The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2007-03-13Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member CITY OF City Council Tony Ferrara Ed Arnold Joe Costello Jim Guthrie Chuck Fellows Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: COUNCIL/RDA 3. FLAG SALUTE: BOY SCOUT TROOP 26 4. INVOCATION: PASTOR ROBERT UNDERWOOD FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5.a. Mayor's Commendation -Walt Cuzick. Information Technology Manager 5.b. Honorary Proclamation -Red Cross Month 5.c. Presentation by San Luis Obisao County I District 2nne 3 _ Interim Downstream Relea! 6. AGENDA REVIEW: 'Y CALIFORNIA W ~- ` Agenda Steven Adams City Manager Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney Kelly Wetmore City Clerk AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007 7:00 P.M. 6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. AGENDA SUMMARY -MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 2 COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may: • Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you. • A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you. • It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda. Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council: • Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less. • Your comments should be directed to the .Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members. • Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Ratify the listing of cash disbursements for the period February 16, 2007 through February 28, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Adjustment to Increase the Mileage Reimbursement Rate for Employees and Volunteers (KRAETSCH) [COUNCIL/RDA] Recommended Action: Establish 48.5¢ per mile as the employee/volunteer mileage reimbursement rate for the 2007 calendar year. 8.c. Consideration of Acceptance of Audited Annual Financial Report (KRAETSCH) Recommended Action: Receive and file the Audited Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006. 8.d. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of February 27, 2007, and the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meeting of March 5, 2007, as submitted. AGENDA SUMMARY -MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA (continuedl: 8.e. Consideration of an Agreement with RRM Design Group for the Design of the Village Green Improvement Proiect, PW 2007-05 (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Approve a consultant services agreement with RRM Design Group in the amount of $28,555.00 for the design of the Village Green Improvement Project, PW 2007-05; and 2) Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with RRM Design Group; and 3) Appropriate $25,555 from the Park Improvement Fund. 8.f. Recommended Action: 1) Accept the project improvements, as constructed by MGE Underground, Inc., in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Sewer Lift Station No. 1 Upgrade Project; 2) Direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorize release of the retention of $60,122.73, thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens have been filed. 8.g. Consideration to Accept Phase I of the Well No. 10 Proiect. PW 2004-07 (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: 1) Accept the project improvements, as constructed by Floyd V. Wells, Inc., in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Phase I Well No. 10 Project; 2) Direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorize release of the retention of $18,412.01 thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens have been filed. 8.h. Consideration of Public Safety Eauipment Sharing Agreement (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Approve the proposed Public Safety Equipment Sharing Agreement. 8.i. Consideration of Resolution Establishing an Automobile Allowance for the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Position (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution establishing an automobile allowance for the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities position. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: 9.a. (STRONG) Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending the Development Code to change the zoning designation of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF). AGENDA SUMMARY -MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 4 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 10.a. Branch Street and East Grand Avenue (SPAGNOLO) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution certifying the five-year radar speed survey for West Branch Street and East Grand Avenue. 11. NEW BUSINESS: None. 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by 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. Request for Feedback Regarding Issues Under Review by Oceano Dunes Task Force (ARNOLD). 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: 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. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: This public comment period is an invitatioh 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. 17. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA SUMMARY -MARCH 13; 2007 PAGE 5 All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative 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. This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arroyogrande.org City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande's Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.org. 8.a. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES J,~ BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR 't,~ SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period February 16 through February 28, 2007. FUNDING: There is a $947,452.38 fiscal impact that includes the following items: • Accounts Payable Checks 130143-130296 $ 515,595.89 • Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 431,856.49 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. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendation; • Do not approve staffs recommendation; • Provide direction to staff. Attachments: Attachment 1- February 16-February 28, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register Attachment 2- February 16, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register apCkHist 03/05/2007 5:11PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ATTACHMENTI Page: 1 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice ~ Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130143 02/16/2007 001259 AGP VIDEO,INC 2062 01/15/2007 2,332.50 2,332.50 130144 02/16/2007 003745 ARROWHEAD SCIENTIFIC, 25835 11/15/2006 56.14 56.14 130145 02/16/2007 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 35261 01/31/2007 41.82 41.82 130146 02/16/2007 005615AT&T/MCI T6070882 01/11/2007 1,024.44 T6012861 01/01/2007 289.04 T6045590 01/07/2007 88.32 T6070875 02/02/2007 29.69 T6070876 02/02/2007 14.69 1,446.18 130147 02/16/2007 000065 BRENDA BARROW 021307 02/15/2007 58.87 58.87 130148 02/16/2007 000084 THE BOXX EXPRESS 253 02/01/2007 13.33 13.33 130149 02/16/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 131813 01/22/2007 41.18 131851 01 /25/2007 16.71 131861 01 /25/2007 15.64 131688 01/09/2007 3.22 76.75 130150 02/16/2007 000114 CA PEACE OFFICERS ASSN LSP57342 01/31/2007 450.00 450.00 130151 02/16/2007 000110 CA ST DEPT OF 6685 01/30/2007 2,479.23 2,479.23 130152 02/16/2007 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 020907 02/15/2007 70.00 70.00 130153 02/16/2007 000603 CAROUESTAUTO PARTS 136699 01/26/2007 91.81 137078 01/29/2007 61.78 139878 02/09/2007 16.11 169.70 130154 02/16/2007 001314 CDF/STATE FIRE TRAINING 021507 02/15/2007 30.00 0215 02/15/2007 30.00 60.00 130155 02/16/2007 005909 CENTRAL COAST 603 11/21/2006 2,500.00 2,500.00 130156 02/16/2007 000172 COAST CLUTCH & BRAKE 113503 02/06/2007 1,039.37 1,039.37 130157 02/16/2007 002842 COMMERCIAL 1287-2807 01/29/2007 390.00 390.00 130158 02/16/2007 005997 COOK PAGING INC 6591813 02/01/2007 71.60 71.60 Page: 1 apckHist 03/05/2007 5:11 PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 2 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130159 02/16/2007 000198 L N CURTIS & SONS 1119540-00 01/09/2007 787.66 787.66 130160 02/16/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 922115 01/31/2007 224.92 922118 01/31/2007 29.92 153701 01/31/2007 18.32 273.16 130161 02/16/2007 001129 DRAIN DOCTOR'S PLUMBING 17016 02/05/2007 200.00 200.00 130162 02/16/2007 004610 ECMS INC 103837-00 01/26/2007 337.87 337.87 130163 02/16/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1242675 01/30/2007 289.58 289.58 130164 02/16/2007 005996 FIRE STATS 021507 02/15/2007 520.00 520.00 130165 02/16/2007 005990 FIRMA CONSULTANTS INC 2669.012207 01/22/2007 15,411.62 15,411.62 130166 02/16/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 2/1-140 02/01/2007 655.47 2/1-211 02/01 /2007 232.64 2/5-214 E 02/05/2007 178.05 2/5-200 E 02/05/2007 170 44 2/7-910 02/07/2007 74.81 2/5-208 E 02/05/2007 43.15 2/5-215 E 02/05/2007 31.74 2/7-1500 02/07/2007 10.96 1,397.26 130167 02/16/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 70152 02/05/2007 348.51 348.51 130168 02/16/2007 003730 INDUSTRIAL TOOL BOX 29003 01/23/2007 73.78 73.78 130169 02/16/2007 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 195781 02/01/2007 95.73 95.73 130170 02/16/2007 005201 JAS PACIFIC INC BI 9203 02/08/2007 5,880 00 5,880.00 130171 02/16/2007 003818 LITERACY COUNCIL 12312006 12/31/2006 351.00 351.00 130172 02/16/2007 000403 MAINTENANCE 021507 02/16/2007 20.00 20.00 130173 02/16/2007 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE 123927 01/09/2007 189.83 123954 01/10/2007 112.61 124357 01/23/2007 101.89 123785 01/04/2007 66.50 Page:2 apckHist 03/05/2007 5:11PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 3 Bank code: boa Check >F Date Vendor Status Clear/VOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 124561 01/31/2007 6328 534.11 130174 02/16/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 119084 02/08/2007 126.30 136147 02/05/2007 2785 118694 02/05/2007 23.01 118032 01/31/2007 15.82 119221 02/09/2007 14.45 117942 01/30/2007 12.85 134726 01 /25/2007 10.08 118210 02/01/2007 8.57 118938 02/07/2007 3.00 118710 02/05/2007 2.15 244.08 130175 02/16/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS175163 01/16/2007 62.92 FOCS175348 01/22/2007 32.75 FOCS175188 01/17/2007 3222 FOCS175379 01/23/2007 3222 160.11 130176 02/16/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 373616503-001 02/02/2007 18.06 18.06 130177 02/16/2007 002201 PACE BROS CONSTRUCTION 010907 01/09/2007 2,514.00 2,514.00 130178 02/16/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 8532998718-5 01/22/2007 14,067.18 14,067.18 130179 02/16/2007 000513 BEAU PRYOR 021607 02/16/2007 178.00 178.00 130180 02/16/2007 000516 PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 116133 IN 01/30/2007 390.17 390.17 130181 02/16/2007 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 30394 01/30/2007 134.60 134.60 130182 02/16/2007 005704 RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS 17091421-B1 01/30/2007 29.95 29.95 130183 02/16/2007 005411 REGIONAL TRANSIT 7460-07-038 02/08/2007 607.57 607.57 130184 02/16/2007 003363 NINA RIPPY 021307 02/15/2007 210.00 210.00 130185 02/16/2007 002932 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 492995 01/12/2007 2,414.54 492985 01/12/2007 46914 2,883.68 130186 02/16/2007 000538 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS 201921 01/26/2007 300.09 300.09 130187 02/16/2007 000570 SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE 21775 02/01/2007 216.02 216.02 Page: 3 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 4 03/05/2007 5:11 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status CIeaNVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130188 02/16/2007 000550 SLO COUNTY AIR 10808 01/25/2007 597.22 59722 130189 02/16/2007 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 13107 01/31/2007 86,103.81 86,103.81 130190 02/16/2007 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 17464 02/01/2007 6,994.40 6,994.40 130191 02/16/2007 003090 V & M UPHOLSTERY 6459 01/24/2007 188.63 188.63 130192 02/16/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2108918539 01/22/2007 130.60 2108734302 02/17/2007 10329 233.89 130193 02/16/2007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 764672 02/13/2007 23.13 23.13 130194 02/16/2007 000689 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 6042964593 01/25/2007 128.70 128.70 130195 02/16/2007 005991 SCOTT WIEDERHOLD 2132007 02/13/2007 60.00 60.00 130196 02/20/2007 004548 CARMEL 8 NACCASHA, LlP 10708 02/02/2007 5,793.38 5,793.38 130197 02/20/2007 005998 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION PW 2006-07 02/16/2007 251,459.05 251,459.05 130198 02/21/2007005992 LAURIE ADAMS Ref000074446 02/13/2007 90.00 90.00 130199 02/21/2007 005983 RICH BURRIER Ref000074290 02/05/2007 97.14 9714 130200 02/21/2007 005995 CAL-WEST Ref000074449 02/13/2007 38.65 38.65 130201 02/21/2007 005985 ALYSE ELDRED Ref000074292 02/05/2007 116.99 116.99 130202 02/21/2007 005993 LISA OBREGON - Ref000074447 02/13/2007 27.04 27.04 130203 02/21/2007 005984 HAROLD & LORRAINE Ref000074291 02/05/2007 7.00 7.00 130204 02/21/2007 005994 PAIGE SMITH Ref000074448 02/13/2007 4.38 4.38 130215 02/22/2007 001515 KIMBERELY DE BLAUW 022107 02/22/2007 200.00 200.00 130216 02/23/2007 004815 AIRGAS WEST INC 103102960 01/31/2007 25.60 25.60 130217 02/23/2007 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING L5245715HB 02/15/2007 22.62 2262 130218 02/23/2007 003857 ANDERSON BURTON PW 2006-09 02/14/2007 6,518.03 6,518.03 130219 02/23/2007 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POWER 27804 01/26/2007 18.50 18.50 Page: 4 apCkHist 03/05/2007 5:11PM ChQCk HiStOly Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 5 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130220 02/23/2007 000843 ARROYO GRANDE BAKERY 0005000 02/21/2007 103.95 103.95 130221 02/23/2007 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 34599 01/31/2007 67 19 33990 11/21/2006 52.02 119.21 130222 02/23/2007 001188 ARROYO GRANDE LIONS 020907 02/09/2007 348.89 348.89 130223 02/23/2007 005507 AT 8 T 2/8-9867 02/08/2007 78.24 2/8-9816 02/08/2007 77.85 2/7-7480 02/07/2007 67.56 2/7-3960 02/07/2007 3329 256.94 130224 02/23/2007 005615 AT&T/MCI T6070894 01/11/2007 89.19 T6061717 01/30/2007 29.65 T6070877 01/11/2007 18.66 T6070872 02/02/2007 1820 T6061715 01/08/2007 0.30 156.00 130225 02/23/2007002180AVAYA,INC 2725023435 02/01/2007 41.22 41.22 130226 02/23/2007 000056 BACKYARD IMPROVEMENT 2007-33 01/23/2007 208.07 948 12/28/2006 15.68 223.75 130227 02/23/2007 005005 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 122306 12/23/2006 174.00 174.00 130228 02/23/2007 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 022107 02/21/2007 45.00 45.00 130229 02/23/2007 001430 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC 7826-676105 01/25/2007 79.63 79.63 130230 02/23/2007 000603 CAROUESTAUTO PARTS 7314-137777 01/31/2007 13.00 7314-139860 02/09/2007 6.05 19.05 130231 02/23/2007 000160 CHAPARRAL 251199 01/25/2007 132.00 132.00 130232 02/23/2007 001990 CHARTER 2/2-473-5463 02/02/2007 194.95 194.85 130233 02/23/2007 002407 CINGULAR WIRELESS 123079092 01/26/2007 43.91 43.91 130234 02/23/2007 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 10396 02/05/2007 530.78 10397 02/05/2007 27590 806.68 130235 02/23/2007 000185 CONSOLIDATED 7605-474052 02/12/2007 105.53 105.53 Page: 5 apckHist 03/05/2007 5:11 PM Check History Listing CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 5 Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130236 02/23/2007 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL 00668 02/06/2007 30.00 30.00 130237 02/23/2007 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 2/2-017922 02/02/2007 45.25 1/31-14273 01/31/2007 27.25 1/31-48517 01/31/2007 23.00 2/2-70931 02/02/2007 11.50 1/31-048519 02/20/2007 11.50 2/2-018068 02/02/2007 11.50 2/2-63949 02/02/2007 8.00 138.00 130238 02/23/2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP 855768459 10/27/2006 402.31 402.31 130239 02/23/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 923505 02/16/2007 256.56 256.56 130240 02/23/2007 000210 DIESELRO, INC 21148 02/07/2007 248.36 248.36 130241 02/23/2007 006000 DOOR STOP INC, THE 14713 02/01/2007 767.78 14769 02/08/2007 262.05 1,029.83 130242 02/23/2007 000217 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE CO 494600 02/02/2007 31.04 31.04 130243 02/23/2007 001420 EVERGREEN OIL, INC 0192349 02/15/2007 1,200.00 1,200.00 130244 02/23/2007 003289 EXXONMOBIL FLEET 12586754 02/07/2007 21.35 21.35 130245 02/23/2007 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 220237 01/10/2007 87.39 217891 01/08/2007 33.07 229282 01 /20/2007 15.66 219829 01/10/2007 8.58 237779 01/31/2007 7.87 227612 01/18/2007 2.82 184804 11/27/2006 -64.35 91.04 130246 02/23/2007 004164 FEDEX 8-680-22659 02/20/2007 89.46 8-667-11637 02/20/2007 19 44 108.90 130247 02/23/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1244469 02/01/2007 406.49 1246125 02/05/2007 123.34 529.83 130248 02/23/2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 24734 02/13/2007 43.97 43.97 Page: 6 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 7 03/05/2007 5:11PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: Check # boa Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 130249 02/23/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 2/9-1375 02/09/2007 550.25 2/8-200 N 02/08/2007 420.53 2/9-350 S 02/09/2007 252.06 1,222.84 130250 02/23/2007 000272 GIBBS INTERNATIONAL 76458N 11/29/2006 41.50 41.50 130251 02/23/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 70178 02/08%2007 505.91 70204 02/13/2007 220.16 726.07 130252 02/23/2007 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 021507 02/15/2007 201.40 0215 02/15/2007 75.00 276.40 130253 02/23/2007 003366 ALLAN HANCOCK COLLEGE 846521 02/13/2007 3,312.00 3,312.00 130254 02/23/2007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 96619 02/05/2007 285.89 285.89 130255 02/23/2007 006003 ROD HATCH 022307 02/23/2007 66.00 66.00 130256 02/23/2007 006002 INDEPENDENT ORDER OF 021507 02/15/2007 116.50 116.50 130257 02/23/2007 002820 INDOFF, INC 893277 02/13/2007 140.51 140.51 130258 02/23/2007 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 158214 02/10/2007 58.93 158258 02/14/2007 2307 82.00 130259 02/23/2007 000413 LAW OFFICES OF JONES & 36210 02/01/2007 370.00 370.00 130260 02/23/2007 005833 KERN TURF SUPPLY INC 241627 02/02/2007 310.14 310.14 130261 02/23/2007 004969 JOHN KING 022007 02/20/2007 52.48 52.48 130262 02/23/2007 005999 EVAN CARSON 189287 02/21/2007 160.00 160.00 130263 02/23/2007 000399 MC CARTHY STEEL, INC 3744 01/31/2007 181.97 181.97 130264 02/23/2007 000419 MIDAS AUTO SERVICE 16760 01/19/2007 100.79 16942 02/07/2007 85.66 16821 01/25/2007 31.47 16953 02/08/2007 31.33 249.25 130265 02/23/2007 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE 124185 01/17/2007 233.81 123770 01 /08/2007 137.28 Page:? apckHist Check History Listing Page: 8 03/05/2007 5:11PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor 130266 02/23/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 130267 02/23/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 130268 02/23/2007 005922 MYERS 8 CO INC, RJ 130269 02/23/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 130270 02/23/2007 001886OFFICEMAX-HSBC 130271 02/23/2007 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY 130272 02/23/2007 000480 PACIFIC COAST SEED, INC 130273 02/23/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS 8 ELECTRIC 130274 02/23/2007 000492 PETTY CASH 130275 02/23/2007 000503 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS, 130276 02/23/2007 000531 RICHETTI COMPLETE WATER 130277 02/23/2007 006001 TRAVIS ROBINSON 130278 02/23/2007 005961 RUBBERSIDEWALKS INC 130279 02/23/2007 000550 SLO COUNTY AIR 130280 02/23/2007 000552 SLO COUNTY AUDITOR- Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 124368 01/24/2007 13728 508.37 119216 02/09/2007 51.43 119350 02/10/2007 16.37 118772 02/05/2007 11.79 119364 02/10/2007 6.41 119236 02/09/2007 6.26 119358 02/10/2007 5.06 97.32 175612 02/01/2007 53.62 53.62 T07-0036 02/22/2007 13,300.00 13,300.00 373830974-001 02/02/2007 93.05 373846675-001 02/02/2007 73.23 373296270-001 02/14/2007 5927 225.55 08707J0181 02/06/2007 198.87 02909384J0311 01/31/2007 139.05 337.92 00027570 01/10/2007 17.62 0041699 01/11/2007 13.93 31.55 0-33331-07 02/01/2007 305.14 305.14 2/9-620838 02/22/2007 173.51 2/9-781296 02/09/2007 15.24 2/15-704689 02/15/2007 1337 202.12 PETTY CASH-PD 02/22/2007 311.21 311.21 120607 01/31/2007 212.36 212.36 49912 02/01/2007 15.00 15.00 021407 02/14/2007 30.00 30.00 4301-00024 02/22/2007 9,716.25 9,716.25 10805 01/24/2007 298.61 298.61 V 02/28/2007 DA #VF006-004 02/15/2007 398.00 Page:B apckHist Check History Listing Page: s 03/05/2007 5:11PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor 130281 02/23/2007 000596 SMITH & LOVELESS, INC 130282 02/23/2007 000616 STERLING 130283 02/23/2007 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH 130284 02/23/2007 003457 TENERA ENVIRONMENTAL 130285 02/23/2007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 130286 02/23/2007 004609 TROESH RECYCLING, INC 130287 02/23/2007 000653 DOROTHY TRULOCK 130288 02/23/2007 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 130289 02/23/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 130290 02/23/2007 000684 VILLAGE FRAMING 130291 02/23/2007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 130292 02/23/2007 000704 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS 130293 02/23/2007 004897 WOOD RODGERS INC 130294 02/26/2007 004963 MARK LACOUAGUE 130295 02/28/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 130296 02/28/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA Status ClearNoid Date Invoice V 02/28/2007 DA#VF006-005 V 02/28/2007 DA #VF006-005 V 02/28/2007 DA #VF006-007 V 02/28/2007 DA #FV006-004 V 02/28/2007 DA#VF006-001 47695 22503 22544 1031 E16593 1017487 1017602 5359 021507 265549 265272 265482 2111325347 ORDER 1187 764328 T5702 53381 022307 V 02/28/2007 2/8-2059 2/8-9444 2/8-7762 Inv. Date 02/22/2007 02/22/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 02/22/2007 01/30/2007 01/29/2007 02/01/2007 01 /31 /2007 02/12/2007 02/05/2007 01/08/2007 02/06/2007 02/15/2007 02/01/2007 01/31/2007 02/02/2007 02/04/2007 02/17/2007 01 /29/2007 02/01/2007 02/09/2007 02/26/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 Amount Paid 195.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 32.00 168.06 38,965.00 974.00 251.08 531.50 155.58 35.87 39.52 1, 307.20 345.08 345.08 157.87 302.02 219.85 15.00 350.00 3,121.99 80.00 0.00 2,929.81 1,439.30 820.42 Check Total 925.50 168.06 39,939.00 251.08 531.50 191.45 39.52 1, 307.20 848.03 302.02 219.85 15.00 350.00 3,121.99 80.00 0.00 Page:9 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10 03/05/2007 .5:11 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Bank code: boa Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice 2/8-9436 2/8-2031 2/8-2091 2/8-0915 2l8-2083 2/8-9163 218-9328 2/8-2581 Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total 02/08/2007 755.02 02/08/2007 700.50 02/08/2007 571.57 02/08/2007 486.27 02/08/2007 386.23 02/08/2007 289.53 02l08I2007 164.80 02/08/2007 64.33 8,607.78 boa Total: 515,595.89 144 checks in this report Total Checks: 515,595.89 Page: 10 ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 1126/07 - 2/8/07 02/16/07 FUND 010 385,695. 78 5101 Salaries Full time 218,788 .73 FUND 220 18,546. 31 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 21,087 .51 FUND 284 706. 85 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 16,300 .39 FUND 285 706. 90 5105 Salaries OverTime 15,022 .11 FUND 612 6,732. 68 5107 Salaries Standby 385 .08 FUND 640 19,467. 97 5108 Holiday Pay 1,006 .54 431,856. 49 5109 Sick Pay 4,357 .14 5110 Annual Leave Buyback 5111 Vacation Buyback 5112 Sick Leave Buyback 5113 Vacation Pay 6,007 .55 5114 Comp Pay 3,632 .52 5115 Annual Leave Pay 3,246 .42 5121 PERS Retirement 71,991 .52 5122 Social Security 20,504 .59 5123 PARS Retirement 436 .56 5126 State Disability Ins. 650 .63 5127 Deferred Compensation 725 .00 5131 Health Insurance 39,755 .14 5132 Dentallnsurance 4,412 .10 5133 Vision Insurance 1,016 .67 5134 Life Insurance 597 .20 5135 Long Term Disability 915 .69 5143 Uniform Allowance 5144 Car Allowance 500 .00 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance 242 .40 5148 Boot Allowance 5149 Motor Pay 75 .00 5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200 .00 431,856 .49 5.a. `~-'~ CIT'Y 1a`~ _ ~ ®~ CALIFORNIA ~l~[ayor's Commendation presented to: ~UaCt Cuzick On this 13t~ day of Jl~larch 2007 In 1~ecognition of 2~our ~Vlem6ership in the platinum Service CCu6 forServiceA6ove and ~eyoncl the Call of duty Tony Ferrara, ~Ylayor CITY OF WHEREAS, America has always been a place of humanitarian action and compassion - a place where people take care of each other, and are always willing to reach out and provide help to others in need, whether they are down the block or around the globe. That American desire to put our compassion into action is deeply rooted in the character of San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, as we celebrate our 90th year, the Red Cross in San Luis Obispo County is the place where citizens join together, and the generosity and compassion of the American people fnds purpose. It's the place where someone who may not know you will give you their time, money, and life-saving skill, save you from drowning, render first aid or provide you with shelter. Never has this been more evident than these past few years, when the San Simeon Earthquake wreaked havoc on our community and a deadly tornado struck Florida. San Luis Obispo County responded swiftly and generously, and in overwhelming numbers chose their Red Cross as the place to turn their caring into action; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County American Red Cross responds to over fifty disasters each year. Some are large disasters such as the San Simeon Earthquake; wildfires that often threaten communities in the North County and Flooding in South County. Often though, response is to events that don't make headlines, such as the numerous home fires that have disrupted lives across our county every year. The Red Cross and its corps of over three hundred volunteers is among the first on the scene, providing food, shelter, griet counseling and more; and WHEREAS, recognizing that suffering knows no borders, the Red Cross provides assistance during international emergencies, such as the tsunami. Amerlnn They have also spearheaded a campaign to immunize millions of African ReO GOas children against measles, a disease nearly forgotten in America, but a deadly killer in other parts of the world; and kpUecNEmIIrE~eUfe WHEREAS, in America, we may not all look the same, dress the same or sound the same, but we share a common spirit that binds us together when times are tough and unites us in action when someone is suffering. Like a mircor on America, the Red Cross shows us the best possible reflection of ourselves. In celebrating American Red Cross Month, we are celebrating the humanitarian and volunteer spirit here in San Luis Obispo County and all across America. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Tony Ferrara, Mayor of the City of Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim March 2007 as "American Red Cross Month", in the Cily of Arcoyo Grande, and urge all Americans to continue to volunteer their time, donate blood and money, and give generously to the American Red Cross. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the Cily of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 13th day of March 2007. TONYFERRARA,MAYOR Paaoro O~ ~'9 ~ INCONVOflPTE092 ~ O U _ T f JOLY 10. 1911 1~ cgtrFOaa~P 5.ls. .T4arch 2007 as ".American Red Cross Month" 8.b. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRE TORS i FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council/Agency establish 48.5¢ per mile as the employee/volunteer mileage reimbursement rate for the 2007 calendar year. FUNDING: A minor fiscal impact will occur by increasing the reimbursement rate from 44.5¢ to 48.5¢ per mile. DISCUSSION: The City's Administrative Policy No. A-011, Mileage Reimbursement for Private Vehicles, states that authorized expenses shall be reimbursed at the per-mile reimbursement rate established by the City Council. Staff is proposing that the Council/Board establish the mileage rate at 48.5¢ per mile for FY 2007. Mileage is currently being reimbursed, in most cases, at 44.5¢ per mile in accordance with City Council action on January 10, 2006. The City has historically based the rate upon the rate set by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In November of 2006, the IRS released the 2007 mileage reimbursement rate of 48.5¢ that reflects the increase in gas prices. The new rate became effective January 1, 2007. The change to 48.5¢ from 44.5¢ will bring the City into compliance with the IRS rate. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council/RDA Board are as follows: 1. Establish the mileage reimbursement rate for employees at 48.5¢ per mile for the 2007 calendar year. 2. Establish the rate at a cost figure established by the City Council. 3. Retain current reimbursement rate. 4. Provide direction to staff. S.d. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2007 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 275 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Council Member Joe Costello, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Arnold, City Manager Steven Adams, and City Attorney Timothy Carmel were present. Council Members Jim Guthrie and Chuck Fellows were absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: Title: Director of Building and Fire 4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION: Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session. 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:27 p.m. Tony Ferrara, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007 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 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council/RDA: Council/Board Member Jim Guthrie, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Ed Arnold and Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara were present. Council/Board Members Joe Costello and Chuck Fellows were absent. City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Tim Carmel, Director of Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial Services Angela Kraetsch, Interim Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director Doug Perrin, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo, Director of Community Development Rob Strong, and Assistant Planner Jim Bergman. 3. FLAG SALUTE Chet Cash and Madeline Poulin, representing Arroyo Grande Valley Kiwanis Club, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Retired Pastor Paul Jones, delivered the invocation. Mayor Ferrara acknowledged Arroyo Grande resident Billie Swigert, who had recently passed away. He spoke of her vast historical knowledge of the City and noted she would be dearly missed. He dedicated the meeting to her and stated he would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in her honor. 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 5.a. Presentation by Coastal San Luis Obispo Resources Conservation District - Conservationists of the Year 2006 Neil Havlik and Ella Honeycutt, representing Coastal San Luis Obispo Resources Conservation District (RCD), recognized Rutiz Family Farms and the Halcyon Temple of the People for their agricultural conservation efforts during 2006. Mayor Ferrara, on behalf of RCD, presented the recipients with the 2006 Excellence in Agricultural Conservation Award. Mr. Jerry Rutiz accepted the award on behalf of Rutiz Family Farms, and Eleanor Shumway accepted the award on behalf of Halcyon Temple of the People. 5.b. Honorary Proclamation Recognizing March as "Grand Jury Awareness Month" Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation declaring March 2007 as "Grand Jury Awareness Month". Robert Mires accepted the Proclamation on behalf of the Grand Jury and spoke briefly about the duties and responsibilities of the Grand Jury. Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Tuesday, February 27, 2007 6. AGENDA REVIEW Page 2 6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only. Council/Board Member Guthrie moved, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Arnold seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS None. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Ferrara invited members of the public who wished to comment on any Consent Agenda Item to do so at this time. There were no public comments received. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold referred to Consent Agenda Item 8.e. regarding declaration of surplus property and asked for clarification on internal policies relating to the sale of surplus property. Council Member Guthrie moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.f., with the recommended courses of action. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Costello, Fellows 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period February 1, 2007 through February 15, 2007. 8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of January 31, 2007. 8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved the minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of February 13, 2007, as submitted. 8.d. Consideration to Approve Final Parcel Map AG 06-0172; Reconfiguring Two (2) Parcels at 130 and 132 Short Street. Action: Approved Final Parcel Map AG 06-0172, reconfiguring .20 acres into two (2) parcels. 8.e. Consideration to Declare Surplus Property and Approve a Contract for Auction Services. Action: 1) Adopted Resolution No. 3999 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING ITEMS AS SURPLUS AND REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR THEIR SALE AT PUBLIC AUCTION'; and 2) Authorized the City Manager to sign the auction contract with Bill Phelps Auction Services. Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8.f. Consideration of Acceptance of the 2006 Annual Pavement Maintenance Project, PW 2006-07. Action: 1) Accepted the project improvements, as constructed by Granite Construction Company, Inc. in accordance with the plans and specifications for the 2006 Annual Pavement Maintenance Project; 2) Directed staff to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) Authorized release of the retention of $27,939.89 thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens have been filed. 9. PUBLIC HEARING 9.a. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Program Year 2007. Associate Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Program Year 2007. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. The following members of the public addressed the Council, thanking them for consideration of each funding request and briefly spoke about their respective organizations: Anna Boyd-Bucv, representing Big Brothers/Big Sisters Carole Wetmore, representing Caring Callers Sheri Neil, representing Lifesteps Foundation Rae Flemino, representing EOC Health Services No further public comments were received and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS FOR YEAR 200T'. Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Costello and Fellows 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 11.a. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance Amending Portions of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Relating to the Community Tree Program. Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, February 27, 2007 Interim Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director Perrin presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an Ordinance amending portions of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, which include revisions to the Community Tree Program relating to the replacement of any regulated tree that dies. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold inquired whether the City could require an in-lieu fee or have a tree replaced somewhere else in the City, if the City determined that there was a reason why a tree should not have to be replaced. City Attorney Carmel explained that the proposed ordinance does not currently include such a provision; however, staff could research the issue. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Steve Ross, Garden Street, expressed concern about the concept of requiring a replacement tree or an in-lieu fee for a dead regulated tree if it was determined it should not be replaced on the property, in order to plant a tree on other public or private property. Upon hearing no further comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period. Council and staff discussion ensued clarifying issues regarding instances when trees would be required to be replaced. City Manager Adams noted that the proposed language addresses instances where a determination is made that replacing a tree is not feasible or desirable due to special circumstances on the site. There was discussion about whether it was appropriate to require a fee in those situations. Council supported moving forward with the ordinance as proposed and directed staff to research the issues discussed for requiring an in-lieu fee when a dead regulated tree is not replaced on site. Action: Mayor Pro Tem Arnold moved to introduce an Ordinance as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE COMUNTIY TREE PROGRAM". Council Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Costello and Fellows 11.b. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2006-07 Mid-Year Budget Report. [COUNCIL/RDA]. Director of Financial Services Kraetsch presented the staff report and recommended the City Council/Agency Board: 1) Approve detailed budget adjustments listed in the Mid-Year Budget Report; 2) Approve Schedules A and B in the Mid-Year Report; and 3) Approve (Deny) requests for additional appropriations in the General Fund. Council/Board Member comments and questions ensued concerning recent State legislation regarding telecommunication franchises and whether there could be an impact to the City's cable franchise fees; clarification that revenues received from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) that Minutes: Cify Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, February 27, 2007 is effective April 1, 2007 would be received in July 2007, however, the revenue is considered earned in Fiscal Year 2006-07 and would be applied to the Fiscal Year 2006-07 budget; and clarification concerning the funding for the engineering and design costs for the Brisco/Halcyon Interchange project. Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter, and upon hearing no comments, he closed the public comment period. CouncillBoard Member comments and discussion ensued including acceptance of the Mid-Year Budget report as presented; however, moving forward, concerns were expressed as it relates to operational expenses versus capital expenses; a request was made that the next report show a specific breakdown on the status of funding for capital projects; concerns were expressed about property tax and sales tax revenue projections; an observation that building permit activity is down; and acknowledgement that the City has to compensate for expected reductions in revenue. Action: Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Arnold moved to approve detailed budget adjustments listed in the Mid-Year Budget Report; approve Schedules A and B in the Mid-Year Report; and approve requests for additional appropriations in the General Fund. Council/Board Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Costello and Fellows 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS a. MAYOR TONY FERRARA: (1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). Attended Board meeting on 2/7/07 and Executive Board met on 2/14/07. Ongoing discussions regarding STIP funding in the next two cycles. Mayor Ferrara requested the City Manager schedule a coordination meeting with Public Works, Caltrans, and SLOCOG to discuss and revisit the Brisco/Halcyon/101 Interchange project alternatives. Mayor Ferrara and Council Member Guthrie volunteered to attend the meeting. The Board also received a presentation on the regional traffic model which included population and employment projections which were unrealistic; the consultant was directed to consult with staff to obtain more accurate information. SLORTA -Ongoing discussions about the acquisition of the new facility on S. Higuera for bus maintenance and parking. (2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). The Plant is operating well and meeting required standards. (3) Other. None. b. MAYOR PRO TEM ED ARNOLD: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA). No report. (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Working with another airline to potentially serve businesses and government agencies with flights to Sacramento. Currently working to gauge interest in the community. (3) Other. None. Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meefing Tuesday, February 27, 2007 c. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO: (ABSENT) (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. No report. (2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). No report. (3) Fire Oversight Committee. No report. (4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. No report. (5) Other. None. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). No report. (2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). No report. (3) Other. None. e. COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS: (ABSENT) (1) South County Youth Coalition. No report. (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). No report. (3) Other. None. 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: None. 14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: None. Page 6 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Ferrara reported that he had received a letter from County District 4 Supervisor Katcho Achadjian inviting the City to appoint a representative from the City to serve on a task force with the purpose of developing a strategy and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in considering options for the future of the Oceano Dunes and County owned property in the Oceano Dunes. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold volunteered to serve on the task force. Staff was requested to also appoint a staff member to the task force. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. 17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: None. 18. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Arnold moved to adjourn the meeting in honor of Billie Swigert. Council/Board Member Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Minutes: City Gounci(/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Tuesday, February 27, 2007 Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary Page 7 (Approved at CC Mtg 8.e. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERG>~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH RRM DESIGN GROUP FOR THE DESIGN OF THE VILLAGE GREEN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PW 2007-05 DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. approve a consultant services agreement with RRM Design Group in the amount of $28,555.00 for design of the Village Green Improvement Project, PW 2007-05; B. authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with RRM Design Group; and C. appropriate $25,555 from the Park improvement Fund. FUNDING: The FY 2006/07 Capital Improvement Program budget includes $3,000 for the Village Green Improvement Project. Staff recommends an appropriation of $25,555 from the Park Improvement Fund. DISCUSSION: On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved a Master Plan forthe Village Green area, which was prepared by the RRM Design Group. In January 2007, to ensure design continuity, staff solicited a proposal from RRM Design Group to perform the actual project design and develop construction plans and specifications. The proposed scope of work included the performance of a topographic survey, development of landscape plans and specifications, planting and irrigation plans, electrical plans, construction details and the development of a probable estimate of construction costs. On February 19, 2007, staff received the proposal and negotiated a cost of $28,555.00 to perform the design services. S:\PUblic Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2007\PW 2007-OS Village Green ImprovemenGS\Council\Council Memo-RRM Consultant Services.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH RRM DESIGN GROUP FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE VILLAGE GREEN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PW 2007-05 MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 2 Based on the conceptual design, the Village Green Improvement Project will provide street trees, parkways around the perimeter of the park, walking trails and directional signage to supplement the previous construction of the Rotary Bandstand and Arroyo Grande Historical Society buildings. Staff will continue to coordinate the design efforts with the Historical Society and the Village Improvement Association to ensure that the design elements are in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. RRM Design Group anticipates completion of the design services by May 11, 2007. Staff intends to present the final design to the City Council for consideration on May 22, 2007 to enable the advertisement of construction bids. Staffs objective is to begin construction immediately after the Strawberry Festival and complete the work before the Harvest Festival. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staff's recommendations; Do not approve staffs recommendations; Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Scope of Services 2. Schedule Attachment 1 February 16, 2007 RRM Design Group 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 ^~, Mr. Daniel Hernandez San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ;~' Director of Parks & Recreation P: (805) 543-1794 City of Arroyo Grande F: (805) 543-4609 P.O. Box 550 www.rrmdesign.com Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 r Re: Nelson Green Improvements Proposed Scope of Services Dear Mr. Hernandez: rrm;.':. ' _, group ~~~ creating environments people enjoy As requested, we have made revisions to the following scope of services for the preparation of Construction Documents for improvements related to the approved Nelson Green Concept Plan. SCOPE OF SERVICES Task A - Topographic Survev RRM's survey group will conduct a supplemental topographic survey of the project area. RRM currently possesses a CAD topographic file from the city, however additional areas may need to be surveyed. If authorized by the city, RRM will conduct survey services as necessary to map additional site features such as paving, curbs, driveways, and access ramps, or to obtain surface evidence of underground utilities and other vaults located within the project area. Deliverable: Digital Topographic Map in AutoCAD format and Plots. Task B• Landscape Construction Drawings RRM's Planning and Landscape Architecture Group will prepare the Construction Drawings for the improvements shown on the Nelson Green Concept Plan. The plans will include improvements in the right-of-way along Short, Nelson, and Mason Streets, including sidewalks, street lighting, street tree and turf planting, and underground placement of existing utilities. The plans will specify various improvements within the park, including decomposed granite paths, fencing, gates, arbors, and shrub and tree planting design, divided into the following subtasks: Task B.1 -Construction Plan and Details RRM's Planning and Landscape Architecture Group will prepare construction plans at an appropriate scale on city title block sheets for the right-of-way improvements surrounding Nelson Green, based on the approved concept plan. The plans will lay out the sidewalk paving and parkway strip along with any handicap ramps and driveway aprons, and will protect in place any existing utility structures. Historic WPA stamps in the existing sidewalk will also be preserved and incorporated into the new paving. Existing driveway aprons no longer needed will be removed and replaced with new concrete curb and gutter to match existing, along with COMMUNITY I PUBLIC SAFETY I RECREATION I EDUCATION I URBAN ARCHITECTS I ENGINEERS I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS (PLANNERS (SURVEYORS ACalifomia Corpora(ionlMtlor MOn[gwnery Archi[ett NC1109011erry Michael, RCE X36895, LS N62)611eH Leber, Wp2BM pq;,:>,n, ;._.;a-ppapv ©3 rrm .. . group ~~~ creating environments people enjoy Nelson Green Concept Plan Proposed Scope of Services Page 2 February 16. 2007 necessary asphalt patching. tied into the existing paving historical museum on Mason excluded. All other curbs will be protected in place. The new sidewalk will be at the Short Street Bridge and to the southern property line of the Street. Landscape improvements in front of the museum are All existing paving and other street improvements, including drainage structures, will be evaluated using the topographic information obtained in the survey for functionality. Any outstanding grading or drainage issues will be brought to the attention of the city. Decomposed granite paths will be located, along with gates and fences, within the park. As a companion to the Construction Plan, we will prepare details for all of the items called out herein. The details will specify the materials, dimensions, colors, and finishes of the detailed elements such as the sidewalk paving and scoring, curb and gutter, fencing, and handicap ramps. City standard details will be used where appropriate. In addition, CSI book format specifications will be provided. Task B.2 -Planting and Irrigation Plans RRM's Planning and Landscape Architecture Group will prepare planting plans at an appropriate scale on city title block, showing the proposed street trees and turf planting in the parkway strip. Also, a planting design will be provided for the planter between the old school house and the grass area on the south side of the building (near parking area). New park trees will also be shown on the plans. Irrigation plans will be prepared to show spray irrigation for the turf areas and deep root bubblers for the street trees. The plans will show how the new piping will tie into the existing irrigation system, along with sleeving under the new sidewalks. RRM will coordinate with city staff to determine the proper equipment to be used. In support of the plans, we will prepare planting and irrigation details showing the proper planting methods and installation of irrigation equipment. In addition, CSI book format specifications will be provided. Deliverable: Three (3) submittals of the Construction Drawing package and Specifications to the city. Number of sets to be determined by city staff. Task C -Statement of Probable Construction Cost & As-Built Orawinas Task C.1-Statement of Probable Construction Cost RRM will break out each component of the scope of work on a line item spreadsheet with item descriptions and unit costs. Due to many variables surrounding bidding and construction conditions, this opinion will not represent a guarantee that bids received or actual costs of construction will be equal to this opinion of cost. Deliverable: PDF Statement of Probable Construction Cost at completion of Construction Drawings. rrm group ~~~ creating environments people enjoy Nelson Green Concept Plan Proposed Scope of Services Page 3 February 16. 