1~~.~~.~d~' 1 ~~ ;1~'~ iJW.' - ~~, ,;:::~~~~~ I '~~~Ik~~/~~ " . ',-t:' ' · r1 ~r:' , -t', ~ ~ p-t#-. i . _ \"'" " ' f.!/ j ~/ t::J,.... Y4~.;t)) -,,~.: ~ .. . -. , .' --- >, ...-' ~ /01 -.....-. -,- .....'-"",'" . ~~':J ?yr- . t=' .;.....:-. t. \ . .. .......... '! ~ . /l , .~ /I&~O ~qe _I? ,q&: e;t~ ~~r l1o/'~'-' ~~S;;~ , ~ k~ /'~ '~;J 9~~/ ~ /~~ d..e,IcI:1..rW V?;J ~ ~ ~ /4J~ C-;#tZ- ~('7 .~. ~r ?/~ . Alii';) /!Ao.Je;'.. SF<.J.'btlj ~~S :.:?S.fVe A-,.J& (/A1Je: eo)-e.. ~ ~.e ?i'.,.,e (b~ar.lS(O..J ( tW,e 11~/(7.t/~c ~ ()o~,.J1!7 ;.5 . /~ ~~~r /-t) () s frLL- / }Iow6/M Nf>r I AJ A ;tes ~oettJr ~ ;Jt!l6!ddLII~ . \ it~~N !oy.eA · ~ , 'f3VO/ - \ ..' ~ I ~_. --------- -- ~fl>l j I ~,ZO~ \ - '\ ..J. 7, · ,#~ ..J ::ti ~1-'~~o 'j ~~/'.. ~~..1 ~~- ~~~~~- ..j ~~ - ~ rJ/f. ~{~ ~?/~~ ..~. j ~~~ ~~ ~ J ~~~...J;;1~~~~~ ! ~. ~~.~.~~~ . ~.~.p/'~~~ ~~. ) . 1~~~~ d ~ ~ ~/~' ~~~;;p, - ~~ P>~.~-+tP--~ ,. J,~' ~"wJ ~ - -~ ~I .~/~ . '1~' ~~~ '. ~ -1;. , ~r:' r1 ~~ p~~' .. ~ t:J..- fW#I;?; ~t'" ,fgf ~/ · . ...... . ~ ~ . - ----------"--.. ------ , ~-Z~Z:r ! 'lJ:c q;(NV~~.% l1t f7 .0-"1" ..... ....:-..; ~;:-n : ;" r-' ~ '":} V,... I : .. .. .-.. ". .. - ~ City of Arroyo Grande t" -. - Planning Department ....... . . ,. . ~ Subject: Approximately ten(lO) acres of land situated at the S/E corner of Traffic and Cherry Streetsin the City of Arroyo Grande, California. Please be advised that I strongly support the conversion of subject land from Agriculture to Single Family Residential. Approx~mately five years ago, at which time I held subject property under option, I filed a pre-application for the conversion of this property from Agriculture to Single Family Residenti$J.l.The City Council at that time voted unanimously in favorC'the conversion. Subsequent steps taken by the property owner and the present owner of the property were taken in reliance on the City's action denoting agree~ent that the property should be converted~ Following the awarding of a.contract to a Planning firm for the purpose of advising the City during the General Plan Up-date , the man assuming the responsibility for assisting the City perform the up-date flew the City and outlying areas, then came to my office in the K-Mart Center, where he advised me that. subj ect property was the first parcel of land' in the City to be pin pointed for conversion. He cited all the reasons, including (1) an island constituting in-fill- (2) not qualifying as "prime Ag. under definition(toxins from crop dusting injurious to adjacent residents. It should also be a way to provide some modestly priced homes that are much needed 'in this area. Also, based on a fair and equitable approach, this la~d should. be converted before any other Ag LAND IS CONSIDERED. P.S. Conversion of this,iand is simply the right thing to do. 116 VISTA DRIVE. ARROYO GRANDE. CA93420 · (805) 481-7387 · FA~ (805) 481-3192 --.....---..- -------- , ., ,. /', ..,.-. I.,..." ) '. . .... . . . ~ ,.. .'" I .--...... . . . E.-7? -I ~::> I . . ~~~; . ~.'{.; ," .' ,..,,,, .. . ,-_v. ' _,'. ":", io( . . CA . '''~..'' '"I" ...\ ,I :Y.~; ':- .. ~ , I of 4-(( o( 0 G-r~, ,;, ", , I r svp '0'" f € J ~\,-fVVt.o..--(:: :LA.Ar'ft.- i . '" (<'C;Yf-rJs +v 'f-G. rlre.-tK./efvnR. J . () r 1 Cf1hf.v/ fNL 1i~;5 /ar./ COM /10 L&.yVl J Ix~,) hr d:.f. r; (!u llvr<..) be c,er-uS-C: 1 . 1 .~ (. f ,. "'>s u.. .rc!JuYlkd' k,,-/ ieC;1' cR'f ~~ (;o-P. 1 70 v.s~ if .I=or- #~ P()?O$~ c?+ Din-cv(/V1"O( 1 1../\) Cc. (j ~ '€ y !-a.;'1I1y --' f5d WIG /1.. Lj J/tTJ'1L€-:OWtV!..A.. 1 !" (' C C1.tYse (9[ f1iJi S-c. jell r f i /1.11f-n '1 o'f/..e./ 1 -iC{d-ors ~aJ l~'Cv< t1 h-e vet<-t d-i<,,(urt-;!K'. 0' ..r YtiAk %(5 ?~ov.ll b~ C<. !t./JJ)6n &a-rr1e.J;, ~i A ~ JJe. ..fo(< rOtA. UC/I'/j" tKi? ;:'> n o..J i rJ-,'/(, a I' d -sk~Jt-<. f1 I.?-(. d-we..(of€ J aPt) useD i t1 ct.. , vos ,-Ii l;-l. \.0*( ~ k ~' r I ("'a..\,\) $ , . '-pi )~( I . '::';::' = . - --- n ..' .. _.J.- l _ f1. . ':~.:_ . _ -1 '-l .- \. ~-v "~'jJ . !}--~ ~).j ~ . p l' .. . I (t,~.f pi . C:Jj ~t. ~ ,4, .)J. ., ~ . .: _'. J-~i>1 f. fi~ e< ,>:,>(iL ~ '- ~~: -. b f/.AJ-Fvt1 ~. .~/L<". ~ 1 fe. . 1} ~/~" t..- . - /A"'/ .~ ~ \ ~:,f--( ~ ~ ~-:". . f.-. ~ ~ t-04 jt. t;-b' '~~I . ~..v~ ~. ~ ~.. 1 ~N . . ~ ~ , (or -:.- ~ '. p~ . .). ~ j' ~ ;vi' ~ r , .~~.. r" . ~.~' ~'. -{..r--. . ~ ~~.' .~ .' )r18pv J1 u.jM .. d. ,.. J .JI-'-" '. . >-- j... f':l /!...r {f '1 5 ~'.;i. '" . "I,q ""'P-' . ~ ~~~, (~ . . .