2007 Task C.2 -As Built Drawings RRM will prepare "as-built" drawings based upon clearly written mark-ups from Contractor's drawing set. Deliverable: Three (3) Black & White PDF As-Built Drawings or CAD files as requested by the city. Task D -Electrical Plans RRM will work with Thoma Engineering to develop the electrical plan for the site showing electrical routing and location of The new street lights and power receptacles. In addition, the design for under grounding of overhead utilities will be provided for the existing overhead wires on Short, Nelson, and Mason Streets. To accommodate this, the electrical plan will show conduit for future routing of underground wiring, installed per PG&E specifications. In addition, CSI book format specifications will be provided. The electrical scope of work is outlined in detail below: 1. Site Electrical • Coordination with utility service planner(s) and facilitate utility application process between Owner and serving utilities for new PG&E service and under grounding of existing overhead facilities. • Describe new utility service work (electric, telephone and CATV) for underground infrastructure project as directed by serving utilities during design. • New decorative street lighting and control in conjunction with the Landscape Architect and city standards. This will also include a new meter pedestal to serve the new lights and power receptacles. • Title 24 lighting energy documentation forms as required for exterior lighting systems. • Connections to site equipment specified under sections other than Division 16 that requires line voltage connections when information and electrical requirements are forwarded to our office for coordination (i.e., irrigation controllers, etc.). • Power single line diagram and distribution system. • Electrical calculations (load, voltage drop, short circuit) as required. • Circuiting and panel schedules. Qualifications • Utility company improvement design will be provided by each respective utility company. We shall endeavor to describe such work for bid purposes as it is available to us at time of design process. Utility company designs are subject to that company's review and final approval and on their time frame. Construction of utility company improvements must be obtained directly from the serving utility company as a "hand out package'. • Assumes utility services are readily available at project site. Excludes off-site utility coordination and design for extension of services to property. • Excludes final application for service, fees, excess wire charges, engineering retainers, etc. that may be required of the Owner by each utility. • Excludes decorative landscape site lighting. rrm ; ,group ~~~ creating environments people enjoy Nelson Green Concept Plan Proposed Scope of Services Page 4 February 16. 2007 2. General Includes: • Site visit field investigations to determine existing conditions. • Material and equipment shop drawing and product submittal review. Submittal reviews requiring more than two (2) reviews due to incomplete or incorrect data or substitutions shall be considered extra services and charged hourly at our published rates. • Electrical demolition information and/or demolition plan deemed necessary by our office. • Consultant coordination. • Drafting. • Division 16 specifications {book format). • Details for construction to assist the Electrical Contractor and as deemed necessary Preparation of "as-built" drawings from Contractor's mark-up. • Statement of Probable Construction cost (at completion of construction drawings) Excludes: • Printing Division 16 specifications on the drawings. • Construction Administration (hourly as needed). Site visits/reports during construction (hourly as needed). • Phasing of work. • Base plan revisions (other than minor changes resulting in consultant coordination) once authorized to proceed with construction documents and/or multiple base upgrades. • Printing and plotting costs other than those required for our own internal use. • Site visits and travel expenses not included above. • Structural calculations for equipment attachments to structure, concrete equipment pads, pole bases for site specific soil conditions, etc. • Detailed cost comparisons between optional systems and/or systems life cycle cost analysis. • Lighting acceptance testing (and completion of forms required by Title 24) for lighting and control systems. Acceptance requirements and forms will be included in Division 16 specifications and will be the responsibility of the installing contractor. 3. Assumptions • All electrical installations will need to comply with current code requirements. • Electronic files and other prints will be provided to us as needed/requested. • ~ Timely response from utility companies, consultants, vendors and other suppliers of information required for electrical design. We cannot be held responsible for delays based on lack of information required to be supplied by others. • Catalog cut sheets with detailed electrical information will be provided prior to the start of design for all equipment requiring connection by Division 16. • Construction budget (overall and electrical/communications portion) will be available prior to the start of construction documents if design must meet a certain level of quality to stay within the budget. rrm . _ _ . group ~~~ Nelson Green Concept Plan Proposed Scope of Services Page 5 February 16. 2007 creating environments people enjoy Deliverable: Three (3) submittals of Electrical plans and Specifications to the city, number of sets to be determined by the city. Exclusions to Scope of Services • Road and drainage profiles • Storm drainage plans • Geotechnicalinvestigations • Boundary survey or documents • Title report search • Interpretive exhibits • Landscaping within the Ruby House yard • Cost estimate (except at noted above) Any additional services that RRM Design Group is asked to perform over and above the tasks described in Tasks A, B, and C will be billed as additional services on an hourly basis or negotiated fixed fee basis. COMPENSATION RRM will provide the basic scope of services proposed in Tasks A through D for the fees indicated below. Task A: Topographic Survey (Optional) Time and Materials: S 1 660 Task B: Landscape Construction Drawings B.1: Construction Plan and Details Fixed Fee: $ 8,540 6.2: Planting and Irrigation Plans Fixed Fee: S 6,525 Task C: Statement of Probable Construction Cost & As-Built Drawings C.1: Statement of Probable Construction Cost Fixed Fee: $ 1,770 C.2: As-Built Drawings Fixed Fee: $ 1 ,310 Fixed Fee Subtotal : 519.805 Task D: Electrical Plans Fixed Fee: 58.750 Total Project Value $28,555 Notes: Estimated budgets for tasks shown as "Time and Materials" are provided for informational purposes only. Amounts billed for these tasks will reflect actual hours and reimbursable costs, and may be more or less than the estimate given. rrm:; ~, ~:;;~; =group ~~~ creating environments people enjoy Nelson Green Concept Plan Proposed Scope of Services Page 6 February 16. 2007 We look forward to working with you on this project and take pride in providing outstanding professional service to our clients. If you have any questions or require clarification of the scope of services outlined above, please give us a call. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP Chris Manning eff Ferl4~r, A LA Landscape Architect Principal Director-of Planning & Landscape Architecture cc: Rob Strong, City of Arroyo Grande Shawna Dillard, RRM Design Group (zk/X 1 307502\Ppi\cm-W orkSco peLtr-Hernandez.2-16-07 ATTACHMENT2 t('~~ii~ o~C~~~o ~~~~aina~e Tentative Project Schedule For Village Green Improvement Project PW 2007-05 Award Consultant Services Contract (at City Council meeting) ...................... Notice to Proceed.. Completion of Design ...................................................................................... Council Acceptance of Project Design ........................................................... Advertise for Construction Bids ..................................................................... Bid Opening ................................................................................................... ...... March 13, 2007 ...... March 15, 2007 ..........May 11, 2007 ..........May 22, 2007 ..........May 25, 2007 ........... June 5, 2007 Authorization to Award Construction Contract ........................................................................ June 19, 2007 Notice to Proceed for Construction Project ................................................................................ July 16, 2007 Construction Project Completion (GO calendar days) ....................................................... September 14, 2007 8.f. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT THE SEWER LIFT STATION NO. 1 UPGRADE PROJECT, PW 2005-02 DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. accept the project improvements, as constructed by MGE Underground, Inc., in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Sewer Lift Station No. 1 Upgrade Project; B. direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and, C. authorize release of the retention of $60,122.73 thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens have been filed. FUNDING: On August 8, 2004, the City Council awarded the construction contract for the Sewer Lift Station No. 1 Upgrade Project to MGE Underground, Inc. in the amount of $557,700.00. The total construction budget was $613,470.00 (contract amount of $557,700.00 + $55,770.00 for contract change orders). The final adjusted construction project cost is $601,227.29. DISCUSSION: MGE Underground, Inc. has completed all items of work on the Sewer Lift Station No. 1 Upgrade Project in accordance with the plans and specifications. Sewer Lift Station No. 1, located near 1590 West Branch Street, is 32 years old and has experienced continuing mechanical failures. The project upgraded the lift station by replacing the existing vertical turbine sewage pumps with submersible pumps equipped with variable frequency drives. The new pumps are able to adapt their speeds to the incoming flows, providing a much smoother and more efficient operation. S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2006\PW 2005-02 Sewer Lift Station No. 1\Council\Acceptance of Contract\Council Memo -Project Acceptance.doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER LIFT STATION NO. 1 UPGRADE PROJECT, PW 2005-02 MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 2 Staff is recommending the Council accept the improvements as constructed, authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion, and release the remaining portion of the 10% retention ($60,122.73) to MGE Underground, Inc. thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion . has been recorded if no liens are filed. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendations; • Do not approve staffs recommendations; • Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendations; or • Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Notice of Completion S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capi[al Projects\2006\PW 2005-02 Sewer Lift Station No. 1\Council\Acceptance of Contract\Council Memo -Project Acceptance.doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE P.O. BOX 550 ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: ATTACHMENT1 1. The undersigned is owner or agent of owner of the interest or estate stated below the property hereinafter describe. 2. The FULL NAME of the OWNER is: The Citv ofArroyo Grande 3. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is: 214 East Branch Street. Arrow Crande California 93420 4. The NATURE OF THE INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is: in fee 5. THE FULL NAME and FULL ADDRESS of ALL PERSONS, if any, who hold such interest or estate with the undersigned as JOINT TENANTS or as TENANTS IN COMMON are: NAMES ADDRESSES None 6. THE FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of the PREDECESSOR'S in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred subsequent [o the commencement of the work of improvements herein referred to: NAMES ADDRESSES 7. All work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED January 30. 2007 8. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is: MGE Underground Gre.. 9. The street address of said property is: 1590 {Vest Branch Street 1 ~. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of An'oyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomia, and is described as follows: Sewer Lift Station No. /Upgrade Project PW 2005-02 Verification ofNON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalTy ofperjury under [he laws ofthe State of California [hat I am the Public Works Director of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice; that I have read the said notice, that I know and understand [he contents [hereof, and the facts stated therein are tme and correct. Don Spagnolo, PE, Director of Public Works/City March 13, 2007, Arroyo Grande, California -- END OF DOCUMENT -- 8.g. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT PHASE 1 OF THE WELL NO. 10 PROJECT, PW 2004-07 DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. accept the project improvements, as constructed by Floyd V. Wells, Inc., in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Phase I Well No. 10 Project; B. direct staff to file a Notice of Completion; and, C. authorize release of the retention of $18,412.01 thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens have been filed. FUNDING: On August 8, 2004, the City Council awarded a construction contract for Phase I of the Well No. 10 Project to Floyd V. Wells, Inc. in the amount of $175,160.00. The final adjusted construction cost is $184,120.08, which includes the construction contract and contract change orders. The total budget for the both phases of the project, including all design, construction and administration costs, is $765,500.00. The remaining $581,330.00 will be used to design and construct Phase II of the project. DISCUSSION: Floyd V. Wells, Inc. has completed all items of work on the Phase I Well No. 10 Project in accordance with the plans and specifications. The well site is located on property at the southwest corner of the Deer Trail Circle and Equestrian Way. The project scope of work is as follows: Phase I -Test Well Construction Drilling and development of the well. Includes testing of the actual production capacity of the well and the water quality to perform the design of Phase II. S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2006\PW 2004-07 Well No 10\Council\Phase I -Accept nce of Contract\Council Memo -Project Acceptance .doc CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT PHASE I OF THE WELL NO. 10 PROJECT PW 2004-07 MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 2 Phase II -Site Work, Pump & Pipeline Installation Construction of the permanent pump and associated waterline piping, the required treatment facility, the building enclosure, and the permanent connection into the City's water system. During the development and testing operations for the Phase I project, the City's geotechnical consultant tested the adjacent wells, including wells within the Robles del Mar project, to determine whether any mitigation considerations are to be incorporated into the design of the permanent Phase II facilities. The test results will be analyzed to determine the scope of work for the Phase II facilities and will be presented to the Council at a future meeting. During the design phase of the Phase II project, staff will host meetings with the neighborhood residents to coordinate the physical positioning and size of the structure to enclose the pump motor and appurtent equipment, as well as the aesthetic architectural treatments for the final project. Staff will also coordinate the staging and construction requirements to minimize the effects of the construction operations on the residential neighborhood. Upon incorporation of the citizen comments and concerns into the design, staff will present the project to the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission for their consideration. The final plans and specifications will then be presented to the City Council for approval. Staff is recommending the Council accept the improvements as constructed, authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion, and release the remaining portion of the 10% retention ($18,412.01) to Floyd V. Wells, Inc. thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded if no liens are filed. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: Approve staff's recommendations; Do not approve staffs recommendations; • Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or • Provide direction to staff. Attachment: 1. Notice of Completion S:\Public Works\Engineering\Capital Projects\2006\PW 2004-07 Well No 10\Council\Phase I -Acceptance of Contract\Council Memo -Project Acceptance .doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE P.O. BOX 550 ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: ATTACHMENT1 1. The undersigned is owner or agent of owner of the interest or estate stated below the property hereinafter describe. 2. The FULL NAME of the OWNER is: The Cit~fArroyo Grande 3. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is: 214 East Branch Sheet. Arroyo Granrte. California 93420 4. The NATURE OF THE INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is: in fee 5. THE FULL NAME and FULL ADDRESS of ALL PERSONS, if any, who hold such interest or estate with the undersigned as JOINT TENANTS or as TENANTS IN COMMON are: NAMES ADDRESSES 6. THE FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of the PREDECESSOR'S in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred subsequent to the commencement of the work of improvements herein referred to: NAMES ADDRESSES 7. All work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED January 30, 2007 8. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is: Floyr! V. Wilson. /nc. 9. The street address of said property is: 669 Equestrian Wav (SWcm~ner ofDeer Trail Circle and Egueshian Wav 1 ~. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, and is described as follows: Phase /. Well No. /0 Proiect. PW 2004-07 Verification ofNON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty ofperjuryunder the laws of the State of California that I am the Public Works Director of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice; that I have read the said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and the facts stated therein are true and correct. Don Spagnolo, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer March 13, 2007, Arroyo Grande, California -- END OF DOCUMENT -- 8.h. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER;1~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT SHARING AGREEMENT DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council approve the proposed Public Safety Equipment Sharing Agreement. FUNDING: The Agreement will result in projected revenue of approximately $40,000 to $45,000 from the sale of one existing backup engine. In addition, ongoing savings would be achieved through a reduction in maintenance costs. DISCUSSION: The City of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach entered into a joint fire services agreement in July 2004. The purpose of the agreement was to provide services in a more effective manner. In addition, on January 30, 2006, the Councils and Board of Directors of the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and Oceano Community Services District conducted a joint meeting to discuss potential consolidation of fire services. The discussion was based upon the results of a study contracted by the City of Pismo Beach and prepared by Citygate Associates. At the conclusion of the meeting, a committee was established to review opportunities for improved coordination and joint efforts with regard to fire safety services. As a result of these efforts, it was determined that these individual fire departments maintain of a number of emergency vehicles that far exceeds what would normally be required under one department with the same number of stations. As a result, the following proposal was made to reduce the number of backup vehicles required without reducing the capability to ensure the availability of necessary equipment when apparatus is out of service for repairs: Arroyo Grande and Oceano will both proceed with current plans to replace their existing primary engine. CITY COUNCIL EQUIPMENT SHARING AGREEMENT FEBRUARY 13, 2007 PAGE 2 • The Arroyo Grande or Grover Beach 1996 backup engine will be sold and the revenue will be shared between the two cities. Therefore, if it were sold for at least $90,000, each agency will receive $45,000. Essentially, this would be the same as if an agreement was made when two engines were first purchased to only purchase one to share between the two cities. Staff believes that it can be sold for nearly the same amount it was paid for. • Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande will then co-own the remaining backup engine. Maintenance costs would be shared. Costs for any damage would be paid for by the jurisdiction utilizing the vehicle at the time the damage occurred. • An Equipment Sharing Agreement will be established between the three jurisdictions for use of backup engines based upon the ability of each station to staff two engines, which is attached. The agreement sets forth procedures for locating available engines that specifies that the following order of priority be maintained for equipping each station with two engines at any given time: 1. Arroyo Grande 2. OCSD 3. Grover Beach The order of priority is established based upon ability to staff two engine companies in the event of a major incident. Therefore, if the Office of Emergency Services (OES) engine were out on a call, the Grover Beach Station backup engine would be moved to the Arroyo Grande Station. If the backup Grover Beach Station engine were also out of service at the same time, the OCSD backup engine would move to the Arroyo Grande Station. If only the OCSD backup engine was out of service, the backup Grover Beach Station engine would be moved to the OCSD_Station. It is also proposed that flexibility be provided to the Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach Departments with regard to stationing one backup at Arroyo Grande and one at Grover Beach or maintaining both at Arroyo Grande. The proposed arrangement will result in a number of benefits, which include the following: • Each of the jurisdictions backup capabilities will be increased and it would maximize the number of units that could be staffed at any given time to respond to a major incident. S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Equipment Sharing Agreement 3.13.07.doc CITY COUNCIL EQUIPMENT SHARING AGREEMENT FEBRUARY 13, 2007 PAGE 3 • Overall apparatus will be reduced by one vehicle. This will result in both initial revenue from the sale of one vehicle and ongoing savings from a reduction in maintenance costs. • The update in the primary engines at all three stations will result in an additional reduction in maintenance costs. • Overall, the proposal provides a feasible way to manage the area's fleet on a more efficient basis, while maximizing security and the number of units available to a major incident at any given time. The proposal has been recommended by the both the Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach Fire Oversight Committee and the Five Cities Fire Consolidation Committee. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Approve the proposed Public Safety Equipment Sharing Agreement; - Modify and approve the Agreement; - Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Public Safety Equipment Sharing Agreement S:\Administration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Equipment Sharing Agreement 3.13.07.doc PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT SHARING AGREEMENT This Public Safety Equipment Sharing Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Grover Beach, a municipal corporation ("Grover Beach"), the City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal corporation ("Arroyo Grande"), and Oceano Community Services District, a California special district ("OCSD") collectively or individually referred to as "Parties" or "Party". WHEREAS, the Parties find that it is in their mutual best interest to cooperate with each other in providing public safety services in the areas of fire and emergency medical services (hereinafter referred to as Public Safety Services"); and WHEREAS, Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande have already entered into an Agreement for Management and Administrative Services dated July 1, 2004 (the "AG/GB Fire Agreement") wherein the two cities share Public Safety Services including, but not limited to, a single Fire Chief ("Fire ChieP') and a training position; and WHEREAS, Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande and OCSD now desire to enter into this Agreement to specify the terms and conditions for the Parties to further the efficiency and effectiveness of the available Public Safety Services and to share fire safety equipment in a manner mutually beneficial to all Parties and the health, safety and welfare of the affected residents with each respective jurisdiction. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Fire Engine. The Grover Beach or Arroyo Grande 1996 backup fire engine, vehicle identification numbers and will be sold pursuant to Government Code 37350 et seq. (the fire engine selected to be sold shall be referred to as the "Surplus Fire Engine"). The determination of which Fire Engine is to be sold will be made by mutual agreement by the City Managers of Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande based on a report and recommendation issued by the Fire Chief. The net revenue from the sale of the Surplus Fire Engine shall be shared equally between Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande. 2. Modification of Title. Title to the remaining backup fire engine (the "GB/AG Back-up Fire Engine") will be modified to reflect joint ownership by Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande. 3. Maintenance. Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande shall share equally all maintenance costs of the GB/AG Back-up Fire Engine, including in-house maintenance and the costs for any contract maintenance for the GB/AG Back-up Fire Engine. 4. Secondary Back-uo Engine. The Office of Emergency Services ("OES") fire engine (the "OES Fire Engine") provided to Arroyo Grande will be used as an ongoing secondary back-up fire engine for Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande. a. If the OES Fire Engine is unavailable and the GB/AG Backup Fire Engine is out of service, the OCSD backup fire engine will be promptly transferred to the Grover Beach or Arroyo Grande fire station, as determined by the Fire Chief. b. If the OCSD primary and backup fire engines are both unavailable, the GB/AG Backup Fire Engine will be transferred to the OCSD fire station. 5. Joint Training. All personnel shall be well versed and knowledgeable in the proper operation of each Party's respective fire apparatus and equipment prior to any use such apparatus or equipment from another Party. Each Party shall be responsible for ensuring that an apparatus and equipment training program is implemented for their personnel consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. 6. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on , 2007, and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of three (3) years. This Agreement shall automatically renew on a month-to-month basis after the initial three (3) year period. Any Party may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice. 7. Indemnity. The Parties shall indemnify, defend and hold one another harmless, including each entities' officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of each Party, arising out of that Party's use of another Party's equipment, including but not limited to primary and backup fire engines and related equipment, the GB/AG Back-Up Fire Engine, and/ or the OES Fire Engine. 8. Insurance. It is understood that Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach are insured under a pooled insurance carrier, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, and OCSD under a pooled insurance carrier, the Special District Risk Management Authority. Each Party shall take all reasonable steps to inform their respective pooled insurance carrier of the requirements of this Agreement. The Parties shall maintain the following minimum levels of insurance: a. General Liability Insurance. Throughout the term of this Agreement, the Parties shall maintain a minimum of General Liability Insurance of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence. b. Automobile Insurance. Each Party shall maintain Automobile Coveraoe with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings and arrangements, both oral and written, between the Parties hereto with respect to such subject matter, with the exception of the AG/GB 2 Fire Agreement which shall remain in full force and effect. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may not be modified, amended, altered or rescinded in any manner, except by written instrument signed by all of the Parties. The waiver by either Party of a breach or compliance with any provision of this Agreement shall not operate nor be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach or compliance. 10. Assignment. A Party may not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party. 11. Binding Agreement. Subject to the preceding paragraph, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the Parties and their administrators, legal representatives, successors, and permitted assigns. 12. Disputes. The Parties agree that, if they are unable to resolve any dispute arising under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after notice of dispute, such dispute shall be submitted for resolution to a mutually agreed upon (or otherwise selected) mediator prior to initiation of any legal action. All defenses based on the passage of time shall be tolled pending completion of the mediation 13. Notices. Unless otherwise specified herein, any notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be given in writing and be delivered personally or sent by facsimile transmission, internationally recognized overnight courier, registered or certified mail (postage prepaid with return receipt requested) as follows: To Grover Beach: City of Grover Beach City Manager 154 S. Eighth Street Grover Beach. CA 93433 To Arroyo Grande: City of Arroyo Grande City Manager P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 To Oceano Community Services District: OCSD General Manager P.O. Box 599 Oceano, CA 93445 Such notices or other communications shall be deemed received (i) on the date delivered, if delivered personally, (ii) on the date that return confirmation is received by sender, if sent by facsimile or (iii) five (5) days after being sent, if sent by first class registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. 14. Relationship of the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement, or in the course of dealing between the Parties pursuant to this Agreement, shall be deemed to create between the Parties (including their respective officers, employees and agents) a partnership, joint venture, association, employment relationship or any other relationship, other than that of independent contractors with respect to each other. Neither Party shall have the authority to commit or legally bind the other Party in any manner whatsoever, including but not limited to, the acceptance or making of any agreement, representation or warranty. 15. No Third Partv Beneficiaries. This Agreement inures to the benefit of the Parties only and no third party shall have any rights hereunder. 16. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed deleted from this Agreement and shall be replaced by a valid and enforceable provision which so far as possible achieves the same objectives as the severed provision was intended to achieve, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 17. Survival. Any provision of this Agreement which contemplates performance or observance subsequent to any termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement and continue in full force and effect. 18. Headings. The section headings used herein are for reference and convenience only and shall not enter into the interpretation hereof. 19. Venue: Any dispute under this Agreement shall be resolved under the laws of the State of California and venued in San Luis Obispo County. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Agreement effective as of the date first written above. City of Arroyo Grande: City of Grover Beach: By: By: Name: Name: Title: Title: Attest: Attest: Title: Title: Oceano Community Services District: By: Name: Title: Attest: 5 .1. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER ~~ BY: KAREN SISKO, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE FOR THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES POSITION DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing an automobile allowance for the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities position. FUNDING: The cost of an automobile allowance is $200 per month or $2,400 per year. A determination has not been made regarding the existing vehicle. Therefore, there may be a cost impact if it is reassigned as a pool vehicle. Otherwise, future savings in vehicle costs should compensate for the increased automobile allowance cost. DISCUSSION: The City currently has four positions that receive a $200 per month automobile allowance: the City Manager, Director of Financial Services, Director of Community Development, and Director of Administrative Services. The positions of Chief of Police, Director of Building and Fire, Director of Public Works, and Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities utilize City vehicles for transportation. It was determined that the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities position does not require a vehicle full- time because of limited emergency call-out duties. It is recommended that the position be given the $200 per month automobile allowance in lieu of a City vehicle. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1. Approve staffs recommendation; 2. Do not approve staffs recommendation; 3. Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation; or 4. Provide direction to staff. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING AN AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE FOR THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND FACILITIES POSITION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") deems it in the best interest of the City to establish an automobile allowance for the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities position. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande that the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities position shall receive a $200 per month automobile allowance. This Resolution shall become effective as of March 13, 2007. 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 , 2007. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED TO AS FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY 9.~. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS On TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to consider the following item: Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-004; Applicant -City of Arroyo Grande; Location -12.77 Acres North of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Sub-Area 2 of the East Village Neighborhood Plan. The City Council will consider a proposal to amend the Zoning Map to designate the subject property as Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan. In compliance with CEQA, the Community Development Department has determined that this project is categorically exempt per Section 15282(s) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed action 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, 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. Information relating to the proposals is available by contacting the Community Development Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20. Kelly Wet or~ ity Clerk Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, March 2, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ~j KELLY HEFFERNON ~' ~ ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 06-004 TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF); APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION 12.77 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUBAREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN) DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that City Council introduce an Ordinance amending the Development Code to change the zoning designation of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF). LOCATION: ,\. ~'. ~.. ~. ~ . \ ~\ ,\ ,, CITY COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION Background The subject property is currently zoned Residential Rural (RR). In 2001, the General Plan was updated to change the land use designation of this property from Low Density Residential (LD) to Medium Density Residential (MD), or from one (1) dwelling unit per acre to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The purpose of this Development Code Amendment (DCA) is to bring the zoning into compliance with the General Plan by changing the zoning from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family Residential (SF), pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65860(c)'. If approved, the future development in this area will conform to the City's Development Code for SF zoning. According to the 2001 General Plan (LU2-7), the subject 12.77-acre property (Subarea 2) and the adjacent nine (9) acres (Subarea 1) are subject to a requirement for a Neighborhood Plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, Creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map. The Council considered the East Village Neighborhood Plan (EVNP) on October 10, 2006 and determined it met the requirements of the General Plan provisions based on a finding that Subarea 1 adequately provides the necessary utilities, circulation and infrastructure to accommodate future development of Subarea 2 at its current General Plan designation (see Attachment 1 for Meeting Minutes). On November 28, 2006 the City Council adopted an Ordinance to change the zoning of the adjacent nine (p) acre Subarea 1 property from RR to SF, separate from the Subarea 2 property. Council directed staff to present zoning changes involving Subarea 2 separately for consideration so that potential density impacts, site constraints and other issues could be reviewed in greater detail. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Development Code Amendment on December 5, 2006 and January 16, 2007. On a 2:1 vote, the Commission recommended the City Council amend the zoning map to change the zoning of the subject property from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan (see Attachments 2 and 3. for Meeting Minutes). Issues discussed included constraints of the property, changing the General Plan and zoning designation to a lower density while creating "no net loss" of residential units citywide based on State law (discussed further below under "compliance with State law"), creating an overlay for the property to allow a lower density, and applying a Specific Plan designation to the property. ' Government Code Section 65860(c): '7n the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to the plan, or to any element of the plan, the zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended." CITY COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2007 DCA 06.004 PAGE 3 The 12.77-acre property is currently divided into ten (10) parcels developed with twelve (12) residences (Janowicz and Caldwell both have second units). Subarea 2 is accessed by a fifteen-foot (15') wide private road (extension of East Cherry Avenue) that is currently unpaved and owned by many individuals. If the approved Cherry Creek Project proceeds, East Cherry Avenue will be widened to thirty-two feet (32') along the Subarea 1 boundary. It is anticipated that East Cherry Avenue will also be widened to City standards along the Subarea 2 boundary as a condition of future development. However, determining specifically how the road improvements would be funded or what level of development would be required to implement these improvements has not yet been determined. Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a road improvement plan that would calculate total improvement costs and then establish a fee for future development. Another private access road within Subarea 2 is Lierly Lane, which connects perpendicular to the fifteen-foot (15') wide private extension of East Cherry Avenue between the Janowicz and Estes properties. Lierly Lane also has a narrow width (varies between eight and ten feet) and is considered inadequate to serve future development. Upon future subdivision in this area, Lierly Lane would require widening to a minimum of eighteen feet (18') for emergency access purposes. All new residences in this area would be subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Preservation Overlay District (AG-2.2) including a minimum df a one hundred foot (100') wide agricultural buffer. The Neighborhood Plan previously considered by the Council identified a one hundred thirty foot (130') wide buffer for both subareas. Whether future development would accommodate drainage individually or through some type of shared approach has not yet been determined. However, review to determine that drainage impacts have been addressed would take place prior to approval of any future additional units. Density Analysis If the Development Code Amendment is approved, the new medium density zoning (SF) for the area would allow densities up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre, or forty-five (45) new residences. Given the various site constraints of the property (such as the creek channel and setback, riparian vegetation, agricultural buffer, and existing pattern of development), it is not physically possible to develop the 12.77-acre property to the allowable maximum density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (or 57 total residential units). Based on a conceptual design prepared by RRM Design Group, Subarea 2 could have a total of twenty-six (26) lots, or 2.0 dwelling units per acre (see Attachment 4 for excerpt from the East Village Neighborhood Plan). The Planning Commission requested staff to research the maximum number of lots that could be created in Subarea 2 given the various site constraints. Included as Attachment 5 is a conceptual design for Subarea 2 developed by Mark Vasquez of Design Graphics. Once the various restrictions of a 130' wide agricultural buffer, 25' wide creek setback, and sensitive riparian areas are removed from the total acreage, it clrv countclL MARCH 13, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 4 is estimated that about 8.8 acres of the site remain as potentially buildable. Staff recommends that this conceptual design be integrated into the East Village Neighborhood Plan as a planning tool for future development. The table below summarizes the size and ownership of all existing parcels, the allowable density of each parcel for SF and RS zoning based on gross acreage, and a more realistic density estimate for each parcel based on site constraints and conceptual lot layout as illustrated in Attachment 5. Calculated constraints on Subarea 2 include 69,000 square feet of agricultural buffer and 104,000 square feet of sensitive creek area (3.97 acres total). Buildable area is approximately 8.8 acres. With the proposed 4.5 dwelling units per acre, this equals 39 residential units allowed. Density Analysis Existing Existing Existing SF SF RS RS Difference 10 Parcels Residences Parcel Density Concept Density Zoning Between (s.f. est.) (4.5/gross Layouts (2.5/gross Maximum SF and RS acre acre A: Janowicz 1 unit 14,586 2 units 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None B: Titus 1 unit 12,106 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None C: Loone 1 unit 60,333 6.2 units 4 units 3.46 units 3 units 1 unit D: Estes 1 unit 87,026 9 units 8 units 5 units 5 units 3 units E: Harrison 1 unit 12,882 1unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit None F: Janowicz 1 unit & 2nd 30,630 3.2 units 2 units 1.8 units 2 units° None G: Janowicz 1 unit 43,513 4.5 units 4 units 2.5 units 2 units 2 units H: Summerf'ield 1 uni`. 28,115 3 units 2 units 1.6 units 1 unit 1 unit I: Caldwell 2 units 78,541 8.1 units 4 units 4.5 units 4 units None J: Miner 1 unit 188,083 19.4 units 10 units 10.8 units 10 units None Totals 12 units 12.77 56 units 37 units 29 units 30 units 7 units acrest maximum° (2.9 maximumb du/acre Notes: a The attached Subarea 2 concept plan for SF zoning (see Attachment 5) is provided to show the realistic development density for Subarea 2 based on lot size and area constraints. Using the General Plan land use density of 4.5 du/acre and individual property constraints, the development potential is significantly less than using gross acreage. The Development Code does not allow rounding up on densities, therefore fractional units were not rounded up. °2 existing units on this property. Compliance with State law As an alternative, the Council could consider a Residential Suburban (RS) zoning designation, which allows up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre, or thirty-two (32) units total (20 new units). This would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA). If the Council determines that RS is a more appropriate zone for this area, it will require compliance with Government Code Section 65863 (b) and (c), set forth below. CITY COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 5 "(b) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, or legislative action, reduce, require, or permit the reduction of the residential density for any parcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3, unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following: (1) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element. (2) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. (c) If a reduction in residential density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584, the jurisdiction may reduce the density on that parcel if it identifies sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity." As indicated above, the City cannot reduce the residential density for any parcel that is below the density identified in the City's certified Housing Element unless it can be determined that sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites can offset the loss of density. Based on gross acreage (not considering existing lot configuration or site constraints), the 12.77-acre property would allow 57 units under the SF zoning and 32 units under the RS zoning. Given State law, it would be necessary to make up the 25- unitdifference somewhere else within the City. Staff has analyzed other potential sites that could offset the decrease in density of the subject property and has determined that only one site qualifies, which is an eleven (11) acre property off of Valley Road adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School. Council approved a zone change for this site from Community Facilities (no residential development potential) to Residential Hillside (1.5 dwelling units per acre gross) on August 22, 2006. The increase of seven (7) units is not adequate to offset the 25-unit difference required if the City down zoned the project site from SF to RS. There have been no other up zoned properties since the Housing Element was certified. Therefore, it does not appear that the City can make the necessary findings of "no net loss" of density with down zoning of the subject property, unless other residential properties can be concurrently considered by GPA and DCA to provide at least eighteen (18) units of additional housing potential. Specific Plan As mentioned above, the Planning Commission discussed the option of requiring a specific plan for Subarea 2 as a method of controlling the density and ensuring that adequate infrastructure and agricultural buffer would be provided. This option would CITY COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 6 also require a General Plan Amendment. Specific plan regulations are outlined in Government Code §65450 and require comprehensive analysis. In summary, a specific plan must include the following (see Attachment 6 for an excerpt from "The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans" for more information about preparing specific plans): (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. 2. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary fo carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. There are two areas within the City that require a specific plan, including Berry Gardens (approved in 1998) and the Fredrick property located on the southeast portion of the City. Historically, the specific plan process has been cumbersome (especially with multiple property owners) and expensive. It is staffs opinion that requiring a specific plan is unnecessary, since a Neighborhood Plan already exists. Coordinating a more detailed specific plan with ten (10) separate property owners would be a long and complicated process. PUBLIC COMMENTS A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and was published in the Tribune on Friday, March 2, 2007. Staff received several letters as part of the Planning Commission public hearing, which are included as Attachment 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, staff has determined that the proposed project is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Note that any future development requiring discretionary review in the Subarea 2 area would require comprehensive environmental review. CITY COUNCIL MARCH 13, 2007 DCA 06-004 PAGE 7 ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are presented for the Council's consideration: - Introduce the Ordinance as proposed. - Modify the Ordinance as appropriate and introduce the Ordinance. - Direct staff to pursue other GPA and DCA or to enable rezoning to RS in compliance with State law. However, the City would still be required to comply with Government Code Section 65863 (b) and (c). - Do not introduce the Ordinance and provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2006 2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2006 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2007 4. Excerpt from the East Village Neighborhood Plan 5. Conceptual Design for Subarea 2 6. Excerpt from "The Planners Guide to Specific Plans" 7. Letters from the public regarding the project S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherry Creek\DCA\CC DCA rpt.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF); DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004, APPLIED -FOR BY THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUBAREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN) WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan Update Urban Land Use Element Map designates the subject 13-acre property as Single-Family Residential Medium-Density with a Neighborhood Plan requirement; and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map designates the subject property as Single-Family Rural Residential.(RR); and WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has initiated Development Code Amendment 06- 004 to amend the Zoning Map and designate the project site as Single-Family Residential (SF); and WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed zoning designation would establish land use, development and design standards for the above described area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed Development Code Amendment 06-004 at a duly noticed public hearing on December 5, 2006 and January 16, 2007 in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard and recommended approval of said amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Development Code Amendment 06-004 at a duly noticed public hearing on March 13, 2007, in accordance with the Development Code of the City of Arroyo Grande at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and public testimony presented at the public hearings, staff reports, and all other information and documents that are part of the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: A. Based on the information contained in the staff report and accompanying materials, the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 B. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern. C. The proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map is consistent with the purpose and intent of the pevelopment Code. Medium Density residential development within the project area would be required to meet development and design standards under the SF zoning designation that insure orderly development. D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed Development Code Amendment amending the Zoning Map are insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: SECTION 1 ~ Tha above recitals and findings are true and correct. SECTION 2~ Development Code Section 16.24.020 (Zoning Map) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A 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 any one 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 Exemption. 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/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/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance. SECTION s: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 3 On motion by Council Member and by the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: seconded by Council Member , the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 13`" day of March 2007. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN D. ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A __ _ _ ;,. _, _~, y__ , ._ _ _._._..... , :; _.. ..1_._-~'-_-- pgNA R.~ _. ~ j HU _ r~ ~~ 1 ~ __...~ --_~-~ ~ ,. ~.. 1 ~ ~==r; ; j; ;1 ,, ,~, ~ ~ i ~ ~ 11 ~, ~, t iL~ ~-~ ~ ---~ - ~ ~ ~ ,9' ~ i r ~, ~A t I !' ___~____.. n:.._~._. ~ ~' __ ~ ~~ '~~Fy ~~~'L\ ~\~i~\ ~~ i\ ~ '. F~:~ ~~PO ATTACHMENT1 Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8.0. Consideration of Engineer's Report and Adop-t_i`on ~of R lotion oflntention to Form the Grace Lane Assessment District (Tract 2 ~i~` Action: Reviewed and approved peer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 3959 as follows: "A RESO OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE NG AN INTENTION TO FORM THE GRACE LANE ASSESSMENT 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS Council Member Dickens declared a conflict of interest due to his indirect financial interest in the Dixson Ranch and stepped down from the dais. 9.a. Consideration of Development Code Amendment 04-007, Neighborhood Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 04-002, and Planned Unit Development 04-002; Applicant: Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC; Location - 22 Acres Located East of Noguera Court and North of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Cherry Creek). Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for residential development within a 22-acre Neighborhood Plan area consisting of two (2) subareas. Subarea 1 is a proposed thirty (30) unit residential subdivision in a Planned Unit Development configuration on nine (9) of the twenty-two (22) acres. Subarea 2 encompasses thirteen (13) acres where rio subdivision is proposed at this time. The Planning Commission recommended the Council find the current Mitigated Negative Declaration insufficient and require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project. The Planning Commission further recommended that the project be returned to the Planning Commission after Council consideration of the environmental determination. Consulting Engineer Campbell gave an overview of the existing drainage flows from Newsom Springs; demonstrated how the improvements proposed by the Cherry Creek development would significantly improve drainage flows, explained future drainage improvements in the regional plan; and responded to questions from Council. Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant or representative to address the Council first. John Knight, RRM Design Group, representing the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Administrative Services Department) which highlighted regional issues associated with the project (Neighborhood Plan, drainage, agricultural buffer, and emergency access), and site specific issues associated with the project (density and lot size, drainage, street design, agricultural buffer, and creek enhancement); noted that the applicant had met with the neighbors to create a conceptual Neighborhood Plan for Subarea 1 that would address infrastructure (sewer, water, drainage system, agricultural buffer, creek setback, and emergency access) improvements which would also serve Subarea 2; reviewed components of the previous site plan for Subarea 1; reviewed the revised site plan for Subarea 1, including proposed density and lot size, drainage system, street design, agricultural buffer/entry features, and creek/channel features; and provided an overview of the supplemental environmental studies conducted for the proposed project. He asked for Council support of the project. Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Cliff Branch, co-owner/applicant, addressed the density issue and noted that a lot of land was required for drainage swales, setbacks, open space, and buffers, so the lot sizes had to be reduced so the land could be used for other things. He explained the project includes 27 new lots and anything less would not be feasible; therefore they are proposing the lowest density possible which is lower than the City's standards allow. He referred to the creek and stated it was important not to have parking along that side of the street. Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Larry Turner, Noguera Place, spoke in support of the project as proposed, requested the City abandon the existing drainage easement behind Noguera Place, supported the drainage plan, and supported the proposed single story homes behind Noguera Place. Steve Ross, Garden Street, spoke in support of the revised project; however, he encouraged the improvement of E. Cherry Avenue. Gary Scherquist, Short Street, urged the Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and expressed concern about the historical resources on the site, potential impacts to the creek, potential traffic impacts, and the proposed density of the project. Polly Tullis, Garden Street, distributed photos of the former Stilwell property located at 734 Myrtle (on file in the Administrative Services Department), spoke about its historic walnut farm, that it was important to recognize that the trees on the site have historic value, and expressed concern about the removal of the walnut trees and the loss of prime farmland soils. She urged the Council to require an EIR for the project and stated she would like to see fewer homes on the property and see it used for heritage farming and gardening. She said there are many environmental issues that have not been addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Jim Dickens, Branch Mill Road, representing the Dixson Ranch Agricultural Preserve, provided comments about the MND, referred to page 4, and said the land use classification for the property located to the South of the project (the Dixson Ranch) should be designated as "Agriculture Preserve", not "Agriculture" and that the current uses of the property are not "Undeveloped". He said a more accurate and appropriate description of the land uses to the South of the proposed project would be "Commercial Agricultural Production". He also stated that all references in the MND to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) should be stricken and recommended the City adopt a modified version of the LESA Model which examines Arroyo Grande's distinctive set of circumstances and site conditions. Further, he acknowledged the Council's direction and progress on the Newsom Springs regional drainage solution; however, he expressed concern that the proposed project's drainage improvements were not adequately and thoroughly considered in the MND and requested that appropriate time and consideration be given to ensure the Dixson Ranch is not adversely impacted due to drainage project amendments on or adjacent to their property. He requested that the current MND be amended to reflect the concerns he addressed. Colleen Martin, Olive Street, spoke of the importance of public involvement in local government; expressed concern about the proposed drainage plan and its continuing evolution; concern with the Neighborhood Plan and the lack of an improved road on E. Cherry to serve Phase 2; stated that the Minutes: City CouncillRedevelopmentRgency Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 staff report does not address accommodation of development as proposed by the Neighborhood Plan; stated that the applicant has deviated from the wishes of the community regarding density and said she would like to see less density in Phase 1 or in Phase 2; expressed concern about the proposed bioswale and how the water gets into the bioswale; said discussion has not taken place regarding the increase of impermeable surfaces that the development will include; and stated that there continue to be many issues that can be addressed with an EIR, including tree removal, traffic safety, and improvements. She noted that the plan includes an enormous amount of monitoring and wondered how that was going to be accomplished. She further expressed concern with design aesthetics and the issue concerning the prime soils definition and the mitigation for prime soils. She noted the project has gone through many changes. She referred to the Planning Commission's recommendation for requiring a full EIR and asked the Council abide by its recommendation. She said if the Council decides against an EIR, she agreed that the MND needs to be reconsidered, amended, and recirculated to agencies to reflect the correct land use category descriptions as noted by Mr. Dickens. She concluded by urging the Council to consider an EIR for the project. Cliff Branch, co-ownerfappiicant, responded to public comments concerning the zoning of the property and stated he hoped the Council could stay consistent with the philosophy that was developed during the 2001 General Plan Update. He also commented that the walnut trees are not native and are near the end of their life cycle and some are dying. He noted that they have done a lot of environmental studies, and in addition, more study will occur on the drainage plan. Tony Janowicz, Lierly Lane, read a letter into the record (on file in the Administrative Services Department} supporting the project as proposed. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, spoke in support of the project as proposed and acknowledged the drainage, sewer, road, and emergency access improvements that are part of the project. She urged the Council to listen to the majority of neighbors in Subarea 2 who support development of the Cherry Creek project and to develop E. Cherry. She noted that the surrounding neighborhoods are higher density with smaller residential lots. Polly Tullis, Garden Street, expressed concern about the proximity of the bioswale to the former Vanderveer house and its potential impact to the structural integrity of the house. She also stated she did not receive a public hearing notice; however, she was not sure if her property was located within the 300 ft, distance for notification. She also suggested that it would be worthwhile to determine if any of the acreage within the 22-acre property has irrigation rights as it relates to loss of prime agricultural land. There were no further public comments received, and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing. Mayor Ferrara called for a recess at 9:01 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:09 p.m. Council Member Costello provided the following comments: - In determining whether the MND is adequate, he stated that drainage and environmental impacts to prime soils were the most significant issues and he referred back to the 2001 General Plan Environmental Impact Report which adequately addressed mitigation for the loss of prime soils in this area; - Noted that the property in question was not zoned as Agriculture; Minutes: City CouncillRedevelopment Agency Meeting Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Page 7 - Expressed concern with drainage and favored the proposed drainage plan; however, he wanted to ensure that the development does not move forward until it ties into the completion of the EIR on the drainage issues for Newsom Springs regional project; - Acknowledged that setbacks are established for creek protection; - Noted that siltation would be addressed in the regional drainage solution and would tie in with the proposed drainage system; - Does not believe there any additional .pesticide calculations that need to be addressed that come from Dixson Ranch; pesticide calculations for the project would be adequately addressed in the MND; - Would like to see the MND amended to show the correct descriptions of the properties; - Does not think a full EIR is warranted for the project; - Suggested a reduction in density with lot sizes larger than 6,000 square feet; - Supports proposed lot sizes for the duet lots; - Suggested that Subarea 2 be zoned as Medium-Low Density when that comes forward; - Stated the issues with E. Cherry Avenue should be adequately addressed which guarantees that the road is going to be improved. Council Member Arnold provided the following comments: - Referred to the Report on Conservation of Prime Agricultural Resources dated July 2003 (on file) which addresses all the agricultural lands in the City and stated that the agricultural Class 1, 2, & 3 soils on the subject property is referred to on Maps 4 and 5; and acknowledged that farming could not occur on any of the land because zoning for the majority of the property is residential; - Acknowledged that this property has been zoned as residential for a very long time; and if someone wanted to bring commercial agriculture operations to this property, an agricultural buffer would be required and would substantially reduce the usable land; - Believed that residential development was planned for this property and is appropriate; - Believes there is a need to mitigate the loss of the one acre of prime soils with an in-lieu fee; - Does not support eminent domain on E. Cherry; however, acknowledged difficulties in determining/cohtacting owners; - Supports extension and improvement of E. Cherry Avenue; - With regard to Subarea 2, suggested that Planning Commission revisit the zoning for that area; Medium-Low Density may be more appropriate; - Supported the abandonment of the Noguera drainage easement, assuming this project moves forvvard with the correct drainage plan implemented; - Need to ensure the proposed drainage system is sufficient before development occurs; - Supports number of lots proposed; - Supports one-story homes backing up to Noguera Place; - Can approve the MND as amended to remove the LESA model and to correct the land use description for the Dixson Ranch. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following comments: - Referred to the 2001 General Plan Update and remembered specific discussion regarding the rezoning of the property to a higher density classification and that the reason was specifically related to the drainage issue and the potential to solve the biggest flooding issue in Arroyo Grande, as well as that this was a good in-fill project adjacent to the Village; Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Page 8 - Spoke about transitional housing as it relates to the adjacent agricultural use and the agricultural buffer concept; - Did not recall any previous discussion about prime soils on the property which required special consideration as it has always been zoned residential; - Also noted that in 2003, there were changes to the Agricultural Element and there was no discussion about the prime agricultural potential on this property; - Believed that the General Plan language that refers specifically to an EIR required for loss of prime agriculture soils does not apply for this project; - Supports MND with modifications to the land use definitions for the surrounding property and supports the use of the LESA model. Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments: - Referred to 2001 General Plan Update and agreed that discussion regarding prime soils did not come up; however, the issue of density did come up; - Believes the zoning should have remained as Rural Residential or at least Medium-Low density; - Acknowledged the site has always been zoned Residential and is pleased the proposal for Subarea 1 has fewer units per acre than what it is currently zoned for; - Has issue with Subarea 2 as it relates to zoning and spoke about the need for transitional zoning; recommended sending Subarea 2 back to the Planning Commission for review of potential change in General Plan land use designation; - Stated he is comfortable with the MND for Subarea 1 as it relates to addressing all the constraints on the site, including creek protection and the drainage plan; - Acknowledged that any proposal for Subarea 2 would require detailed environmental review; - Supports the MND as modified to clarify the land use description of the Dixson Ranch as indicated; and before adding language about the use of the LESA model, recommended being clear about the criteria being applied; - Supports the MND as it relates to Subarea 1; has issue with Subarea 2 and prefers going back to review the density. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie provided the following additional comments: - Requiring mitigation for loss of prime soils on residential zoned property would set a bad precedent; - Supports the Neighborhood Plan as it provides adequate infrastructure to develop the rest of the area; - Supports the 130 foot agricultural buffer for the proposed project; - Supports the drainage plan and emphasized how big of an improvement it is to the community; - Noted that development impacts fees will provide for traffic improvements; - Eminent domain for E. Cherry might be necessary as last resort; - Agreed that parking should not be allowed along creekside. Brief discussion ensued regarding the suggestion to include mitigation for loss of prime soils on residential zoned property. Action: Council Member Arnold moved to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Subarea 1, as amended to remove the LESA model reference, to change the land use category definition of the Dixson Ranch to reflect the existing commercial agricultural operations, to mitigate the loss of the Minutes: City CouncillRedevelopment Agency Meeting Page 9 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 one-acre of agricultural land at a similar rate that was used on the Fair Oaks project, and to send Subarea 2 back to the Planning Commission to review the zoning for that area. Council Member Costello asked if the two Subareas could be separated. City Attorney Carmel responded that he did not think they could be separated without going through the mitigations to see what should be taken out and what should not and requiring some level of recirculation of the document. As a matter of clarification, he explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the Neighborhood Plan component, which identifies whether the Subarea 1 project provides adequate infrastructure for Subarea 2. He recommended not separating out Subarea 2 from the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He clarified that Subarea 2 would have a project, or a sequence of projects, that would all be evaluated separately with full environmental review. City Manager Adams explained that recommendations regarding the zoning for Phase 2 could be considered separately. Mayor Ferrara asked for clarification on whether the City was moving forward with the Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Neighborhood Plan only. City Attorney Carmel explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates all components including the Development Code Amendment, the Neighborhood Plan, the Planned Unit Development, and the Tract Map. He noted that the Development Code Amendment is a City initiated application and process to achieve General Plan consistency; however, the City is not taking action tonight on the Development Code Amendment. He explained that approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration allows approval of the Development Code Amendment at a later date; however, does not bind the Council to approve it as currently proposed. He explained that the City could amend its Development Code Amendment application to consider Subarea 1 separately and exclude the Subarea 2 portion. Mayor Ferrara inquired whether the motion could be separated into two motions to 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2) to direct staff to review Subarea 2 separately. Council Member Arnold amended his motion to not separate out Subarea 2 from the Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, he said the remainder of the motion stands. Mayor Ferrara clarified that the motion includes the issue concerning the mitigation of the loss of 1-acre of prime soils. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Costello, Ferrara NOES: Guthrie ABSENT: Dickens Action: Council Member Arnold moved to direct staff to amend the (Development Code Amendment) application for Subarea 2 and send it back to the Planning Commission to revisit the zoning for that property. Council Member Costello seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 AYES: Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens Discussion ensued concerning the process for continued review of the project, and clarification that Subarea 2 would be considered separately from Subarea 1. Further Council discussion ensued clarifying that approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed environmental issues related to the project and that Council would be directing the project back to the Planning Commission to review only the specific proposed project (Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tracl Map and Planned Unit Development) for Subarea 1. City Attorney Carmel clarified that the Council would be directing only the Development Code Amendment, Planned Unit Development and Tentative Tract Map for Subarea 1 back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Action: Council Member Arnold moved to continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of November 14, 2006 and to return the project to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the Development Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development for Subarea 1. Mayor Pro Tem Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote: AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara NOES: None ABSENT: Dickens Mayor Ferrara called for a recess at 10:29 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:37 p.m. .: . 9.b. Consideration of Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-001, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 06-004 -Location: APNs 006-095-001 8 002,- Iricluding and Adjoining Arroyo Grande High School at Valley Road/Fair Oaks.Ave`nue. Assistant Planner Bergman presented the staff report and recommended the Council: 1) Adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the subject properties as Residential Hillside (RH) and Public Facility (PF), initiated by the City iif Arroyo Grande for property located on and adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School; and 2) Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 06-004 located south of and including part of Arroyo Grande High School campus at Valley Road and Fair Oaks Avenue, initiated by the City of Arroyo Grande, including improvement and extension of Castillo Del Mar Drive, from Orchard Street to Valley Road. City Manager Adams briefly explained issues that, had arisen regarding the design of the proposed road extension and identification of several drainage issues which have increased the cost of the project. He outlined the associated costs and recommended that the Council authorize execution of a Reimbursement Agreeme with JH Land Partnership in a form approved by the City Attorney; and authorize the City,M Hager to execute an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting p~posed changes in the payment provided by JH Land Partnership and any other minor modifications determined to be necessary to carry out the direction provided by City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 ATTACHMENT2 Discussion: In response to question by Commissioner Fellows, Mr. Strong replied that the Police Department will review the lighting plan (including over the walkway in the parking lot). In response to Commissioner Tait, Commissioner Brdwn added to his motion and Commissioner Ray agreed to: • The mitigation measure for sycamores to be move~all be increased due to the size of trees. and adopt: RESOLUTION N0.06-2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIJ+FG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING~CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 06-009; LOT LINE ADJU IVIENT 06-003 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 06-002, CATED AT 1400 EAST GRAND AVENUE, APPLIED FOR BY RCI ALITY, LLC The motion was approve n the following roll call vote: AYES: Comm' loners Brown, Ray, Parker, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: No ABSENT: one the fo~oing Resolution was adopted this 5`h day of December 2006. Strong recused himself from the meeting due to conflict of interest for the next item. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-004; APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION -SUB-AREA 2 (CHERRY CREEK). Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for this zoning change from Residential Rural (RR) to Single-Family Residential (SF). Staff answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding state limits on downzoning; state allowance to consider environmental constraints; timeliness or urgency of rezoning; ability to build out to 4.5 units/acre;. concern for lack of environmental review for future development; using eminent domain for all of dirt Cherry vs. only the Subarea 1 portion; similarity of planning issues in both subareas; City Council's and City Attorney's reasons for separating Subarea 2 from Subarea 1; buffer distance in Subarea 2 of 100' (General Plan minimum) vs. 130' (NP overlay minimum); RRM's estimate of Subarea 2 buildout vs. what Subarea 2 property owners' plans are; concern for developers' sense of entitlement to buildout at 4.5 un./ac.; applicability of the "categorically exempt" environmental determination done solely for the purpose of changing zoning vs. for each future individual project; possibility for mitigated negative declarations to be done for future small projects; lack of additional information from RRM regarding the map that shows 2.0 un./ac. buildout; need for changing the General Plan if consensus is to change zoning to RS (Residential Suburban) instead of SF; CEQA exemption 152828T; ability to condition subdivisions vs. plot plan reviews for road right of way; City Council majority opinion on "Medium-Low Density"; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 5 environmental review of new single family residences being built in Subarea 2; and necessity for conditions to have an applicable nexus with each project. Chair Fellows opened the public hearing for public comment. Nora Looney. 444 Lierlv Lane (in Subarea 2), spoke in support of rezoning as recommended by staff and consistent with the General Plan. She read a letter dated November 13, 2006 from other property owners in Subarea 2 supporting it also. She also read a letter dated December 4, 2006 from Byron Grant (on file at CDD) against downzoning. Her potential buildout at 4.5 units/acre is 3 lots and they wouldn't demo their own custom home. Downzoning would cause them to lose one of those lots. Tony Janowicz, 445 Lierlv Lane, spoke in support of staffs recommended rezoning and stated that each parcel should be considered on a case by case basis. Existing owners know they won't be able to buildout to 4.5 un./ac. and they won't destroy their custom homes in order to build more units. He'd be willing to sign a deed restriction to limit the number of new lots to three. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, requested the record reflect her concern that these Planning Commission minutes be sent to City Council in plenty of time to consider before their own deliberations on this item. Zoning could be different for different properties. She's aware of the concern regarding cluster development from merging two parcels and doing a PUD. At 4.5 du./ac., constraints would have to be considered. Ownership changes over time, but when considering zoning, the current owners need to be considered as well as future ones. Transitional zoning is a good idea (from urban to ag). At 2.2 un./ac., all the properties would qualify for secondary units. Damien Mavis, co-owner of Subarea 1, spoke on behalf of the Subarea 1 owners. They have a vested interest in keeping it nice and building nice homes. It's logical to continue SF zoning into Subarea 2 consistent with the General Plan. The residents are in favor. While difficult to achieve 4.5 ac./un. density, the zoning makes it much easier to develop as far as minimum lot frontage, lot depth and lot size. It's actually easier to avoid the PUD (clustering) and follow the Development Code this way. The natural barriers will keep the average lot size up and average density down. The General Plan says nothing about splitting Subarea 1 into a different density than Subarea 2, and it would be difficult to make separate findings to downzone Subarea 2. Downzoning encourages sprawl. This is an infill area and always will be. The Subarea 1 development ended up at 3.3 un./ac. and it's unlikely to do a cluster development in Subarea 2 at more than that. Karen Estes, 811 E. Cherry, believes they should at least have the option to build up to 4.5 du./ac. When an area is downzoned, it increases the cost of each house. There are problems in the City with the lack of affordable housing. Each property owner should be allowed to build up to what they can with appropriate Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 6 review. If they can only build a small amount, it doesn't restrict others from developing and creating more affordable options. Chair Fellows closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments on the project: Parker: • It's noteworthy that of 10 parcels, some could build out to 4.5 du/ac., but others couldn't; about half of them could be affected by environmental constraints. • She has a problem with clustering and is concerned that with 4.5 du./ac., developers will feel they have an entitlement and won't acknowledge environmental restraints, so they'll come in with very dense PUD's. • She agrees with Mayor Ferrara that density should slow down towards the east near ag land. • She's concerned applicants will not understand when told about natural constraints if they feel they're entitled to build to the maximum density (4.5 du./ac.) It's important to be honest with them up front, or it will be hard to work with them. If half of them can build up that far, but the others can't build at all, it doesn't seem fair. • She felt she swung around from first comments above, because at the same time, she wouldn't want to sideline those who could build up to 4.5 du./ac. Each property needs to be looked at individually as plans come in. Brown: • He agrees with Ms. Parker that it's bad to create a false sense of entitlement. • He's not willing to vote tonight based on available information and would like staff to get definitive information in regards to changing zoning based on the State approved Housing Element. • When they did the Neighborhood Plan (NP), a 130' ag buffer line was drawn across Subarea 2 and Mr. Estes was not comfortable with that. Therefore, the NP for Subarea 2 wasn't flushed out enough to validate 4.5 du./ac. • He would like a survey of what property owners want to do before changing the zoning. • There's no indication of friendly condemnation on dirt Cherry continuing through Subarea 2. That's important, so whatever Council does with Subarea 2 rezoning, he would like friendly condemnation to go all the way through. Tait: • He agrees they need to take property owners' plans to heart. • At the same time, zoning comes first. • He would have liked somebody to have mapped out the constraints on Subarea 2. • In an ideal world, it's fine to let natural constraints dictate density, but it may not actually work that way. • The current Planning Commission and City Council will uphold the constraints (creek riparian setbacks and ag buffer to protect citizens and the environment), PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 7 but he's not sure about future Commissioners and Council members. RS zoning may act as a safeguard for the future. • It's wise to consider the proposal of 2.0 du./ac. • Councilmembers Costello and Arnold and Mayor Ferrara expressed desire for Medium-Low density. • Guthrie discussed transitional zoning as it relates to adjacent ag use, and that relates to General Plan Ag 5.3 (land use conversions against land designated ag). • Things need to be researched more, including current landowners' plans. Ray: • After considering the staff report, she agreed density should be 4.5 du./ac. With the public testimony and Commissioner views, while there have been valid arguments for 2 du./ac., she still feels it should be 4.5 because of following: o To match the zoning of Subareas 1 and 2 ultimately guarantees the transitional nature of Subarea 2. Because lot size and maximum buildout are so varied, it guarantees variety. o She would need to have a really good reason to take away rights of property owners, and she doesn't see a compelling argument to do so. None of the properties can subdivide to 4.5 du./ac., so the question is just how much can they build. She understands the reason for a blanket 2.5 du./ac., but environmental constraints are so strong, there's no need to take it away from property owners who can do more. o Discussion with current property owners is too mercurial. What one homeowner wants today may be different tomorrow, as is nature of personal property owner rights. Current owners shouldn't have to sign anything (deed restrictions). o There is an expectation when somebody buys a home of what they can do. That expectation is also important to us as a City. o The possibility of cluster development isn't inherently wrong; the Planning Commission would have to review the project. She doesn't want to downzone just for fear of cluster development later. o The extensive environmental restraints will keep density down. o The false sense of entitlement is very valid, but it doesn't reflect the City's honesty. People should be trusted to take the zoning and do what's necessary for the City. Subarea 1 testifies that the process works. o There have been many PUD's and the process is getting better -like with the recent change adhering to setbacks of adjacent properties. That will really apply here. o She's not in favor of downzoning and agrees with the General Plan at 4.5 du./ac. Fellows: • Whenever considering a project, Commissioners have to consider first what's best for the community. They may get a 100-signature petition, but they have to keep things in context. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 PAGE 8 • Subarea 2 borders the creek to the north and east, the Caldwell trust, and has an ag buffer. He disagrees- with Ms. Scot-Graham's argument that high density would save ag land here, because in this location it's a threat to ag and the creek. • He also disagrees that high density will make homes more affordable. That would be true in other areas, but wouldn't be a large factor here. • He's always felt that it makes good sense to do transitional zoning. He doesn't agree that variety inside a border constitutes that. There should be more density on one side and lower density toward the ag land and creek to diminish those threats. • Three of five Councilmembers requested Commissioners to consider RS zoning, but that hasn't been done tonight, and it needs further study. "No City shall reduce the residential density to any parcel unless the City makes certain findings." Staff needs to consider it and he's in favor of RS zoning at this point. His uncertainty is if staff can suggest the finding there's no net loss of housing capacity. He needs more information before voting. • People would consider higher density as an entitlement, and zoning is the only way to guarantee that it's lower. Commissioner Brown made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait, to continue Development Code Amendment Case No. 06-004 for further analysis, not particularly to RS or Low-Medium density zoning, but based on the question of whether lower density can be considered based on the Housing Element; also, staff shall come forth in writing with a description of how environmental constraints would be the same or different in Subarea 2 as in Subarea t (because there may be more constraints in Subarea 2, thereby justifying transitional zoning). The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Tait, and Chair Fellows NOES: Commissioner Parker and Ray ABSENT: None C. PLOT PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 06-009; APPLICANT -TONY JANOWICZ; LOCATION - 795 CHERRY STREET. Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report. She answered Commission questions for clarification of the staff report regarding: no Planning Commission review requirement if he was only doing an addition; the only difference in the project with different zoning would be setbacks; the distance of the new structure from ag land (a little over 70'); the LSA letter and adding conditions to the project regarding cultural resources survey; handling asbestos during demolition; the ag buffer as the "mechanism to minimize potential conflicts between agricultural and non- agricultural land uses"; consideration of the demo and re-build project as a new "use" vs. as a new "structure' and the associated interpretation of the General Plan and Development Code; legal non-conforming status of existing structure and allowance to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 ATTACHMENT3 Vice Chair Brown again stated that to ask anything less than what Sub area 1 req would be wrong; a MND should be prepared for Commission review for this project: Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Brov~cn~to continue consideration of the project to a date uncertain, and request that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a drainage plan, and a Ag buffer plan, prepared by a design landscape architect, be brought forward to the Commission. Discussion: Commissioner Ray stated that she was having difficulty with requiring a MND, as that would be adding time to a process that the Corr{mission had already dealt with on this project. The reason she requested a MND was to maintain clarity on the City's position, the process itself regarding the Ag buffe~~d why Janowicz was allowed to build within the buffer, so there would be no ambiguity with sub-area 2. Vice Chair Brown stated e~ronmental impacts are determined by CEQA and governing bodies; any decision made on this project would be precedent setting for Sub-area 2. The motion was ap oved by the following roll call vote: AYES: ommissioners Parker, Brown, and Ray NOES: None ABSE Commissioner Tait 8' 0 p.m. The Commission took a 10-minute break. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 06-004; APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - 13 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUB-AREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN) Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for continued consideration of a proposal to amend the Zoning Map to designate the subject property from Residential Rural to Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Heffernon explained that the Planning Commission continued this item to allow time for further analysis on whether a low density residential zoning could be implemented and adequate findings made given state law regarding regional housing needs and affordable housing requirements. In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the Development Code to change the zoning designation of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 PAGE 8 subject property from Rural Residential to Single-Family or one of the other alternatives suggested in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions on the staff report. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Vasquez, agent for the Sub-area 2 property owners, described the proposal and the project constraints. He explained that the conceptual design was based on input from the neighborhood meetings, a 100-foot Ag buffer, and would have a rural feel to it. He stated that all the owners had seen the conceptual plan and were in approval of it. Ruel Estes, East Cherry, stated his concern at the requirement for an Ag buffer; he would like to use his property as he pleases and does not want to see it downgraded; hopes the Commission does not-have apre-conceived idea of what is going to happen here. Colleen Martin stated the plan is really nice and she likes it; why not zone as proposed and what is appropriate instead of zoning for 4.5 units per acre, which could cause an additional 57 units in this area in the future. Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, urged the Commission to designate Sub-area 2 to Single- Family zoning consistent with the General Plan and requested the Commission to not downzone the area. Speaking for all the property owners in Sub-area 2, she stated Mr. Vasquez had designed a good neighborhood plan and all owners of Sub-area 2 have seen the conceptual plan and the consensus has been positive. She understands the concern about PUD's, but they are just asking for a change in the zoning. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment. Commission comments: Ray: • "No net loss" is not possible here, but we do have the best-case scenario. If we can't downzone we end up functionally downzoning anyway and end up with the paper density. We will actually protect rural communities by changing it to SF to meet the General Plan and protect the personal property rights of those people who would be losing opportunity if we downgrade; this is going to be a transitional area because of the environmental constraints. Parker: • The property dictates the zoning; considering the map it almost fits into the City's RS zoning and maybe there could be an overlay allowing for 3.2 units. Brown: • Does not agree with staffs analysis that the density cannot be made up elsewhere; when the General Plan was adopted this area went from a Specific Plan to a Neighborhood Plan and many hours were spent on sub area 1, and in effect they ended up with a Specific Plan; Sub-area 2 has no less of a burden to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2007 PAGE 9 climb than Cherry Creek, but the process could be speeded up if issues could be resolved upfront. He proposed that a solution for all parties would be to keep the densities the same, call it a Specific Plan area and it would then be equitable to all owners; he could support zoning for 4.5 units per acre and recommend to City Council that Sub-area 2 have a specific plan/general plan amendment. Commissioner Parker stated that some owners may not want to have a specific plan at this time and may not be prepared to do this. Commissioner Ray asked how a specific plan would protect 11 different owners. In reply to Commissioner Parker's questions Ms. Heffernon explained that a specific plan would be regulated by State law and could be a long process; an overlay already exists as a neighborhood plan. Mr. Vasquez stated that RRM Design Group had done a layout for Sub-area 2 in their neighborhood plan and this could be amended and recommended to City Council to be incorporated into the neighborhood plan. Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend that City Council amend the zoning map to change the zoning from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family (SF) consistent with the General Plan, and adopt: RESOLUTION 07-2024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF) CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06A04) The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ray and Parker NOES: Vice Chair Brown ABSENT: Commissioner Tait the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16~' day of January 2007. III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, T.007 PAGE 10 Commissioner Parker stated she had really enjoyed her time serving on the Planning Commission and working with staff. Commissioner Brown concurred. VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. on a motion by Vice Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Parker. ATTEST: LYN REARDON-SMITH TIM BROWN, VICE CHAIR SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ATTACHMENT 4 GRAPHIC SCALE Joo on eo Aso I I I I I Cherry Creek July 7, 2006 `,,.: ,. ~, ~ ~~,.'~; r'~ ' ";: ~~• v .; .wry, •a •T -~~ ~ \ __~ r rr CHER$1'G EK DEVELOPMENT~t t( ,an s '" „i'`,/~ 3- ~ . t' ' e - ~ / f ''c , ` l ~ ~ ~ ~'~' ~~ Mu tPM fnbW mwm ~~. ~ `~ A. (.~~/~p ~~ Lw Bprc~i imsNg~ ~~ .~ ~ ~~~~~ e t ~~ _'~ ~ cuw .~, e~..,nr,..a~,... 7 ' Y .ice t~"..z ~~ uw +op...w wiW,.w.r. ~LJ~. y J 1 ~ "r ~~ ~rxx top.2f. tP.w+em \ i :~ ~.~...m.~,>,a..s,..a..u ~`tL ~ ~ ~~ ~~ '~ yY~ A.,~ Cmvry.rtlrM.c25lwa~3PI+WS~ M1 ~;d ~ t ,~~ ~ ^'~ ~ -. ~ wS. ,,, - ~.+..,~ w,.m.w.,wesu.w.s..d... oox.um,a. tcorcwpn~»„xc.rm„a... ~~ T Maw«mF6 Vwn!WwP.!ry °.9.,34srt,6W,~an~~EPaMn- .4arY ~asYCH~~~YAV~NU~ suB~~~A 2 coNC~ T ~' y ,A I f . V J EzvnANVFRM1IM1MS iRM03FP TliERiv~Nk5 - uourucxrtvr . -_....wcuoe.x.aMs --~ znancxurrs 4tIM£96E0~T i00ERIY~t(VgWEOMW WwtnwwEO, WM.FAB WAO~IMYL¢E 4NEEWAIOnB a"~ ^l `+ m z w The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 ATTACHMENT 6 Part Two Guidelines for Preparing Specific Plans The purpose of this chapter is twofold: (1) to outline a strategic approach to the preparation, adoption, and implementation of specific plans; and (2) to provide a detailed framework and explanation of the statutory requirements for specific plans. In addition, this chapter provides a discussion of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the role it plays in the specific planning process. I. Decision To Prepare A Specific Plan Government Code §65450 provides that the local planning agency, planning commission and/or legislative body has the authority to initiate the preparation of a specific plan. Private parties may also initiate a plan as provided for by local agencies. An example of the initiation by a private party would be an application for a tentative subdivision map which, under a local subdivision ordinance or general plan policy, requires the concurrent preparation of a specific plan. Specific Plan Process Diagram II. Planning Process The following model is a modified version of the strategic planning process described in the General Plan Guidelines, and adapted to the intricacies of specific plans. This model is conceptual and maybe used as a reference to guide the selection or development of a process which meets the needs of the respective jurisdiction. Other comprehensive planning models are available which may achieve similar results. A. The Work Program The preparation of a work program should be the first consideration after making the decision to prepare a specific plan. The program should set forth the responsibilities the departments, consultants, and/or individuals will take in each phase of the process. In addition, it should provide direction in the scope of the work to be performed, the funding mechanisms, consultants, public participation, and deadlines. Early Direction: The work program should incorporate early policy direction from the legislative decision making body, defining the general direction for the specific plan and its objectives and policies. This direction may take the form of precise guidelines for what the specific plan should accomplish, or a general vision of the planning area. This eazly direction may change as a result of public input, committee recommendations, or new information obtained during the collection or analysis of data. Regazdless, the eazly policy direction will provide staff, consultants, and the public a basis for beginning the process of prepazing a specific plan. Consultant or Staff Preparation: The legislative decision making body has the discretion to decide who may prepaze a specific plan. http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 Page 2 of 9 Specific plans may be prepared by agency staff, by a private consulting firm under a contract to assist staff, or solely by a consultant performing the role of staff. In other situations, specific plans may be a requirement of a project and prepared by a project proponent or by a consultant under contract to the project proponent. Private parties may also be responsible for preparing or contracting for the preparation of a specific plan as part of a project application. Whenever a consultant is preparing the plan, the work program should require an administrative draft, so that staff can review progress of the plan. The agency must budget for sufficient staff resources to ensure that the administrative draft is reviewed for consistency with the general plan and other regulations of the city or county. Adoption Deadlines: Deadlines should be incorporated into the work program to ensure the timely completion of the specific plan. The deadlines should be reasonable to ensure that the quality of the product is consistent with the expectations of the decision makers. Candidly, the adopted time lines are typically a product of the either the political constraints of local legislative body, or the development proposals which will follow after the adoption of the specific plan. The Permit Streamlining Act is not applicable to the adoption of a specific plan. Therefore, prudence should prevail in the adoption of deadlines which aze functional and realistic. Public Participation: The participation of those working or residing within a specific plan area or more broad participation of the local citizens can play an important role in the preparation of a specific plan. Section 65453 states that "A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted and amended in the same manner as a general plan..." as such, opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, public utilities, civic education, and other community groups must be provided pursuant to §65351. For example, the City of San Jose utilizes the assistance of a community-based task force composed of property owners, business owners, residents, other agencies, school districts, and other stakeholders when preparing specific plans. The city credits this involvement for the general support apparent during public hearings on and implementation of its specific plans. , B. Current Context The planning azea, as it currently exists, is a function of past decisions and policies. Similarly, the development of a specific plan which serves as the basis for decision making in the future is a function of the existing social, political, economic, and physical environments. The community's values and views of the existing planning area aze determining factors in the direction and focus of the specific plan. Planning Area Issues: Each planning azea possesses characteristic issues which should be addressed by the specific plan. The issues may include those relevant to historic preservation, environmental quality, residential development, economic development, azchitectural regulation, commerciaUindustrial parks, and urban infill. These issues will form the basis for the detailed policies and implementation measures of the specific plan. Existing Land Use: http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 Page 3 of 9 The existing uses of land within the planning area must be analyzed to determine the influence they will have and the role they will play under the specific plan. Existing agricultural, industrial, or floodplain open space uses may substantially affect the type of uses planned for adjacent properties. The continuation of existing uses may dramatically affect the planned