-n .. ., ~. ..... :-~J~ . '"... '0 . . .t.... ., . ,. . . ... ( -. - ---------- . --~ / -------- ~- ._~. ~ ~~ ......... ...... ; . ] Planning Department ] City of Arroyp Grande 214 East Branch Street J Arroyo Grande, CA This is a letter to the members of the Arroyo Grande Planning Department ' .J . ,. indicating my support for the Cherry" Avenue Property Conversion. J It is my understanding that the property is considered "Infill" and is located on developed streets with existing infrastructure. It is also my understanding that J every planner the City has hired has said that this property is infill and should be used for development before expansion into outlying farmland. I've been told that some homeowners in the area oppose the conversion, wanting j instead to retain open space in the City at no expense tathem. This seems like a selfish attempt by those who do own homes to block further development at the J expense of folks who could have the opportunity to be homeowners as well. It should also be noted that the SOAR Initiative was soundly defeated in Arroyo J Grande. . Having a smalrisland of agriculture within existing residential and. commercial ] developments seems to be incompatible. Not only do you have the. use of " agricultural pesticides, but the noise created by water pumps and the large trucks and tractors as well. ] The City Council voted 5 to nothing almost five years ago on a pre application submittal to change the designation from agricultural to residential. The Only ] reason this is still an issue is because th~ Generaf Plan has been under review. The current General Plan states that prime agricultural. lands may be converted when the property is no longer economically viable. The standard for being ] economically viable is taxable income that is high enough to support a family of four. It is my understanding that the rent of this property does not even pay the property taxes. ] Again, for these reasons I support the Cherry Avenue Property Conversion. - ] ~~11\.\~~ Michael N. Norem ] 220 La Cresta Drive Arroyo Grande, CA -. .'. . ".. ..'f.. r~r"'\ . ....' ::: i Y t ~..~~ ] :. t*,;, I. , ] '.. . " . -_.-- _____..___..__..... '__.m'_ - - ______.________n ._______ -.- 1 ----~- I , r'" ...:. ... : ". .. ;:...' ..::.. ~ July 3, 2001 - Planning Department City of Arroyo Grande, CA. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: . The best course of action is for more homes to be built here in Arroyo Grande. The current shortage of homes is causing prices to escalate to an unreasonable level. Building more homes is the best solution. lbat will enable our young people to finish their education, get married, and raise a family right here where they grew up. The property adjacent to Cherry Avenue is a case in point. This overall area is one ofresidential homes and commercial property. Considering the location, size, and potential oftbis property, the best use would be to develop homes. This is not big enough to become farmland that will support a fanner. The dust, spraying, and noise does not make a suitable neighbor for the homes now on Cherry Avenue. It is time to put the cities General Plan in proper perpective~ and bring it up to date. TIle new General Plan should classify.this 10-12 acres parcel as residential. And proceed to ~d homes here. A ''No-Growth'' outlook is just plain silly, when there is a logical need for homes to be built. And this small piece ofland is a very good place to build homes that the city would be proud of.; ~- . ~/ 1 Earl L. Paulding 232 La Cresta Drive Arroyo Grande, CA ...... ~ . -. ..::.... , I ., .' . .1.- - .. . . . . I '. . i I , fi r i i f -.- ~._.- F -, ~-" I ,. . '-.:... . - i 1 rtJ:t .q;fm/~~.% 1 {it9^" ] v 'H'):'''' ~'Ooi~:'~ p 't:.=' n .. or' - v ~ )- .~. ... ~. . _. "0'" ., .~ v .". ., ...". 'J - . .:. ,",- . . . 0 City of Arroyo Grande I.' . '-r'T Planning Department {'.... . . . 00, '.. , ] . Subject: Approximately ten(lO) acres of land situated at the S/E corner of Traffic and Cherry Streets in the City ] of Arroyo Grande, California. Please be advised that I strongly support the conversion of .J subject land from Agriculture to Single Family Residential. Approximately five years ago, at which time I held subject 1 property under option, I filed a pre-application for the conversion of this property from Agriculture to Single Family Residenti~l. The City Council at that time voted unanimously 1 in favorol'the conversion. Subsequent steps taken by. the property owner and the present owner of the property were taken in reliance on the City's action denoting agreement that the property should be converted. ] Following the awarding of a contract to a Planning firm for . the purpose of advising the City during the General Plan 1 Up-date , the man assuming the responsibility for assisti~g the City perform the up-date flew the City and outlying areas, then came to my office in the K-Mart Center, where he 1 advised me that subject property was the first parcel of land in the City to be pin pointed for conversion. He cited all the reasons, including (1) an island constituting in-fill- 1 (2) not qualifying as "prime Ag. under definition(toxins from crop dusting injurious to adjacent residents. It should also be a way to provide some modestly priced 1 homes that are much needed' in this area. Also, based on a fair and equitable approach, this' land should be co~verted before any other'Ag LAND IS CONSIDERED. 1 ~ 1 ~ Lee O. Web '. P.S. Conversion of this land is simply the right thing to do. 1 1 116 VISTA DRIVE. ARROYO GBANDE. CA93420 · (805) 481-7387 .. FAX (805) 481-3192 1 ----. .-.- --- ___u...__ ------ --~ F - (-I We, the undersigned, who live in the vicinity of the East Cherry Ave. I Traffic Way . agriculturally zoned site, feel it is within our best interest as well as the best interest of this city to maintain the agricultural zoning on this property. Weare aware that there is a request ttom the current owner to rezone this property, and a request for rezoning on the general plan update. Many of us have already met and discussed this issue with the owner, and he was well aware of our feelings long before he purchased the property for speculatioIL . This entire property should remain within the agricultural zoning. It was very evident during the general plan updating process that the community strongly supported protecting our prime soils. This support did not refer to one or two of these last remaining properties; the support encompassed all prime solls that our city is able to protect. This is important for the nature of who we are as a community, and it's a1so important for the future of mankind. The prime agricultura1land at the comer of Traffic Blvd. and East Cherry Ave. was rezoned ftom prime agriculture to highway commerciaJ, in the Jast general plan update in 1990. It would be preferable that this land also be placed back into the agricultural zoning where it would benefit the community most. We site the following reasons why we feel it is so important to retain these properties in agricultural zoning: I I 1. Traffic increase on East Cherry. Traffic has already increased substantially since the I recent building of the homes at the end of East Cherry. Most of the homes face outward towards East Cherry, and already have difficulty getting out of and into their properties. It is also dangerous for children who live on this street. 2. Traffic increase at the intersection of East Cherry and Traffic Way. As most of you already know, this intersection is heavily impacted by the build out of the commercial properties that have recently moved onto Traffic Way: Heacock, 5 Cities Swim, and Mobil Gasoline station, as well as the residential homes built at the end of East Q1erry by Coker Ellsworth. Accidents have increased by an enormous amount at this specific intersection since this build out. Should we add any more traffic to this intersection, it has been suggested that a signal would be needed. Then~ is already considerable congestion along this route up to and through Fair Oaks Blvd. Adding another light would complicate matters; not adding in a light at this intersection would make it even more difficult to cross traffic to turn south for the treeway onramp. Traffic exiting East Cherry must already cross over Traffic Blvd. and weave through the traffic coming down the north bound off ramp ftom Highway 101 with no stop sign, most traveling at unsafe speeds. 3. Increased lighting. Residents liviDg along East Cherry already suffer the lighting of the auto dealers along Traffic Way, as well as the lighting trom 5 Cities Swim and Mobil Service Station. You could almost read a book at night with the lighting in this area. t F- f .. .., J . Adding housing here would further impact the lighting ~sue. I .,.J \ 4. Increased noise. Although agricultural production bas an impac~ on noise that we are I well aware of, the fanners who work this area have been extremely aware and thoughtful of the noise, and have gone to great limits in order to work with their neighbors. Having . a further housing development will cause a treIlJ,endous increase in the noise level of this J area. S. Increased use of water and sewer that are already inadequate. This. is a huge J problem in our city. A problem we are all aware of. None ofus wish to use resources we don't have yet. 6. Property value change. We enjoy a property value here that is directly tied to the I urban atmosphere we all enjoy in this area. To take this away nom us would have a ~ direct monetary impact on the value of our homes. J 7. Increased need for city and county services (ie. poliet; fin; schoo~ bus sto~ vrear . and tear on streets. We all know that building new homes adds burden to our city and J county services. Services we all pay for. We are a1so aware that the impacts we all share from these increased service needs are not paid for entirely by these new homes. At one of the last City Council meetings, Councilman TomRunne1s sited that it cost the city J .more than $1200 a year in city services for each new home. Unless each new home is being taxed accordingly, this increase impacts us all. 8. Need to change East cheny to a 4-1ane street. It bas been brought up by the city in J the past that by building new homes on East Cherry, it would increase traffic to the point that 4 lanes would be needed here. Historically, when East Cherry Avenue had a need to J be widened and aspbalted several years ago, the city meed a dilemma. Should it cut into valuable prime agricu1turalland or should it cut into the homes of every household on J East Cherry A venue. It was decided that it would be best for every household along East Cherry Avenue to give up land in the front of their homes for the extIa; Jane. Homes on East Cherry loSt their front yards, many right up to the front door, in order to save this J valuable soil. Now that the land bas been sold and the buyer wants to asphah over this prime agricultural soil, many of us believe we had been asked to give up our own Jands so that this owner can then make mopey by building more homes. Were we J compensated? Yes, but;t wasn't about the money; then or now. Prime soil is just that; prime. Once asphalted, it is gone forever. 9. Flood impact. Anyone who bas lived here longer than 6 months knows that this is a ] heavy flood plain. All homes on east Cherry as well as the new homes built by Coker Ellsworth had to be raised by several feet in order to keep flooding from the properties. ] Every winter, d~Spite elevation of the surrounding land, and despite the canal work done on the Dixon Ranch by the city a few years ago, this area still floods the streets as well as many homesites. Asphalting this large open area would have a huge impact on the ." percolation this area desperately needs. No amount of rerouting or basin digging will J J ~~ ---- f .. f r t= ,-; . ,.--' repair the damage that's already been done to this area by poor planning. To add to this insult with further building would be worse. There are many advantages in maintaining this agricultural zoning. 1. Preserves the prime alluvial soils. 2. Provides rural character as well as historical value of village limd. ,. 3. Is a valuable asset for farmer who leases property? Mr. Taylor, V{ho leases this land for farming, has told us an many times that the land will just about grow anything. Does he make a profit, despite having to truck in and around all ofus who live here? According to Mr. Taylor, he does. 4. Aesthetics. This agricultural green beh is certainly better to look at than houses, for th<?~ ofus who live here, for those who live above this property in the Trinity area, anyon~ driving by, as well as evezyone who lives in this city. s. Provides natural flood control during periods of heavy rain. I _. ----~---._._-". ----"--..---- -_._----,,----~_. F--1-4 . r Si20ature . . Priut Address ( . {;J c:f.1fJ~. iY + - 0 -J- 2 L r l' U1"z .. /;;ID-.(..... ..... E.n3. e.1h:...MS..(.. ...J.il3. ,6.Cq..RtI:r.V...1*.& . . .:. 'cUk1... :1.'.. .... ....' .....C!t.45J..&?fL.......~.~......................:..;....~! . r .' ..&.9.......... ..~............... .......)..3.\...lz.:.0.&.Mk1 ~;.:;!.~ . \/ r' ') I.. Iii, ,,: ~ .. ..,.... .... . ... .... "'f JlRr!.~\.!!....f.1~l.t1/.f... ~(U;... ,.di..e<<r.y..AVL..7 ~<(~ I. .' ~. .. . . .;, .. K<:'6d.9'".to/,('J:.UftiZe1.G."..q.~..... "t 3'lfz<s r .:~..... .~....E.Y})....ll.lN.~l\)."1.....a~.~..c:...e..tj ~ R R~ 7'.... ~ ~ · t"'".-,.. ,. .; ;. ~~..9-~:.......~ClLf.~c:{.~},:J c::!-?...........~.~.::::.....:.......... / -:.~ ... .ff~..1?. . .:....... !.f.(!.hJ..E.~.t.r.( .c.:?..:~U:~t!$...~ .. ....11. .F:. · . ..:.. ......P/ilJJJ;)....r.;D.i{ZK.e5....~.1..#.s.CIPf'J( /1/1[;.... · .~. . ~~ ..J3cr."L..~..Al.L .~ ...... . ...x:t:~s.h~:1~4~\l\..t39:.E.,.L.b.~.r.c.1.,..M~. ~ . .' .' f" 1_ fJq,I.uIJU. ~~'fr"" .Mr.t:J1.. &c.td.'\(c.bn..... J.3fi..E..C/.i~f.' I:~.. f1 f~:. _ ~~ ....kli.i;r.y...ft..:~~ ......I.~;;?..!f:....d6?.(;-j7.. "C" fJ G .. .~ ~f....~~9.~!.~"\.. ..:\Q.~:\~..~...~~~.<:c.~....g~...?2...~:,..~~~~.~"1.~....... . ... . , '. .. .w~~~...~~:K.uk.~...2Q~...E.,...Ck\e~.. .../-\, G. ..: , , . . I ~ --"- .-;59 . . ...... ... ..~(le.tI.lf.SR.J/.Ik...;;).2?..t;:;:/.fiJ... .....rdJ f3> L ~ j.j~~ .. ~.,f\ ~.....Q.m.k:d.Six:;II~...27..?..&;r....<Yb-&, j .65 ...... ~..~..~T-.t~y......3.n..G..Ck.~\[.v.~ AG. 1 . . .'. ~kL.... .....~.c.m~fCO'.v.::.jf]...f...,.c.A~Av~A L,- J . .. .... . ..................0.2!.~d.~::-:....!J?~~~::'....bR:}.u:.\J~.td:.J.rb 45f1dl . c-:::> . \ . J'\ b :T C)6 CB~~Q ~~. ...,............. .:\0:~::n.~.~!-:~...l:t\>.~ ~~S>......~l.~.\\1:~~..<:=:...~.~ , df1 . 1 )0"',. . . ,1 1 . .". t r>' ..' :Nd" '. l........,. J .... ~~!~~..(;J;ikkell: ....~t,Uy{e.,..WdJ~Jns. .!LJ...0~.l{1ex'!M..~....... . . lJ 1 I .J .. - --~ --- __ f . f--. ! .- ~ ....; Si2Dature Print Addr~s 1 ~ ; &."'G 'J..~ Ct . . '~r ..~~'?1. ................lJ. ....... ...~. ~.. , ; . . . I !; A ': .. ...~ . .... . ...fY.'. eJM .d~&.v.:...c;.c-.~... ~.J!lltZ'ff-'~ , ./ ....~;!...q;h........... .. Q.~.~.(4...Q I:::~.~ ...~~~. .f... ~ .~.~--::~~..;. ..... . .. :~~/~. . ./:J~B."iIr.... f1l!~. ..f:e.!.... ~h!&,f.. .1rt4/.&... \ !tL~........... -. ..1>. ~~ .~~'IW~....... . 5.~..f:~~-f.\. .~~...... ..... . . ..~........... .. ~}.(...&kl Ns....... .~I? ~.18u. /:me .1,SlY.tt.. :~.\C, lfo:v:L. .. .1'r'J.IJlcx.t bJ E,..fJ. tJo k :.. 5:(J .1-1.. !k.9uH.tJ......l-9,H .9..'* {], , 5.& .. ...~.<$:.&lji7.......SQ;3..~..~ d,U: . ..~~?-!.~.(E.EfI:?../3IONQJ....5lJ~.0Y.~tt...Cr:6!...~.'- .. ....... ....~.... ..Atj....$.1.1!.48f. .......~.??....6!1.~~...!:~. )1.. G. ~ ~fzt~ '. '-1>7 ~ il-b ... .. ........... . .. ~~.~...:.)........... . L/~ 1?~N.u:?.D~.~~~~...... ~.J... ~~~~.. .~.~.. B.G . Ji..~'Jf??fJf.... .4?.~.::c~~:L E~.0:!-.!?'.~':~.~..-!:(...;t.l b , - - - ' -. -n - C)" tlC J' . ~..;.14. ;.l~tf.;~ .:.. .J. ~.M.~. t:/);;...lri,'M~.,......2.::,L.~.....!:.f}.ar . .. .I~~~...Q\(.~ ....~.~ ..$Q]..~f.\g..{1:t\~g~~..~ c::::::- - <_::~~~ ... ,I __ ~. .J'7L - ~ A~ -:::;....: / ~ .-41'"- ...........\.... ... ~... .... .......:.. .. ~::?'&-.. . .. .. . o. ~ ....~ ..... . .. . .. ."<?f..~ . .... ~ .................................. .............................. ................................~......... .................................. .............................. .......................................... , .................................. .............................. .......................................... .................................. .............................. .......................................... .................................. .............................. .......................................... .................................. .............................. .~........................................ I ~.~ -~ __1_&...-9_ I_ . . / ' .,. ,i' . E & F. RESPONSE TO CHERRY AVENUE PROPER1Y CONVERSION COMMENT LETTERS AND PE1TI10N , " General Plan Update related: The subject property Is discussed In the DEIR as one of the su~reas of land Use Study Area 7E on pages EIR-51 through 55 and regarding cumulative effects on pages EIR 70 through 73. I ! The Planning Commission and City Council must resolve appropriate land use dassification and ~ r balance the conflicting objectives of agriculture preservation and urban growth and development. I The generalized impacts of this particular "Infill" must be. considered .In the context of the total I plan Including alternative Inflll, redevelopment and expanslonoppoltunltles,lrfrastructure I capabilities and constraints Including roads, traffic Impacts, water, sewer, drafnage,'ftood control, I Increased lighting, aesthetics and other Issues. ! I I I However, the proposed 2001 General Plan Update Includes a suggested agricultural buffer zone I which does not exist between current agriculture and adjoining. resldential.and:comrnerdal uses. r This lack of a buffer around existing agriculture Impacts both agriculture operations and the - r nearby residents regarding land use compatibility (dust, noise, traffic, ~clde restridlons, etc.) Residential development of this 10,:,12 acre property and adjoining Japanese Welfare Association I parcel Is a controversial proposal but one issue not yet addressed by the applicant Is proposed mitigation for conversion of prime farmland soils evident on this property. (See Ag 1-1, Ag 1-4 and well as Ag 3-14). If these 12 acres are eventually converted to non-agricultural use, the policy suggested by Ag 1-4.2 would require at least 24 acres of permanent protection of prime farmland In a suitable location determined by the Oty Council. . . While the 1990 General Plan Included an Agriculture classification and one objective and policies .. . related to retaining agricultural land, the 2001 General Plan Update contains an optioned element devoted to agriculture prese/Vatlon' and conservation. Criteria In the 1990 plan regarding proposals to convert prime agricultural lands required "analysis of the long term economic viability of agriculture on the lands. . .based on the projected average annual taxable Income for farming actMties being equal or greater than the County median taxable Income for a family of four." .. - . These economic viability provisions for considering conversion are NOT contained In the 2001 General Plan Update principles, objectives or policies outlined In "U Ie ;\~riculture, Conservation , and Open Space Element. Policy Ag 1 provides for no net loss of prime farmland soils. Ag 2 discusses conservation of water resources and recharge for agriculture use. Ag 3 provides for maintenance of current acreage of agricultUral uses within the planning area (including Ag 3-14) regarding consideration for conversion "only if and when the parcel or set of parcels is less than minimum size and Is widowed from other agricultural uses." Ag 4 suggests specialty crops and other means to Improve agricultural productivity Including possible Incentives for landowners to maintain land In productive agricultural uses. Ag 5 promotes urban and agricultural coexistence Including Rlght-to-Farm and proposing buffers between agriculture and non-agriaJltural uses. Ag 6 provides for an Increase in minimum parcel sizes from the current 10 acres to 20 acres for E & F-I-R-1 -. -- - -- - ~- -""-- - . cultivated, irrigated and/or prime agricultural lands and 40 acres for non-cultivated, non-irrigated - .. , , and/or non-prime agricultural lands. ! While the parcel size and urban surroundings. appear to conform to the key criteria for possible conversion, there are: a)- no proposals to offset the significance of net loss of prime soils by mitigation as proposed by policy Ag 1-4,2; b) no analysts of groundwater 'recharge or water resource diversion from agriculture to urban uses, nor; c) evaluation of adequate service by appropriate infrastructure and eonsi~eration of other environmental' impacts Including alternatives ... ... to avoid the potential loss. In other words, there are policies that enable possible consideration, ... but other factors that have not been 'COnsIdered, based on proposed policies. . ' ..... . If the property owner wants to pursue -further consideration after ~e General Plan Update polldes are resolved, an amendment application including a project EIR, request for rezoning and a development plan eoulp be submitted. , E & F-l-R-2 ----~._--- - - ~----_.__.- G-I- I r ,.,." ...fr . 'i . RECEIVEr.! t' iT)' ,,- t r.-'OYO 1"1'\ 4 .....- . r May 22, 200 I u Ur \ .1\ ~.,:..r....:: To the City of Arroyo Grande City Council: O'J HAY 23 PN J: ll4 r This letter is in reference to the property, parcel number 007-252-013, which runs between Tally Ho Creek and six homes on the north side of May Street in the city of Arroyo Grande. . It has been brought to our attention that this parcel is being considered for re-zoning nom Public Facility to ,,- Open Space. We strongly support this designation. This parcel contains several massive live oak trees, and '- "- in addition to its scenic qualities this riparian woodland is home to a large population of pacific tree frogs r . and a wide variety of nesting birds, and in the recent past has been inhabited by gray foxes, bobcats and mule deer. . An Open Space designation would help preserve the current habitat on the parcel and would al~o help r protect the Tal1y Ho Creek .watershed. We urge you to vote to re-zone this unique.parcel as Open Space. Thank you. [ NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS , r r r r r r - r [. r - r ~ e: ~~~;~. ; [ [ e.s~~ ~--_._--_._- - MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORRs BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, ITEM 9.c. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-002 DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 Attached you will find the Resolution to the staff report in Item 9.c. which was inadvertently left out of the Council Agenda packet. c: City Manager City Attorney --_."~_._- ---~- - _.~- -~_.- -----~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-002; AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF FOUR PARCELS TO AGRICULTURE, MODIFICATION OF LANGUAGE IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND AMENDING THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS TO REVISE IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR MITIGATION OF CONVERTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHEREAS, on January 14, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 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, based on public input and articulated Council policy, City staff prepared the Report on the Conservation of Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande (Agricultural Report), attached as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 3699 and incorporated therein by reference; and WHEREAS, on 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 Conservation of Agricultural Resources for the City of Arroyo Grande (Agricultural Report); and WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council initiate the preparation of an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map for four (4) prime agricultural properties among other recommendations from the Agricultural Report; and WHEREAS, on July 22,2003, the City Council 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 made the following findings: A. Proximate prime agriculture within the City of Arroyo Grande is integral to the character of the community and directly affects the City's economic and historical significance; B. The City has demonstrated a long term commitment to agricultural preservation through long-range planning, general plan policy, zoning, the right to farm Ordinance No. 419 C.S., commission of the Coordinated Agriculture Support Program study and Ordinance No. 536; -. -- RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 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; WHEREAS, on July 22, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution 3699, a portion of which initiated the preparation of a General Plan Amendment redesignating the land use category for four (4) certain properties and modification of Land Use Element Policy Statement LU5- 13 and Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation Element Implementation Policy AG1-4.2 among other recommendations from the Agricultural Report. WHEREAS, on August 19, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the alternatives outlined in the Agricultural Report and General Plan Amendment No. 03-002 and adopted Resolution No. 03-1899 by a 3-2 vote that recommended that the City Council redesignate all four parcels back to Agriculture, delete General Plan policy LU 5-13, and modify General Plan policy Ag 1-4.2 regarding mitigation, and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Commission recommendations as outlined in Resolution No. 03-1899, and after discussion of various alternatives that differed from the redesignation of all four parcels back to Agriculture, referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendation, and , I I -- ---~ I I I RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 WHEREAS, on September 16, 2003, the Planning Commission again considered alternatives and received additional staff report and public testimony, and determined by the same 3-2 vote to reaffirm the recommendations contained in Resolution No. 03-1899, to redesignate all four parcels back to Agriculture as the most appropriate alternative, consistent with other General Plan policies regarding potential conversion, mitigation, required findings and other recommendations initiated by City Council Resolution No. 3699, and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2003, the City Council reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, Planning Commission recommendations, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following General Plar:l Amendment findings can be made in an affirmative manner: 1. The proposed amendment land use designation provides consistency with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the general plan and remedies internal inconsistencies within the plan; and 2. The proposed amendment conserves agricultural resources and will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; and 3. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are considered and analyzed in the Certified Program EIR for the 2001 General Plan Update and are considered insignificant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby directs the following: I. The land use category for the following properties shown in the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map shall be redesignated to Agriculture as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein: 1. Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 007-621-023, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue between Pacific Coast Railway Place and Traffic Way, consisting of approximately 7.4 acres, owned by Dorfman Homes Inc., current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed back to Agriculture; 2. A portion of APN 007-621-0'73, generally located on the southerly side of E. Cherry Avenue between Pacific Coast Railway Place and Traffic Way, consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, owned by Dorfman Homes Inc., current land use designation Mixed Use/Planned Development proposed to be changed back to Agriculture; -- MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~ BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, ITEM 9.c. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. 03-002 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 Attached you will find the very last page to the staff report (last page to Attachment 5 in Item 9.c.) which was inadvertently left out of the Council Agenda packet. c: City Manager City Attorney -~--'- -~._--- --.~- . . cultivated, Irrigated and/or prime agricultural lands and 40 acres for non-cultivated, non-Irrigated - , .- . , and/or non-prime agricultural lands. \ ., While the parcel size and urban surroundings appear to conform to the key criteria for possible conversion, there are: a). no proposals to offset the significance of net loss of prime soils by mitigation as proposed by policy Ag 1-4,2; b) no analysis of groundwater recharge or water resource diversion from agriculture to urban uses, nor; c) evaluation of adequate service by appropriate Infrastructure and consideration of other environmental Impacts Induding alternatives "- to avoid the potential loss. In other words, there are polides that enable possible conSideration, "- "- but other factors that have not been -consIdered, based on proposed polides. . ..,,: .. If the property owner wants to pursue -further consideration after the General Plan Update polides are resolved, an amendment application Indudlng a project EIR, request for rezoning and a development plan coul~ be submitted. I I I I I E &. F-1-R-2 - 10.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE EL CAMPO ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT STUDY REPORT -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT (PSR-PDS) DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council approve the EI Campo Road/Route 101 Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) and direct staff to request funding from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) for Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA & ED). FUNDING: The Council awarded a contract to prepare the PSR-PDS in the amount of $107,030. There were two contract amendments in the amount of $32,005 and $48,180 that were subsequently approved, bringing the total project cost to $187,215. The $187,215 was funded from the following sources: City of Arroyo Grande = $91,320; San Luis Obispo Council of Governments = $56,933; Arroyo Linda Crossroads = $38,962. Once this PSR-PDS is approved by Caltrans, the City can request funding for the next phase of the project, Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) during an upcoming Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding cycle. It is estimated the PA&ED will cost $1,800,000 if all of the alternatives contained in the PSR-PDS are studied. DISCUSSION: In 1998, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) that would evaluate interchange alternatives near the existing EI Campo Road/Route 101 intersection. The most recent Council action was the authorization to distribute the draft report for public review and comment. Several comments from the public were received, including one comment that suggested the possibility of including an additional alternative (Alternative 4) to the report. This alternative proposed regional connectivity by extending EI Campo Road as a frontage road along Route 101 connecting to Valley Road and eventually to Fair Oaks Avenue. ---------- CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE EL CAMPO ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT STUDY REPORT -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT (PSR-PDS) SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 The PSR-PDS includes a total of six alternatives, including five build alternatives and the no-build alternative. All of the build alternatives replace the "at-grade" EI Campo/Route 101 intersection with complete interchanges. The following is a summary of each alternative: Alternative 1 Construction of a new interchange adjacent to the existing at-grade EI Campo/Route 101 intersection at an approximate cost of $18,337,500. Alternative 2 Construction of a new interchange approximately 488 meters (0.3 mile) south of the existing at-grade EI Campo/Route 101 intersection at an approximate cost of $26,564,700. Alternative 3 Construction of a new interchange near the existing Traffic Way/Route 101 ramps intersection at an approximate cost of $38,616,300. Alternative 4 Construction of a new interchange approximately 370 meters (0.2 mile) north of the existing at-grade EI Campo/Route 101 intersection and frontage road extension to Valley Road at an approximate cost of $53,132,000. Alternative 5 Construction of a new interchange approximately 488 meters (0.3 mile) south of the existing at-grade EI Campo/Route 101 intersection that meets all Mandatory and Advisory Design standards at an approximate cost of $27,760,700. Alternative 6 This is the No Build Alternative. It is recommended the Council approve the EI Campo Road/Route 101 PSR-PDS report. By approving the PSR-PDS, all of the alternatives in the report will be considered feasible alternatives. The PSR-PDS does not identify a preferred alternative. Once the PSR-PDS is approved by the Council and Caltrans, staff will work with SLOCOG to secure funding for the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED), the next project. development step. The PA&ED will select a preferred alternative, identify detailed environmental impacts and final right-of-way requirements, ~---_. ------------ ---.------.----- . 4 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE EL CAMPO ROAD/ROUTE 101 PROJECT STUDY REPORT -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT (PSR-PDS) SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 3 and will allow the City to apply for final design and construction funding. Additional Council input and public comment will be part of the PA&ED process. If funding cannot be secured through SLOCOG, further development of the project would need to be funded through City, County and/or developer contributions. The entire PSR-PDS, which includes attachments such as Bridge Planning Studies, Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR), PDS Traffic scoping Checklist, etc. is available for review in the Public Works Department. AL TERNA TIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: . Approve the PSR-PDS report; I . Do not approve the PSR-PDS report; I . Request additional analysis and/or modification/deletion/addition of alternatives; . Approve the PSR-PDS report, but do not direct staff to request funding for the next phase of the project; . Approve the PSR-PDS report, but direct staff to pursue alternative funding sources for the next phase of the project; or . Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Project Study Report (Project Development Support), June 2003 I r Lu____ ---,...,--