uses set forth by the specific plan. Land uses sun-ounding the planning area should also be analyzed and connections/transitions buffers between uses designed to ensure compatibility with those allowed by the specific plan. Environmental Conditions: An evaluation of the planning area's natural environment, including wildlife habitat, natural hazazds, and resources, may provide direction to the type and intensity of development which is planned to occur. This analysis should also include an evaluation of the existing flood plain, seismic, slope and other constraints which will determine the intensity of development and feasibility of implementing plans. Infrastructure Constraints: The type and intensity of future development proposed by a specific plan is limited by the capacity of existing infrastructure or the ability to provide new public facilities. The analysis should identify available opportunities for development, as well as potential constraints resulting from the effect new development may have on schools, roads, sewage systems, water supplies and other public services and facilities. Existing utilities, easements, and encumbrances of property may also restrict land use. Existing Commitments and Policy Constraints: Past approvals of development entitlements and other quasi-judicial and legislative decisions may have produced limitations to the scope of the specific plan. The adoption of agricultural preserves, vesting tentative maps, and development agreements may limit the type and extent of uses allowed, or restrictions to development under the specific plan. For example, the land use and minimum pazcel size for a specific plan prepared for an azea subject to agricultural preserve contracts will be limited by the minimum allowable pazcel size and uses established by local ordinance consistent with the provisions of the Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) of 1965. C. Loag Term Direction As a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan, specific plans should provide the mechanism through which the long term direction of the general plan is implemented. This direction should be balanced against the objectives, policies, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and other programs which will be implemented through the specific plan. Issues, Opportunities, and Assumptions: The issues which have been identified and perhaps were the impetus for preparation of the specific plan should be systematically addressed through objectives, policies, and programs. The policies developed to address the issues must be considered relative to the direction provided by the general plan and the early guidance provided by the legislative decision-making body. Problems may often be resolved through creative application of financing, design features, or attributes of the planning area. Development and/or conservation opportunities should be identified and utilized in the specific plan. For example, land owned by the local agency within the planning area maybe suitable as a future public facility site, or land with significant habitat value may be suitable for a mitigation banking program. http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 Page 4 of 9 Analyses regarding infrastructure financing, ground water availability, and market demand may help decision makers assess the viability of the plan in the future. The prepazation of a specific plan requires decision-makers, planners, and the public to form certain assumptions concerning the future of the planning area. For example, assumptions might be made for a specific plan area traversed by riparian corridors that open space, and perpetual conservation and maintenance easements will need to be included for viability of the plan. Formulating Objectives, policies, and implementation measures: Objectives provide direction to the physical development of the planning area. As such, they help define the range and types of data necessary for preparing the plan. Consequently, cities and counties should develop their initial objectives early in the prepazation process. Objectives tend to be general and lack the focus which is required to foster a functional specific plan, but can always be supplemented with more specific policies. A comprehensive set of policies should be developed which define and implement the objectives. Policies should be written with consideration of their implementation and the project specific implications. The functionality of the policies will often determine the success of the specific plan. The implementation measures should be functional and realistic by design. A specific plan which is well written and focused can be self-implementing. However, the submittal and approval of individual development proposals will normally result in implementation. Including zoning ordinances and design criteria in the specific plan will shape the planning azea over time as individual development projects are designed for consistency with the plan. D. Steps for Consideration The following is a general list of considerations and information for inclusion in specific plans. It includes statutory requirements for coordination and review. Data Collection and Analysis: The information used in the eazly stages of specific plan preparation must be current and kept up-to-date throughout the planning process. The previously identified issues, opportunities, assumptions, and initial objectives will establish a direction for studies and help to define the range of information necessary to complete the plan. Background information and technical analyses should be included in the specific plan appendices for future reference and use in future projects. The amount of data collected and analyzed should be sufficient to address any pertinent questions regarding the plan and the plan area. This information should be comprehensive enough to satisfy the needs of both the specific plan and its CEQA document. Information Sources: A direct relationship exists between the quality of the information used to prepaze a specific plan and its effectiveness. Case study examples of other jurisdictions' specific plans may provide angles for approaching area issues. The Office of Planning and Reseazch's Book of Lists (updated annually) can help to locate recently adopted examples. In addition, the yearly awazds presented by the California Chapter of the American Planning Association, recognize up-to-date examples of "good" plans. A number of text book references are available through the American Planning Association's BookService http://cores.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 Page 5 of 9 which covers comprehensive planning. Several publications track and analyze planning-related litigation including Daniel J. Curtin, Jr.'s California Land-Use and Planning Law. The State planning laws regulating planning, zoning, and development are another subject for reseazch. Each year, the Legislature enacts laws affecting local government planning activities. The Office of Planning and Reseazch annually compiles these statutes under the title of Planning, Zoning and Development Laws. Public Agency Information: Other governmental agencies may adopt subsequent projects which will affect the specific plan. These agencies may have information readily available which will address issues or requirements of the plan. Agencies should be contacted at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. One issue which transcends each of these levels is the supply of water. For example, the local public works department may have information regarding infrastructure; at the regional level, the Local Agency Formation Commission may have information regarding the extension of services or forming service areas; at the state level, the regional water quality control board provides information regazding levels of water quality; and at the federal level, the Bureau of Reclamation has information regazding the water projects and supply in the state. Inter-Governmental Coordination: Section 65103(e)(f) requires local governments to coordinate the preparation of local plans (specific plans) with the plans and programs of other public agencies. Intergovernmental coordination involves more than an exchange of information and plans; rather, it fosters cooperative efforts to address issues and promotes planning on a comprehensive basis. The planning process enables various agencies to resolve conflict through collaborative efforts. In addition, CEQA requires that the agency preparing the specific plan consult with responsible and trustee agencies regarding the project implications and the environment. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): CEQA requires local governments to prepaze environmental documents prior to approving "projects." An initial study is prepared for a specific plan or amendment to analyze the potential for significant impacts to the environment. In such cases, where a significant effect may occur, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. The contents of a specific plan and its EIR overlap extensively. The data, analyses, and studies for one, will likely be necessary for the other. For this reason, both documents should be prepazed concurrently and may utilize much of the same information. Individual development projects which follow the specific plan maybe well served by a detailed analysis in the EIR. Further discussion of this topic is contained in Section 3 of this document. Revising Objectives: Refinements to the draft objectives should take place throughout the planning process. The data, analyses, and input from advisory committees may change individual aspects of the plan. For example, the identification of a threatened or endangered species within a portion of the plan area may alter the type and intensity of proposed uses allowed by the plan. Policies, Implementation Measures, and Alternative Plans: For any set of objectives there will be a number of possible courses of action to pursue. Policies, implementation measures, and programs should be developed for each of the alternative planning http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 Page 6 of 9 scenarios. The relationship of each objective and alternative course of action should be considered in light of the general plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, capital improvement program, and other programs that will be implemented. Consistency with the general plan should be carefully analyzed and the plan amended as necessary. The policies, programs and implementation measures provide for the creative application of the specific plan to the planning area. Each should be carefully reviewed for clarity, effectiveness, and functional application. The alternative plans enable the decision makers, stakeholders, and other participants to choose from a variety of scenazios, solutions, and programs which will shape the planning area. Although the alternatives may only differ in their treatment of a particular issue, each must be realistic to ensure that the alternative is viable. In addition, the alternatives may be used to satisfy the EIR's requirements for a discussion of project alternatives. Selecting The Preferred Plan: After the plan alternatives have been thoroughly reviewed, decision makers should be able to select the preferred course of action from either one or a synthesis of several alternative plans. When the decision is made to combine two or more pazts of sepazate alternatives, the objectives, policies, and implementation measures may need refinement to ensure that the plan effectively and consistently accomplishes its purpose. Adopting The Plan: As previously noted, a specific plan may be adopted by either resolution or ordinance. Whether adopting a new specific plan or amending an existing one, the planning commission and boazd or council must hold at least one public hearing each to consider the proposal prior to making the final decision (§65453 and 65353). At least 10 days prior to each of these heazings, public notice of the time and place of the hearing must be given in the manner prescribed by state law (§65090 et. seq.). As a project which would affect the "permitted uses or intensity of uses of real property," expanded notice to property owners must also be given pursuant to §65091. The EIR or other environmental documentation must be certified by the legislative body prior to the adoption of the specific plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15092. Implementation: Section 65451(a)(4) requires that a specific plan contain a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures. A plan adopted by resolution will primarily be implemented through the enactment of sepazately adopted ordinances and programs. A plan adopted by ordinance will be implemented by regulations and measures contained in the plan itself. Capital improvement projects, public facility financing, application of regulations to development projects, and habitat conservation and restoration projects may act to implement the plan. (Further discussion of this topic is contained in Part 6) MODEL SPECIFIC PLAN OUTLINE While state law specifies the mandatory specific plan contents pursuant to §65451, it leaves the format to the discretion of the local legislative body. Many of the specific plans reviewed as part of this report utilized an approach to organization similar to that of the individual elements of a general plan, covering information relating to land use, housing, circulation, open space, and so on. The following model outline is intended as a guide to the organization of a specific plan which is effective, efficient, and statutorily complete. I. Introductory Plan Information http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 Page 7 of 9 A. Title Page 1. Name of the plan 2. Name of local agency (Project proponent and/or public agency) 3. Date of adoption B. Credits, acknowledgments and participants C. Table of Contents D. List of Tables E. List of diagrams and maps F. Copy of Adopting Resolution and/or Ordinance II. Summary A. Purpose statement and range of issues B. Location C. Acreage D. Summary of preparation process III. Introduction A. Detailed specific plan purposes B. Development and conservation issues addressed in the plan C. Project location, including influencing jurisdictions I . Written description 2. Regional location map 3. Vicinity map 4. Site Location Map D. Planning area information and environmental description E. Statement of whether the document is policy or regulatory by application (If the plan is both policy and regulatory by design, explain the relationship between the policies and regulations.) F. Statement of how the plans policies and/or regulations accomplish the objectives of the plan. G. Relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. H. Relationship of the specific plan to neighboring plans and those of other jurisdictions, regional agencies, and the state. I. A list of projects required by law to be consistent with the specific plan (e.g. rezonings, tentative subdivision maps and public works projects). IV. Land Use Planning and Regulatory Provisions A. The land use plan -- a statement of development policies (opportunities, issues, and analysis of data) pertaining to the planned type, intensity, and location of land uses consisting of 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Programs 4. Plan proposals a. Diagram and written description of planned land uses. b. Characteristics of each land use designation (e.g. single family residential, neighborhood commercial, open space for conservation). 1) Development Standards 2) Standards for conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. B. Land Use Regulations 1. Statement of purpose or intent 2. Applicability a. Statement of applicability of the regulations to the planning area and designations on the specific plan land use plan diagram. http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 Page 8 of 9 b. Effective date of the regulations 3. Statement of relationship between the specificplan regulations and the zoning, subdivision, and other local ordinances. 4. Development standards. C. Design Standards 1. Building design, massing & height 2. Parking ratios/standards, location & orientation 3. Gazage door size & type 4. Entrances, access, & on-site circulation V. The Infrastructure Plan A. Transportation: Development policies pertaining to the planned distribution, location, extent and intensity of public and private transportation consisting o£ 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Discussion of the relationship between the objectives, policies and how they are implemented through the individual plan proposals. 4. Plan proposals a. Diagram(s) and written description of proposed transportation components, including improvements that support the planned land uses. b. Development standazds for the primary components of public and private infrastructure (street cross-sections and material requirements). B. Public Service Infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage): Development policies pertaining to the planned distribution, location, extent, and intensity of water, sewer, and storm drainage consisting o£ 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Discussion of the relationship between the objectives, policies and how they are implemented through the individual plan proposals. 4. Plan proposals a. Diagram(s) and written description of proposed water, sewer, and drainage systems, including the improvements which support the planned land uses. b. Development standards for the primary components of public infrastructure. C. Solid Waste Disposal: Development policies pertaining to the planned distribution, location, extent, and intensity of solid waste disposal facilities and services consisting of: 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Plan Proposals a. Description of the type and location of proposed solid waste disposal facilities and serving necessary to support the planned land uses. b. Description of the proposed facilities and services to be provided (e.g., transformation station and recycling). D. Energy: Development policies pertaining to the planned distribution, location, extent, and intensity of energy facilities and services consisting of: 1. Objectives 2. Policies 3. Plan proposals a. Description of the type and location of proposed energy facilities, transmission lines, and easements necessary to support the planned land uses. b. Description of the proposed facilities and services to be provided (e.g., distribution of natural gas and the regulation of pressure). http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 2 Page 9 of 9 E. Other essential facilities necessary to support the proposed land uses (e.g., schools, fire stations, street lighting and landscaping). VI. Program of Implemeutatiou Measures A. Description of the regulations and ordinances which will implement the specific plan. B. Capital improvement program 1. Estimated cost of capital projects identified in the specific plan's infrastructure plan. 2. The measures by which each capital project will be financed. 3. Identification cf parties responsible completing each proposed improvement. C. Financing measures necessary for implementation of each of the specific plan's proposals other than capital improvements. 1. List and description of projects needing financing. 2. Cost estimates 3. The measures by which each specific plan proposal will be financed. 4. Identification of parties responsible for completing each proposal. D. Phasing plan for the specific plan proposal including capital improvements E. Subsequent development entitlements F. Other Programs VII. Relationship of the Specific Plan's Environmental Document to Subsequent Discretionary Projects A. Projects that will be exempt from additional environmental documentation based on the plan's EIR. B. Projects that will require additional environmental documentation. VIII. Specific Plan Administration A. Specific plan cost recoveryfees authorized by §65456 B. Specific plan amendment procedures 1. State requirements 2. Local requirements IX. Specific Plan Enforcement X. Appendicies A. Precise description of the specific plan area boundary. B. Summaries of key specific plan background data and information. C. Glossary of specific plan terms Return to Index Next: CEOA and Specific Plans This document is prepared by: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-455-0613 http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part2.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Process Diagram Back Figure r Specific Plan Process Diagram Tfee Work Program Furxling, Palley Direction, Deadlines ~ ; Contracts, antl Pesparslbilitias c O W e ~ _ ~ 7 P ~ °~ --- o ° t Current Context U t W --~ IdantAy existing land use, emironmantal C ~ Cbntlifdun9. pUbft£taCllilieSliflII8511UCtufa. ~ and plannrnp area issues L 9 °~ r ~ Long Term Direction G IdedtiTy pppcttunities and tocmuiate ~___~ ; c cb~ectivea, po0£ias, antl imptenrentaClan a ~`v~/ i measures ~ ; (Consider Aliernatlvesy 0 F ~ .. _......._ ............. ~_ ,.~ ..,.,eed. ._n..... .,. a , v ~ ., a _.___ _._ ~~_ . a' Steps I Selection /\~i~,,,, _,,,,"tom\/ Atloption V ~ U' 4j tmplgmentatiOn Ma)ntenance E rs a W U Page 1 of 1 http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/diagram.html 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 4 Page 1 of 5 Part Four Adoption, Amendment, Repeal, and Administration Procedure for Adopting and Amending a Specific Plan The process of preparing, adopting, and amending a specific plan is generally the same as that for a general plan (§65350-§65358). In addition, the specific plan statutes allow for exceptions and additional procedures (§65453, §65454, and §65456). Upon completion of the draft specific plan, the planning department staff will prepare reports to the planning commission and the legislative body. The reports will describe the contents of the plan, provide a recommendation For approval or denial, related findings (for the purposes of the CEQA and/or general plan consistency), and possibly a resolution for adoption. The report will normally include an analysis of the project's effect on the environment pursuant to the CEQA. If it has not occurred previously, staff will include recommendations for the certification of the environmental determination or document. Any proposed changes to the general plan or the zoning ordinance related to adoption and implementation of the specific plan should be presented at the same time. Hearing and Notice: The planning commission must hold at least one public hearing pursuant to §65353 prior to forwarding its recommendations to the legislative body. Pursuant to §65354, a recommendation for approval requires the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission. The public hearing enables the public to present testimony regarding the plan and further involves interested individuals in the process. Section 65090 provides that public hearing notices must be provided at least 10 days preceding the hearing. This is accomplished by placing notice in a local newspaper of general circulation. Alternatively, if there is no such newspaper, the notice must be posted in at least three public places within the jurisdiction of the local agency. If the adoption or amendment of a specific plan would affect the permitted uses or intensity of uses of real property, 10 day prior notice of the hearing must also be mailed or delivered directly to each of the following: (1) the owner(s) of the property or the owner's duly authorized agent, and to the project applicant; (2) each local agency expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities or services to the project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be significantly affected; and (3) all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the boundaries of the real property that is the subject of the hearing (§65091). However, where the notice to nearby property owners would affect more than 1000 persons, a 1/8 page newspaper advertisement may substitute for that part of the notice. Additional and more specific requirements are listed and should be reviewed under this section. In addition, the commission must provide advance notice to anyone who requests it in writing (§65092 or 65945). The commission may provide additional notice in any other manner it deems necessary or desirable. Special notice pursuant to §65096 is required whenever a person applies for a specific plan amendment or any entitlement for use which would permit all or any part of a cemetery to be used for other than http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part4.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 4 cemetery purposes. Page 2 of 5 Anyone may appeal the commission's decision to the legislative body under the procedures set forth under §65354.5. As with any legislative act, the legislative body, not the planning commission, has final say. In most cases, an appeal of the commission's decision may not be necessary because the legislative body must hold a public hearing on the matter anyway. A legislative body must hold at least one public hearing prior to adopting or amending a specific plan (§65355). A public hearing notice must be published in a local newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days prior to the hearing (§65090) or if a local newspaper is not available then notice shall be posted in at least three public places pursuant to this section. The legislative body must also notify anyone who makes a written request for notice pursuant to §65092 or 65945. The notice, as with the planning commission, may also need to meet the requirements under §65096. Once the hearing(s) have been completed, the legislative body will take action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the specific plan. Any conditions of approval should be made an integral part of the specific plan prior to its adoption. If necessary, final approval should be delayed so that the conditions can be added. If the plan is to be approved with a substantial modification not previously considered by the commission, the plan must be referred back to the commission for their reconsideration and recommendation (§65356). Adoption Options: Unlike the general plan, which must be adopted by resolution (§65356), two options are available for the adoption of a specific plan. Adoption by resolution or adoption by ordinance. An ordinance is a local statute, enforceable by law. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the term "resolution" "... is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the subject matter of which would not properly constitute a statute.... Such is not law but merely a form in which a legislative body expresses an opinion." The choice between the two is dependent upon the role which the plan is proposed to fill. When adoption is by resolution, the specific plan becomes a policy document similar to the general plan. It takes the form of a more specific set of policies which may give direction to the mix of land uses or goals of a particular development. When adoption is by ordinance, the specific plan effectively becomes a set of zoning regulations that provide specific direction to the type and intensity of uses permitted or defines other types of design criteria including architectural standards. However, it is important to note that as in City of Sausalito v. County of Marin, (1970) 12 Ca1.App.3d 550,565, the adoption of plans which effectively rezone property must be completed by ordinance consistent with §65850. The enactment of a specific plan is a legislative act subject to adoption or repeal by voter initiative even when enacted by resolution (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 561, Midway Orchards v. Cour:ty of Butte (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 765, De Vita v. County of Napa, (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 763). Cities and counties have not only been subject to specific plan referenda (Chandis Securities v. City of Dana Poi~:t (1997) 52 Cal. 4th 475), but have also sponsored voter initiatives to adopt specific plans for a variety of reasons. One common reason is to increase public involvement though voter approval. In other circumstances, adoption by voter initiative has been used due to controversy or political expediency. In effect, the electorate makes legislative decisions in place of the city council or county board of supervisors. The initiative and referendum may only be used to enact, change, or repeal a legislative act. An initiative http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part4.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 4 Page 3 of 5 may not be used to direct a plan to be prepared (Marblehead v. City of San Clemente (1991) 226 Cal. App. 1504). (See also: Growth Control by the Ballot Box: California's Experience, (1991) 24 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review) Legal Challenge: Actions filed to attack, set aside, void, or annul the decision of a city or county to adopt or amend a specific plan must be brought within 90 days of the agency's decision (§65009). Judicial review of a specific plan, including its conformance with the general plan, is based on whether the action by legislative body was arbitrary, capricious, lacking evidentiary support, and/or whether it failed to, proceed with public notice, hearings, and other procedural requirements of law. For a more comprehensive discussion, see Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law. Fees Pursuant to §65456, the legislative body may impose a charge on persons seeking approvals required to be consistent with an adopted specific plan or may require a deposit equal to the estimated cost of preparing a specific plan for adoption, amendment, or repeal. Costs may be recovered in any of several ways. An applicant seeking to initiate a project related specific plan may be required to deposit the estimated cost of the entire specific plan process at the front end of the application and then reimburse the agency for the final cost as a function of real cost accounting. Alternatively, a city or county may absorb the cost of the process and then recoup the cost through pro-rated developer fees or permit fees for projects required to be consistent with the adopted specific plan. Cities and counties often utilize a combination of developer direct financing, developer fees, facility districts, and other financing mechanisms to recoup the cost of the specific plan preparation and implement the requirements of the plan. In 1995, the following jurisdictions reported that they had adopted a specific plan cost recovery program pursuant to §65456: Albany, Brea, Camarillo, Carlsbad, Ceres, Chino, Claremont, Clayton, Clovis, Colusa County, Corte Madera, Desert Hot Springs, Fresno, Guadalupe, Imperial County, Indio, La Verne, Los Angeles, Mammoth Lakes, Manteca, Modesto, Monrovia, Ojai, Ontario, Oxnard, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates, Perris, Poway, Ripon, Roseville, San Mateo County, Seal Beach, Signal Hill, Sutter County, Tracy, Union City, Upland, Ventura, Waterford, and West Sacramento. Public and Governmental Agency Participation: The specific plan is an accumulation of information collected, organized, and transformed into a set of detailed objectives, policies, programs and standards used to guide future development. The information collected as part of public and agency involvement ensures that concerns, preferences, priorities, and needs are discussed and used in the decision making process. Section 65351 requires that the planning agency provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups through hearings and any other means deemed appropriate. Section 65352 further requires that the plan be referred to abutting cities or counties, special districts, school districts, local agency formation commissions, councils of government, public water systems http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part4.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 4 Page 4 of 5 supplying 3,000 or more customers, and specified air quality management districts. A city or county may accomplish this through public hearings or any other appropriate means including, but not limited to, community workshops, a website, written or telephone correspondence, and surveys. Each of these agencies has up to 45 days to comment on the proposed plan. A good example of public and agency involvement is the City of San Jose's Evergreen Specific Plan adopted July 2, 1991. A specific plan task force was organized of property owners, developers, business owners, school district representatives, governmental agencies, and other stakeholders. The task force contributed to impact analyses, identification of issues, land use relationships and intensities, design standards, and infrastructure and service requirements. In addition to the statute requiring the referral of plans and notification to specified local agencies and the public of its public hearings, notification pursuant to CEQA is required for the plan's environmental document. For further discussion of public notice and responsible and trustee agency review, refer to the State CEQA Guidelines and CEQA Deskbook by Ronald E. Bass, Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan. Additionally, §65919 et. seq. requires the proposal to adopt or amend all or part of a specific plan to be referred to affected cities and counties for comments and recommendations. Timing of Amendments: Unlike the mandatory elements of the general plan which, pursuant to §65358(b), may not be amended more frequently than four times during each calendaz yeaz, the specific plan may be amended as often as necessary as provided for by the local legislative body pursuant to §65453(a). However, no specific plan maybe amended unless the proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan (§65454). Conditions of Approval: OPR does not recommend attaching conditions to the approval of the specific plan, especially when the plan would rezone or otherwise affect the permitted uses or intensity of the use of land. Separating conditions from the plan may complicate the administration and implementation by creating policies or regulations that will directly affect the plan, but that are not included in it. Internal inconsistencies between the plan and conditions may result. The plan should be revised as needed prior to final adoption to incorporate regulations and conditions directly into the plan. Specific Plan Repeal: A specific is repealed in the same manner that it is amended pursuant to §65453(b). Just as in the adoption, the planning commission and legislative body must each hold at least one public hearing prior to taking action. Alternatively, a specific plan may be repealed by voter initiative. Plan Administration: The administration of specific plans require special Gaze. Often, the design standards and zoning adopted under the plan will differ from that of the zoning ordinance covering the other portions of the community. Agencies which adopt several specific plans, each with its own format and unique development specifications, may encounter increased permit processing times and errors due to varying plans, formats, and provisions. http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part4.htm1 2/21/2007 The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans: Part 4 Page 5 of 5 Several options exist in order to simplify plan administration. The first is educating planning staff about the intricacies of the plan through plan summaries, comparisons, and matrices. Existing zoning maps and other references should be changed to reflect the area covered by the plan and any changes in zoning or permit requirements. If necessary, the local zoning ordinance should be amended immediately to establish conformity with the plan. In jurisdictions where the adoption of several specific plans aze being considered, the agency may consider adopting written specific plan guidelines. Guidelines for the preparation of specific plans establish format and content requirements which will enable staff to familiarize themselves and more effectively implement the plan. The guidelines may also provide project proponents with an explanation of the required plan elements and how it is utilized by the particulaz agency. (See appendix D for an example of specific plan guidelines) Another option is to utilize computer software programs to aide in administration. The advent of "on- line" technology and "automated" project and permit review has provided planners with increasingly sophisticated tools which can be used to implement specifc plans. For example, Placer County's new On-Line General Plan enables planners to review projects for consistency with the general plan by entering the important characteristics of land development projects into a softwaze program. The program compares the project features with the plan, identifies applicable goals and policies by topical area, and prepazes a report. Similaz technology is available to assist in the implementation of the specific plan. Return to Index Next: Relationship to Other Planning Measures This document is prepared by: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-455-0613 http://Ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific/part4.htm1 2/21/2007 ATTACHMENT? November 13, 2006 To: City Council Members of Arroyo Grande and Planning Commission. The property ovmers in Sub-area 2 of the Cherry Creek Area of Arroyo Grande would like you to know the following: 1. We are in favor of the Cherry Creek Development in Sub-area 1. 2. We would prefer that our zoning be 4.5 units per acre as specified in the General Plan. Each project in Sub-azea 2 will be submitted on an individual basis and we realize that each of our properties is very unique and may not be able to build out to 4.5 units per acre, but we want to have future development potential and azen't interested in dow~n- zoning or transitional zoning. We don't see the logic in changing the zoning at Lierly Lane. The Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east and the agricultural land to the south are the natural boundaries for zoning changes. 4. We will voluntarily work with the City of Arroyo Grande regarding "Dirt Cherry". Respectfully submitted, ' ~ ~1/~~~ ~~ S~Ci•Yj/ • ~ ,~~ ~~ ~Gln~tal,~/z~i ~~~ l ~~%:r ,~~~, S l ~ ~, ~l ~-~ i /-:, t (~t~,r~, r ~t~/tt-1 ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~tG~ ~- ~~~ ~./~~~. / ;..__ / `l%~ ~r i ,. ,f.;~i ~~ ~''r '' / 1 1J~t'~~'~E, ~Cl~~Ct7E ~~~ ~GSC'/17 /~,E=/ ~ ~f'~ /trc' LLB: C.. Z 1 ~1 ~ C. ~ l'~ I r•' /'~ 1 I i ~ ,~:: ., J ~ ~ ,-; ~ ~~~,<ntt '' ~ ,~ __ _ ~: November 30, 2006 Planning Commissioners City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear Planning Commissioners: .~ Y.~ -.~ .-.~ M y ~,;^' - `~ ~i__._ CITY OF RRRCY~? •~RA(\DE - My family owns the property at 835 East Cherry Lane. At this time we have no plans to develop our property, but want to protect the ability to do so in the future. After a very lengthy and involved process the City of Arroyo Grande adopted its current General Plan only 5 years ago in October, 2001. That Plan calls for 4.5 lots per acre in the area around and including our property. I strongly oppose any move by the City that would reduce that ratio. While there has been some recent talk of arbitrarily changing the zoning at Lierly Lane, I can see NO logic in that idea. The Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east, and the agricultural land to the south are the obvious and natural boundaries for zoning changes. Please remember these facts (the current General Plan and the existing natural boundaries) as you consider the zoning on our property and our neighbors' property. Sincerely, %il ~ ~ =%1;;~ Mike Miner FROM [q PHONE'N0. 8055470785 Dec. 01 2006 02:24Pf9 ~_ November 30, 2006 Dear Arroyo Grande Plant-irrg Commission, As the owners of Subarea one we would like to voice ow collective support for a Development Code Amendment which would bring the zoning of Subarea two to Single- Family Residential -Medium Density (SFR-MD) (4.5 units/acre). A. General Plan Consistency- Lt the Urban Land Use Element (LU2-'7) of the 2001 General Plan update "Tlte 2l+- acre area south of Arroyo Grande creek east of Tract 409 (Noguera Path), and north of E. Cherry Avenue designated Single Family Residential - Mediam Density (SFR-MD) is subject to a requirement for a neighborhood plan to coordinate street, drainage, water, sewer, agricultural buffer, creekside trail and conservation/open space considerations prior to approval of any subdivision or parcel map." This development code amendment is completely consisteatt with the general plan and perhaps should have been done long ago. Part of the Planning Commissions job is to interpret the general plan. The interpretation is clear (SFR-MD) anything else would be clearly going against the general plan! LU2-7 says nothing about splitting the neighborhood plan area into two different maximum densities; it could have but does not. B. Control over development- The individual owners in subarea two will have to bring their projects forth for review. Just like every other project proposed in the city it will still have to comply with CEQA and the Title 16 of the Development Code. These will insure that all potential environmental impacts will be mitigated, and that the minimum lot size and dimensional standards are met. The minimum lot standards are not that easy to meet due to the constraints found in subarea two, and if the PUD mute is taken Planning Commission and ultimately City Couacil have almost wmplete discretion over the project anyways C. Discourage Sprawl- It is almost impossible that subarea two will subdivide to a density of 4.5 urrits/acre; the constraints are too numerous. Subarea one has ended up at 3.33 units/acre. To suggest the next lower density of RS-2.5 would make development in the area quite difficult due to the **++'*++*++ua*~ lot standard, and promote sprawl. The best way to reduce sprawl, green field development, and farm land conversion is to use incentives and increased density on "in-fill" protects.-Development in subarea two would clearly be in-fill; to decrease the allowable density would be contrary to good planning practices. It seems that easy choice iS also the right choice. We urge you to recommend a development code amendmem consistcm with the General Plan, which will promote in- Sll development with adequate em~irornnental and developmental oversight. Sincerely, Damien Mavis Bradley Vernon Cliff Branch OEC 4p ~ 206 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEV~IOf-l.;GNT December 4, 2006 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Members Chuck Fellows, Tim Brown, Nanci Pazker, Cazen Ray & Doug Tait My name is Byron Grant. I have lived and worked in Arroyo Grande since 1965. I am concerned with the discussion of "down zoning" of Sub azea 2 of the Cherry Creek Neighborhood. There is a real need for housing in Arroyo Grande. There is no reason to down zone the remainder of the area adjacent to the Cherry Creek Subdivision. The zoning for the azea according the General Plan from 2001 is for,SFR. Property purchases were made based on this zoning and it does not seem fair to take that potential away from that azea. It seems the discussion should be the opposite. How can we allow more density on Arroyo Grande's land that is suitable for development? Respectfully submitted, /,~~ Byr Grant BG:md 102 Bridge Street • Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 • (805) 481-4297 • FAX: (805) 481-0273 FROM N.Rlce NOCCCD D_ FAX (805) 473-5489 PHONE N0. 714 526 6559 ~ Dec. 05 2006 05:41P11 F'1 December 6, 2006 Please copy and distribute to members of the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission ~. Thank you. Planning Commission Chairman, Chuck Fellows and Planning Commissioners Re; Development Code Amendment Case 06:004 -13 Acres north of East Cherry Avenue Extension (Sub-area 2 of the East Village Neighborhood Plan). We strongly urge that you'not support rezoning this acreage from Rural Residential (one- d.u./acre) to Single Family Medium density (4.5 d_uJacre). We could accept a rezoning to Low-density Single Family Residential and still be in conformance with the General Plan. This lower density would be more in keeping with the adjacent farm land and provide a more logical transition Thank you for your thoughtful wnsideradon. sincerely, Marianna McClanahan and Sara Dickens, Co-Trustees Gordon F. Dixson Trust (769 Branch Mill Road, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420) 7 O.a. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERn~ BY: MIKE LINN, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER n~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY FOR WEST BRANCH STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE DATE: MARCH 13, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Council adopt a resolution certifying the five-year radar speed survey for West Branch Street and East Grand Avenue. FUNDING: Any cost associated with speed limit signs or traffic legends will be accommodated within the Public Works Departmental operating budget for FY 2006/07. DISCUSSION: On November 28, 2006, further recommendations regarding the speed limit on East Grand Avenue, West Branch Street and Rancho Parkway were presented for Council consideration. At that time the Council requested that staff perform additional research identifying mitigating factors that would allow the existing speed limit to remain for West Branch Street (between Rancho Parkway and Vernon Street) and East Grand Avenue (between Halcyon Road and Oak Park Boulevard). The City Council accepted the staff recommendation to perform striping revisions on Rancho Parkway (between West Branch Street and James Way) and perform a follow up speed survey several months following the new striping. The California Vehicle Code requires an engineering and traffic speed survey be performed every five years to enable the radar enforcement of any speed limit set by a local jurisdiction. Section 8-03.3.8.2 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual details the methodology for conducting engineering and traffic surveys to be used to establish or justify prima facie speed limits on City arterial and collector streets. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY FOR WEST BRANCH STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 2 The following are the revised staff recommendations presented to Council on November 28, 2006, the concerns expressed by the Council, and the follow up research results and recommendations by staff: East Grand Avenue -Halcyon Road to Oak Park Boulevard November 11.2006 Recommendation The roadway is classified as a major arterial street in the City's General Plan. Based on the engineering study, the 85th percentile speed was between 38 and 39 miles per hour. Staff recommended raising the posted speed limit from 35 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour in accordance with the California Supplement to the 2003 Municipal Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) manual. Council Concerns Council expressed concerns regarding cross traffic from shopping centers along East Grand Avenue, extenuating circumstances including RV traffic and uncontrolled crosswalks, and consistency with speed limits in Grover Beach. Staff Recommendation The MUTCD allows the analysis of accident history in addition to the 85th percentile speed as part of the engineering study for determining the posted speed limit. Staff reviewed the five-year accident history for this segment of East Grand Avenue and determined that the trend line for the accident rate is increasing. Staff recommends setting the posted speed limit at the next 5 mile per hour incremerit below the 85th percentile speed accordingly. Staff recommends maintaining the posted speed limit at 35 miles per hour. West Branch Street -Vernon Street to Rancho Parkway November 11, 2006 Recommendation The roadway is classified as a minor arterial street in the City's General Plan. Based on the engineering study, staff calculated the 85th percentile speed at 44 miles per hour in each direction. Staff recommended raising the posted speed limit from 40 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour for West Branch Street from Vernon Street to Brisco Road. The segment of West Branch Street from Brisco Road to Rancho Parkway will remain at 40 miles per hour. Council Concerns Council reiterated their concerns expressed at the July 11, 2006 meeting. The Council emphasized the lack of sidewalks between Brisco Road and Vernon Street in which school children may be forced to walk into the street. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY FOR WEST BRANCH STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 3 Staff Recommendation Staff reviewed the sidewalk and walking paths between Brisco Road and Vernon Street. The north side of West Branch Street is equipped with sidewalks between Brisco Road and Rodeo Drive, but there are no sidewalks between Rodeo Drive and Vernon Street. However, there are established paths and the right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate the placement of a sidewalk at a later date. Staff recommends developing a sidewalk project to be included in the City Capital Improvement Program. The accident history for this roadway segment indicates that there have been few accidents in the last two years. It is recommended that the posted speed limit be raised from 40 miles per hour fo 45 miles per hour for West Branch Street from Vernon Street fo Brisco Road. The segment of West Branch Street from Brisco Road to Rancho Parkway will remain at 40 miles per hour. During the November 28, 2006 presentation, Council asked staff whether they could discuss speed limit justifications with the Traffic Commissioner prior to formally presenting them to Council to ensure that they were valid. The Police Chief talked with the Traffic Commissioner in early December. The Traffic Commissioner emphasized his role as an impartial judge and stated that he could not be involved in establishing or recommending speed limits. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staff's recommendations; • Do not approve staff's recommendations; The Council may determine pedestrian safety is the basis for maintaining the existing 40 miles per hour speed limit for West Branch Street and approve the Resolution with this modification; • The Council may determine pedestrian safety is the basis for maintaining the existing 40 miles per hour speed limit at this time for West Branch Street, direct staff to pursue the sidewalk improvements, and approve the Resolution with increase of speed limit to 45 miles per hour contingent upon completion of construction of the sidewalk. • Provide direction to staff. S:\Public Works\Engineering\Traffic Commission\Major Issues\Vehicle Speed Survey\Council\COUncil Memo -Vehicle Speed Survey 2007-03-13.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON EAST GRAND AVENUE AND WEST BRANCH STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande has conducted engineering and traffic speed surveys on various City streets in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle; and WHEREAS, the Director Public Works has analyzed said surveys, made appropriate adjustments, and made recommendation for the establishment of speed limits on said streets in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS, radar enforcement of any speed limit other than those expressly established by State law requires that such be based upon an engineering and traffic speed survey as has been conducted; and WHEREAS, the Police Chief supports the recommendations of the Director of Public Works; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2005 the Traffic Commission supported the recommendation of the Director of Public Works for the speed limits on the various streets identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby establishes speed limits on various City streets as provided below: East Grand Avenue (Halcyon -Oak Park) 35 mph West Branch Street (Vernon to Brisco Road) 45 mph West Branch Street (Brisco Road to Oak Park) 40 mph 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 passed and adopted this day of , 2007. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 TONY FERRARA, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY