Agenda Packet 2007-04-10City Council
Tony Ferrara
Ed Arnold
Joe Costello
Jim Guthrie
Chuck Fellows
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007
7:00 P.M.
Agenda
Steven Adams City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel City.Attorney
Kelly Wetmore City Clerk
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE: ARROYO GRANDE ROTARY CLUB
4. INVOCATION: RETIRED PASTOR RICHARD SCHARN
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
5.a. Saecial Presentation - Arrovo Grande in Bloom
5.a. Honorary Proclamation Recos~nizino the 5ei Anniversary of the Clark Center for
the Performins~ Arts
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings
be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY -APRIL 10, 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Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit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 March
16, 2007 through March 31, 2007.
8.b. Consideration of Approval of Cost Allocation Plan (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Adopt the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Cost Allocation Plan.
8.c. Consideration of Approval of Citv Investment Policv (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Approve the City of Arroyo Grande Investment Policy and
adopt Resolution authorizing deposit of City funds in various Financial Institutions.
8.d. Consideration of ADproval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Regular City
Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of March 27, 2007, as submitted.
8.e.
4x4 Utility Passenger Hybrid Vehicle and Approve Funding Increase (HUBERT)
Recommended Action: Authorize award of bid to purchase a 2008 4x4 utility
passenger hybrid vehicle for the Building and Life Safety Division from Mullahey-Ford
in the amount of $28,063.41; and 2) Appropriate an additional $7,063.41 to be added
to the already budgeted $21,000.
AGENDA SUMMARY -APRIL 10, 2007
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA (continuedl:
8.f. Consideration of Amendments to Standards for West Branch Street Special
Event Banners (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving the recommended amendments
to the City's Standards for West Branch Street Special Event Banners.
S.g. Consideration of Funding Request from Destination Imagination (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Approve a $500 contribution to the Destination Imagination
Global Competition teams.
8.h. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 10.08.O601b1 of the Citv of
Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance amending Section 10.08.060(b) of the City
of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code entitled "Prohibition of Solicitation at Entrances to
Commercial Parking Areas and Upon Public Right of Way Areas."
8.i.
Resolution, to Adogt Rules and Regulations to Govern Meetings (PERRIN)
Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Section 2.28.050D to allow the Senior Advisory Commission, by Resolution, to adopt
rules and regulations to govern meetings.
9. PUBLIC HEARING:
None.
10.
10.a.
Residential Lots and One Permanently Preserved Open Space Parcel (STRONG)
Recommended Action: 1) Review and provide preliminary comments on a revised
project description for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development
01-001, otherwise known as Tract 1998; and 2) Approve a contract amendment for
the preparation of Addendum No. 2 to the previously certified Revised Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) by Rincon Consultants.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
None.
AGENDA SUMMARY -APRIL 10, 2007
PAGE 4
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.
None.
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 invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions. Comments should be limited to those matters that
are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council
from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda.
17. ADJOURNMENT
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.
w4wwwwwwwwwlwfewwwwwfwww4ww
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.arrovocrande.ora
ww++wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
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.
CITY
~}:7
OF
3[onorary Prtxlamation
R,ecognizir~g tfie Clark Center
irJ1'L its ,~ .Anniversary
WHEREAS, in May 2002 the Clark Center for the Performing Arts in Arroyo
Grande was opened on land provided by Lucia Mar Unified School District, after a
15-year fund raising effort by the South County Performing Arts Foundation; and
WHEREAS, the Center is used as a community performing arts theater, a school
auditorium, and as a training facility for students wishing to pursue careers in the
arts and in theater operations; and
WHEREAS, since its opening the Center has been the venue for over 1200
pertormances and events promoted by the School District, the South County
Performing Arts Association, and the community at large, thereby bringing
quality culture and entertainment to the citizens of South San Luis Obispo
County; and
WHEREAS, the Clark Center has further supported students and teachers in their
pursuit of the arts by the awarding of grants and scholarships; and
WHEREAS, the "Clark Center Champions", a volunteer organization of dedicated
citizens, has given over 30,000 hours of total time in providing ushering, catering,
and other assistance and support to the Center's activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Tony Ferrara, Mayor of the City of
Arroyo Grande, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby recognize and honor the
South County Performing Arts Foundation, the South County Performing Arts
Association, and the Lucia Mar Unified School District on the 5th Anniversary of
the Clark Center for the Performing Arts, for their joint contribution to the
performing arts in South San Luis Obispo County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the
City of Arroyo Grande to be affixed this 10`" day of April 2007.
/ PpPOYO
~,/ OF 09
F wcox>oxeteo YZ
Tony Ferrara, Mayor ~~~~ ~a. ,9„ .
~' ~P
q<IFOPN
5.b.
8.a.
_~
U
io, ian/*
MEMORANDUM
FO
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION
DATE: APRIL 10, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period March 16 through March 31, 2007.
FUNDING:
There is a $1,108,935.11 fiscal impact that includes the following items:
• Accounts Payable Checks 130474-130749 $ 292,344.25
• Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 816,590.86
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-March 16, 2007-March 31, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 2-March 16, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
Attachment 2-March 30, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
ATTACHMENT1
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 1
04/02/2007 1:24PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code:
Check # boa
Date
Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
130474 03/16/2007 001259 AGP VIDEO, INC 2143 03/05/2007 400. 00 400 .00
130475 03/16/2007 004815 AIRGAS WEST INC 103162220 02/28/2007 559. 20
103994333 02/22/2007 33. 00
103125731 02/28/2007 25. 60 617 .80
130476 03/16/2007 000016 JOHN ALLEN 030807 03/08/2007 102. 03 102. 03
130477 03/16/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 72N00027 03/13/2007 254. 17 254. 17
130478 03/16/2007 003175 ACZUA-METRIC SALES 0016060 03/05/2007 1,460. 89 1,460. 89
130479 03/16/2007 000042 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER 35764/35793/36295 02/13/2007 280. 99 280. 99
130480 03/16/2007 005615 AT&T/MCI T6131580 02/26/2007 289. 04
T6164533 03/05/2007 88. 32 377. 36
130481 03/16/2007 000053 B & B STEEL & SUPPLY, INC 268773 02/28/2007 31. 26 31. 26
130482 03/16/2007 004150 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS 03082007 03/08/2007 869. 00 869. 00
130483 03/16/2007 003385 BMW OF FRESNO 4027090 02/28/2007 150. 36 150. 36
130484 03/16/2007 001917 BOB'S EXPRESS WASH JAN/FEB 2007 03/15/2007 308. 00 308. 00
130485 03/16/2007 001266 BRANCH STREET DELI 1292 02/21/2007 360. 36 360. 36
130486 03/16/2007 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, 65902 03/13/2007 98. 00
65901 03/13/2007 77 00 175. 00
130487 03/16/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 132405 03/08/2007 47 15
132418 03/08/2007 36 48
132391 03/07/2007 25. 89
131944 01 /30/2007 10. 74
132443 03/12/2007 1. 60 121. 86
130488 03/16/2007 001577 BURDINE PRINTING (DBA) 4910 02/22/2007 78. 67 78. 67
130489 03/16/2007 000095 BURKE AND PACE OF AG, 2338049 02/08/2007 70. 87
2338512 12/13/2006 63. 75
2337422 01/31/2007 49. 07
Page: 1
apCkHist
04/02/2007 1:24PM
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
130490 03/16/2007 000114 CA PEACE OFFICERS ASSN
130491 03/16/2007 000134 CA ST DEPT OF JUSTICE
130492 03/16/2007 003853 CALIFORNIA LIGHTING
130493 03/16/2007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS
130494 03/16/2007 002376 CENTRAL COAST BEARING
130495 03/16/2007 005971 CENTRAL COAST CHAPTER
130496 03/16/2007 006050 CENTRAL PRECAST
130497 03/16/2007 006040 CERTIFION CORP
130498 03/16/2007 000160 CHAPARRAL
130499 03/16/2007 001990 CHARTER
130500 03/16/2007 000163 CHERRY LANE
130501 03/16/2007 006039 CHEVRON 8 TEXACO CARD
130502 03/16/2007 002407 CINGULAR WIRELESS
130503 03/16/2007 006041 CLEARS INC
Check History Listing Page: 2
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
2335620 01/08/2007 46.45
2337181 01/26/2007 38.62
2338154 02/09/2007 35.94
2336569 01/19/2007 19.63
2329460 10/11/2006 -207 53 116.80
031507 03/15/2007 106.47 106.47
601031 12/12/2006 2,537 00
609032 02/08/2007 2,354 00
605281 01/11/2007 1,568.00 6,459.00
7011 03/06/2007 443.42 443.42
7314-144145 02/27/2007 64 19
146174 03/07/2007 50.55
145900- 03/06/2007 50.55
7314-144969 03/02/2007 20.79 186.08
41070 02/27/2007 62.42 62.42
031207 03/12/2007 12.00 12.00
0176730-IN 02/01/2007 759.16 759.16
7469 02/28/2007 19.82 19.82
252148 03/13/2007 207.71 20771
030207 03/02/2007 194.95 194.95
20717 02/02/2007 159.27
20798 02/21 /2007 118.84
20751 02/02/2007 96.51
20716 02/02/2007 9020 464.82
7898072884703 03/02/2007 138.87 138.87
123079092 02/26/2007 43.91 43.91
030907 03/09/2007 50.00 50 00
Page: 2
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 3
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
130504 03/16/2007 001925 CLEARWATER COLOR 43831 02/08/2007 195.62 195.62
130505 03/16/2007 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 748828 03/09/2007 2,080.00 2,080.00
130506 03/16/2007 002842 COMMERCIAL 3047-0307 03/13/2007 375.00
2247-0207 03/13/2007 350.00 725.00
130507 03/16/2007 003599 COMMERCIAL SANITARY 10430 03/05/2007 395.75
10407 03/13/2007 90.09 485.84
130508 03/16/2007 005835 COMPLETE WIRELESS 67982 02/28/2007 3,311.00 3,311.00
130509 03/16/2007 005997 COOK PAGING INC 6626264 03/01/2007 71.60 71.60
130510 03/16/2007 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 3/6-017922 03/06/2007 51.00
2/28-14273 02/28/2007 33.00
3/6-63949 03/13/2007 25.25
3/6-70931 03/13/2007 17.25
3/6-018068 03/06/2007 11.50 138.00
130511 03/16/2007 006030 CUESTA COLLEGE SMALL 0207 02/07/2007 2,000.00 2,000.00
130512 03/16/2007 000196 CUESTA EQUIPMENT CO INC 332196 02/26/2007 274.52 274.52
130513 03/16/2007 006042 RIC DAVIS 030707 03/07/2007 100.00 100.00
130514 03/16/2007 000577 LEONARD B DE LOS SANTOS 031307 03/13/2007 205.45 205.45
130515 03/16/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 923508 02/16/2007 63.56
924876 02/28/2007 2598 89.54
130516 03/16/2007 004610 ECMS INC 103964-00 02/26/2007 494.42 494.42
130517 03/16/2007 000230 NADINE ELLIOTT 030707 03/15/2007 75.05 75.05
130518 03/16/2007 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO 238890 02/01/2007 244.83
250159 02/15/2007 127.64
256194 02/22/2007 58.54
259829 02/27/2007 22.46
259953 02/27/2007 12.32 465.79
130519 03/16/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1260220 03/05/2007 458.49
Page: 3
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: a
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
126151.1 03/06/2007 178 82 637 .31
' 130520 03/16/2007 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 031307 03/13/2007 24 .00 24 .00
' 130521 03/16/2007 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 031307 03/13/2007 96 .00 96 .00
130522 03/16/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 031307 03/13/2007 48 .00 48 .00
130523 03/16/2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 24758 02/21/2007 92 .52
24908 03/07/2007 12 87 105 .39
130524 03/16/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 3/5-140 03/05/2007 1,027 .95
3/5-211 03/05/2007 179 67 1,207 .62
130525 03/16/2007 003612 GEMPLER'S, INC 1009250776 02/27/2007 467 .80 467 .80
130526 03/16/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS,-INC 70332 03/08/2007 107 .04
70303 03/13/2007 7 .35 114 .39
130527 03/16/2007 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 070200013101 03/13/2007 28 .00
070200713101 03/13/2007 25 .00 53 .00
130528 03/16/2007 000296 HAMON OVERHEAD DOOR 32993 03/13/2007 952 .22 952 22
130529 03/16/2007 002405 CHUCK HARE 031307 03/13/2007 60 00 60 .00
130530 03/16/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 031307 03/15/2007 72 .00 72 .00
130531 03/16/2007 006043 JESSICA HERNANDEZ 030707 03/07/2007 30 .00 30 .00
130532 03/16/2007 005648 ICOM AMERICA INC 7813210 02/26/2007 4,762 .97 4,762 .97
130533 03/16/2007 0028201NDOFF, INC 917883 02/23/2007 219 .21 219. 21
130534 03/16/2007 0003301NFORMATION TECH DEPT 4778 01/31/2007 342. 81 342. 81
130535 03/16/2007 000343 IRRIGATION WEST (DBA) 0020937 03/03/2007 38. 19 38. 19
130536 03/16/2007 000345 J J'S FOOD COMPANY, INC 157574 03/08/2007 177. 49 .
157416 03/02/2007 25 94 203. 43
130537 03/16/2007 000348 J W ENTERPRISES 196829 03/01/2007 95. 73 95. 73
130538 03/16/2007 000413 LAW OFFICES OF JONES & 36331 03/03/2007 573. 50 573. 50
Page: 4
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 5
04/02/2007 1:24PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
130539 03/16/2007 005833 KERN TURF SUPPLY INC
130540 03/16/2007 003949 KERN'S PAPER
130541 03/16/2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER
130542 03/16/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER
130543 03/16/2007 006044 KATHRYN LOPEZ
130544 03/16/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL
130545 03/16/2007 006020 RYAN MICHAEL
130546 03/16/2007 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING &
130547 03/16/2007 000419 MIDAS AUTO SERVICE
130548 03/16/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE,
242870
20288
031307
031306
030707
070552
070553
070554
031307
022607
17146
17121
17188
121714
121561
122148
139492
139309
122254
134725
122272
122219
122029
121750
120787
121658
122100
122010
140541
121563
121895
02/27/2007
02/19/2007
03/13/2007
03/15/2007
03/07/2007
02/08/2007
02/08/2007
02/08/2007
03/13/2007
02/26/2007
03/02/2007
02/27/2007
03/06/2007
03/02/2007
02/28/2007
03/05/2007
02/28/2007
02/27/2007
03/06/2007
01/23/2007
03/06/2007
03/06/2007
03/05/2007
03/02/2007
02/22/2007
03/01/2007
03/05/2007
03/04/2007
03/07/2007
02/28/2007
03/03/2007
291.70
359.89
67.50
260.00
30.00
127.50
127.50
127.50
240.00
4, 578.40
361.93
271.34
111.42
171.99
88.89
83.09
75.06
75.06
75.06
54.91
51.39
37 52
36.97
35.36
34.29
33.20
31.09
26.24
24.38
24.20
24.02
291.70
359.89
67.50
260.00
30.00
382.50
240.00
4, 578.40
744.69
Page: 5
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 6
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
121673 03/01/2007 23.58
113599 12/21/2006 22.67
122045 03/05/2007 22.49
121806 03/02/2007 22.14
121490 02/28/2007 19.26
122218 03/06/2007 18.20
139493 02/28/2007 16.57
122173 03/06/2007 15.81
114328 12/28/2006 12.39
122187 03/06/2007 7.50
121552 02/28/2007 7 06
121566 02/28/2007 5.24
119228 02/09/2007 3.74
122374 03/07/2007 -1.12 1,178 .25
130549 03/16/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS176521 03/06/2007 361.43
FOCS176014 02/15/2007 272.16
FOCS175759 02/06/2007 82.80
FOCS176052 02/15/2007 74.08
FOCS175750 02/06/2007 3222
FOCS176512 03/06/2007 3222 854. 91
130550 03/16/2007 000444 MUSTANG TREE CARE 391(2) 02/27/2007 16,500.00 16,500. 00
130551 03/16/2007 004394 NATIONAL IMPRINT 92709 03/06/2007 169.25
92708 03/06/2007 114.30 283. 55
130552 03/16/2007 000466 NOBLE SAW, INC 166145 02/27/2007 45.50
'166146 02/27/2007 39.41 84. 91
130553 03/16/2007 000472 ORCHARD SUPPLY 00033055 02/07/2007 171.73 171. 73
130554 03/16/2007 005186 NAN PENNOCK 0316 03/16/2007 80.00 80. 00
130555 03/16/2007 006045 THOM PETER MD 030707 03/07/2007 525.00 525. 00
130556 03/16/2007 004158 PHOENIX GROUP 12007157 02/23/2007 129.90 129. 90
130557 03/16/2007 002363 PRIMARY CARE DOG & CAT 48369 01/26/2007 72.00
49106 02/22/2007 30 00 102. 00
Page: 6
apckHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page : 7
-Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
130558 03/16/2007 003757 PVP COMMUNICATIONS, INC 8404 02/21/2007 51.94 51. 94
130559 03/16/2007 005788 QUICK DRAW WINDOW 012607 01/26/2007 1,366.00
020207 02/02/2007 450.00 1,816. 00
130560 03/16/2007 000523 R & T EMBROIDERY, INC 30380 01/26/2007 559.89
30465 02/13/2007 13.41 573. 30
130561 03/16/2007 006046 WENDY REY 030607 03/06/2007 75.00 75. 00
130562 03/16/2007 000531 RICHETTI COMPLETE WATER 50476 03/01/2007 15.00 15. 00
130563 03/16/2007 003363 NINA RIPPY 031307. 03/13/2007 622.30 622. 30
130564 03/16/2007 004833 STEVE ROMO 031307 03/13/2007 240.00 240. 00
130565 03/16/2007 000536 GREG ROSE 031307 03/13/2007 40.00 40. 00
130566 03/16/2007 006021 BLAKE ROSKELLY 031307 03/13/2007 240.00 240. 00
130567 03/16/2007 006047 ANTHONY RUIZ 030707 03/07/2007 30.00 30. 00
130568 03/16/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 031307 03/13/2007 80 00 80. 00
130569 03/16/2007 006022 LEAH RUIZ 031307 03/13/2007 80.00 80. 00
130570 03/16/2007 000569 SAN LUIS PAINTS 623881 01/31/2007 363.46
G624295 02/08/2007 244.53
G24296 02/08/2007 244.53
G24765 02/16/2007 57.68
G25235 02/27/2007 6.05
624197 02/06/2007 -6.27
G24190 02/06/2007 -81.55 828. 43
130571 03/16/2007 006048 JEANETTE SEARBY 030607 03/06/2007 28.00 28. 00
130572 03/16/2007 003641 SOUTH COUNTY SANITARY 1736098 03/01/2007 207 72
1737510 03/01/2007 106.76
1734694 03/01/2007 106.76
1741238 03/01/2007 5.62 426. 86
130573 03/16/2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 031307 03/13/2007 40.00 40. 00
Page: 7
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 8
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
130574 03/16/2007 002499 MICHELE STEARNS 031607 03/16/2007 537.64
0307 03/07/2007 9175 629.39
130575 03/16/2007 000632 TEE'S PLUS 236023 02/27/2007 744.65 744.65
130576 03/16/2007 003457TENERAENVIRONMENTAL E16592 02/12/2007 1,275.00 1,275.00
130577 03/16/2007 004876 THOMSON-WEST/BARCLAYS 030607 03/06/2007 373.00 373.00
130578 03/16/2007 005732 MARTA TORRES 030207 03/02/2007 35.32 35.32
130579 03/16/2007 004609 TROESH RECYCLING, INC 5546 03/07/2007 154 12 154.12
130580 03/16/2007 000822 US POSTMASTER 030707 03/07/2007 160.00
0307 03/07/2007 160 00 320.00
130581 03/16/2007 000677 PEGGY VALKO 0313 03/13/2007 256.00 256.00
130582 03/16/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2112191659 02/07/2007 486.32 486.32
130583 03/16/2007 003731 WAKEFIELD COMPANY 3273 10/03/2006 2,657.92 2,657.92
130584 03/16/2007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 765010 02/27/2007 122.62
765167 03/05/2007 15.00 137.62
130585 03/16/2007 000688 WEST COVINA NURSERIES 20190 02/08/2007 497.10
20191 02/12/2007 45.05 542.15
130586 03/16/2007 000689 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 813150178 02/20/2007 205.38 205.38
130587 03/16/2007 000866 JAMIE WHARTON 031307 03/13/2007 56.00 56.00
130588 03/16/2007 006049 MARI L WILSON REFUND 03/16/2007 11.50 11.50
130589 03/16/2007 002289 WULFING'S BACKGROUND & 030107 03/01/2007 200.00 200.00
130590 03/16/2007 000713 SHARON YOUNG 022607 02/26/2007 337.50 337.50
130591 03/16/2007 006051 RANDY LIPKE 030707 03/07/2007 732.57 732.57
130592 03/19/2007 005956 CHUCK FELLOWS 031907 03/19/2007 296.82 29682
130593 03/20/2007 000403 MAINTENANCE 032007 03/20/2007 20.00 20.00
Page: 8
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 9
04/02/2007 1:24PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date
Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
130604 03/23/2007 001732 AEP WORKSHOPS 0312
031207
130605 03/23/2007 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING L5245715HC
130606 03/23/2007 000029 AMERICAN WATER WORKS 2000546890
130607 03/23/2007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS V 03/23/2007
130608 03/23/2007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS
F038351
F106515
F117983
F100798
F112293
F100817
F106531
F112313
F117999
F100797
F106514
F112292
F117982
F100808
F112304
F106529
F117997
F106522
F117990
F100812
F112308
F106528
F117996
F106521
F117989
F100814
F112310
F100811
F112307
Inv. Date
03/22/2007
03/22/2007
03/15/2007
01 /02/2007
02/27/2007
02/13/2007
02/27/2007
02/06/2007
02/20/2007
02/06/2007
02/13/2007
02/20/2007
02/27/2007
02/26/2007
02/13/2007
02/20/2007
02/27/2007
02/06/2007
02/20/2007
02/13/2007
02/27/2007
02/13/2007
02/27/2007
02/06/2007
02/20/2007
02/13/2007
02/27/2007
02/13/2007
02/27/2007
02/06/2007
02/20/2007
02/06/2007
02/20/2007
Amount Paid
250.00
250 00
213.08
173.00
0.00
48.48
34.90
34.90
25.76
22.40
19.60
19.60
19.60
19.60
18.20
18.20
18.20
18.20
17.25
17.25
15.00
15.00
11.80
11.80
10.35
10.35
9.50
9.50
8.80
8.80
8.50
8.50
6.00
6.00
Check Total
500.00
213.08
173.00
0.00
Page: 9
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 10
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
F100816 02/06/2007 5.60
F106530 02/13/2007 5.60
F112312 02/20/2007 5.60
F117998 02/27/2007 5.60
F100813 02/06/2007 5.00
F112309 02/20/2007 5.00
F100803 02/06/2007 2.80
F112298 02/20/2007 2.80
F100804 02/06/2007 2.80
F112299 02/20/2007 2.80 535.64
130609 03/23/2007 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POWER 27908 03/10/2007 170.42 170.42
130610 03/23/2007 005507 AT & T 3/7-0183 03/07/2007 194.30
3/7-3953 03/07/2007 33.29
3/7-3956 03/07/2007 33.29
3/7-3959 03/07/2007 33.29 284,17
130611 03/23/2007 000056 BACKYARD IMPROVEMENT 2007-228 03/05/2007 144.79 144.79
130612 03/23/2007 000081 BOLLINGER 022807 02/28/2007 200.00 200.00
130613 03/23/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 132483 03/14/2007 59.27
132499 03/15/2007 15.23 74.50
130614 03/23/2007 000094 BRUMIT DIESEL, INC 13913 03/07/2007 1,267.60 1,267.60
130615 03/23/2007 000105 CA CONTRACTORS 43374 03/07/2007 128.60 128.60
130616 03/23/2007 000143 ARON CANBY WELDING 6714 03/01/2007 799.01
6718 03/16/2007 48.52 847.53
130617 03/23/2007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 146749 03/09/2007 183.54
7314-147255 03/12/2007 35.88
7314-179943 02/13/2007 14.90
7314-147419 03/12/2007 2.11
7314-140610 02/12/2007 -5.12 231.31
130618 03/23/2007 003988 CENTRAL COAST 45835 03/11/2007 285.87 285.87
130619 03/23/2007 004680 ROBERT CHILD 032207 03/22/2007 72.50 72.50
Page: 10
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 11
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
130620 03/23/2007 000172 COAST CLUTCH & BRAKE 113774(2) 02/16/2007 4.00 4 00
130621 03/23/2007 000178 COLD CANYON LANDFILL, 239182 03/20/2007 105.75
238977 03/20/2007 104.25
239034 03/20/2007 81.25
239005 03/20/2007 79.50
239139 03/20/2007 75.50
239068 03/20/2007 74.00 520.25
130622 03/23/2007 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL 01296 03/02/2007 15.00 15.00
130623 03/23/2007 000192 CROCKER'S LOCKERS(DBA) 031007 03/10/2007 200.00 200.00
130624 03/23/2007 000198 L N CURTIS & SONS 1122828-00 03/01/2007 546.58 546.58
130625 03/23/2007 000201 D G REPAIR (DBA) 1730 03/20/2007 261.49
1719 03/08/2007 7649 337.98
130626 03/23/2007 005671 DEATHRIAGE & CO. 5863 03/01/2007 995.85 995.85
130627 03/23/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 11586444 03/12/2007 83.54 83.54
130628 03/23/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 926215 03/16/2007 275.02 275.02
130629 03/23/2007 004738 DHS-OCP 031907 03/19/2007 90.00 90.00
130630 03/23/2007 002673 DOCTORS MEDPLUS 0137678 02/09/2007 75.00
13884131 03/05/2007 65.00
13882852 12/14/2006 65.00
13882529 12/14/2006 65.00
13882529 01/16/2007 65.00 335.00
130631 03/23/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1269095 03/12/2007 42.90
1270239 03/15/2007 40.22 83.12
130632 03/23/2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 24923 03/12/2007 43.44
24776 02/27/2007 38.61
24954 03/14/2007 8.42 90,47
130633 03/23/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 3/13-1375 03/13/2007 486.82
3/13-350 03/13/2007 251.53
Page: 11
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 12
04/02/2007 1:24PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
3/7-200 E 03/07/2007 131.89
3/7-214 E 03/07/2007 80.63
3/9-910 03/09/2007 64.00
3/7-208 03/07/2007 33.04
3/7-215 E 03/07/2007 29.75
3/9-1500 03/09/2007 1230 1,089.96
130634 03/23/2007 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 031307 03/13/2007 42.33 42.33
130635 03/23/2007 000291 HAAKER EQUIPMENT, INC C52843 03/09/2007 164.66
C52982 03/14/2007 8134 246.00
130636 03/23/2007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 97624 03/02/2007 766.15
97564 03/01/2007 575.66 1,341.81
130637 03/23/2007 000317 HONEYWELL INT'L INC 3324769 03/13/2007 8,025.75 8,025.75
130638 03/23/2007 006053 HOUSE OF GLASS (DBA) 6604 02/28/2007 4,182.00 4,182.00
130639 03/23/2007 005648 ICOM AMERICA INC 7814514 02/28/2007 78.75 7875
130640 03/23/2007 000366 KEY TERMITE & PEST 25268 03/13/2007 56.00 56.00
130641 03/23/2007 004969 JOHN KING 0322 03/22/2007 597.20 597.20
130642 03/23/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070505 02/05/2007 3,499.88
070585 03/02/2007 675.00 4,174.88
130643 03/23/2007 004279 MID STATE PLUMBING & 031207 03/12/2007 4,674.90 4,674.90
130644 03/23/2007 000426 MIER BROS LANDSCAPE 124815 02/07/2007 3,008.36
124736 02/06/2007 2,917.20
124809 02/07/2007 36.47
124806 02/07/2007 1823
124843 02/09/2007 18.23 5,998.49
130645 03/23/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 122923 03/12/2007 147.88
115456 01/08/2007 64.34
123113 03/13/2007 54.02
122612 03/09/2007 38.56
123206 03/14/2007 36.40
Page: 12
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 13
04/0212007 1:24PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
123412 03/15/2007 35 89
122597 03/09/2007 32.14
122420 03/07/2007 32.11
122419 03/07/2007 30.01
123564 03/16/2007 26.76
140705 03/09/2007 24.17
122896 03/12/2007 21.43
122947 03/12/2007 19.29
122958 03/12/2007 18.50
122376 03/07/2007 16.08
123555 03/16/2007 9.87
123118 03/13/2007 7.01
123820 03/19/2007 6.96
141210 03/13/2007 6.75
122425 03/07/2007 6.42
588530 01/11/2007 6.42
123106 03/13/2007 5.41
123830 03/19/2007 5.34
123112 03/13/2007 2.13
122472 03/08/2007 2.13
115286 01/07/2007 1 48
123524 03/16/2007 0.34 657.84
130646 03/23/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD FOCS176024 02/24/2007 2,628.86
FOCS176289 02/28/2007 1,02065
117434 02/28/2007 538.89
CM117434 03/05/2007 -473.75 3,714.65
130647 03/23/2007 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 933066312-064 03/01/2007 433.59 433.59
130648 03/23/2007 005744 OCEANO COMMUNITY OCCI-26 03/19/2007 1,369.50
AG-5 03/19/2007 480.00 1,849.50
130649 03/23/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 378255634-001 03/09/2007 313.93
378659725-001 03/09/2007 24 67
377966593-001 03/09/2007 6.78 345.38
130650 03/23/2007 001886 OFFICEMAX -HSBC 03499J0611 03/02/2007 58.48
0611J0471 02/16/2007 55.75
Page: 13
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 14
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
03972J0641 03/05/2007 24 64 138.87
130651 03/23/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 3113-620838 03/13/2007 138 .22
3/13-781296 03/13/2007 16 .44 154.66
130652 03/23/2007 005695 PERRY'S ELECTRIC MOTORS 6895 03/14/2007 807 .37 807.37
130653 03/23/2007 000492 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 03/22/2007 341 .95 341.95
130654 03/23/2007 005284 R & B MOBILE EQUIPMENT & 0707 03/12/2007 146 .65
0708 03/12/2007 136 .24 282,88
130655 03/23/2007 006052 GREG REED 032207 03/22/2007 3,000 .00 3,000.00
130656 03/23/2007 000539 SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, 33576879 03/01/2007 320 .23
282709 03/06/2007 -148 .68 170.54
130657 03/23/2007 003838 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC 217585 03/14/2007 3,233 .37 3,233.37
130658 03/23/2007 000556 SLO COUNTY 0049945 01/22/2007 677 .77 677.77
130659 03/23/2007 000564 SLO COUNTY NEWSPAPERS 6534778 02/09/2007 164 .56
6542198 02/23/2007 134 .64
6539806 02/19/2007 127 .16
6539080 02/16/2007 97 .24
6546429 03/02/2007 86 02 609.62
130660 03/23/2007 001890 SLO COUNTY YMCA 3026 02/28/2007 1,662 .00 1,662.00
130661 03/23/2007 003668 MICHAEL SMILEY 022707 03/22/2007 301 .32 301.32
130662 03/23/2007 000596 SMITH & LOVELESS, INC 48430 03/06/2007 549 .18 549.18
130663 03/23/2007 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 17806 03/01/2007 6,994 .40 6,994.40
130664 03/23/2007 001059 SPECTRUM LANDSCAPING & 2007 03/07/2007 4,000 .00 4,000.00
130665 03/23/2007 000616 STERLING 22630 03/01/2007 974 .00
22650 03/09/2007 192 .00
22635 03/09/2007 150 .00
22597 03/01 /2007 117 .00 1,433.00
130666 03/23/2007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY S1034781.001 03/05/2007 81 .35
Page: 14
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 15
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
S1035083.001 03/07/2007 78.58
S 1035649.001 03/ 12/2007 15.68
S1034914.001 03/06/2007 12 67 188.28
130667 03/23/2007 002904 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS 5572 11/03/2006 179 43 179.43
130668 03/23/2007 006054 TIMES PRESS RECORDER 120587 02/27/2007 5.00 5.00
130669 03/23/2007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1018090 03/08/2007 95.84
1018091 03/08/2007 70.42
1018079 03/08/2007 2247
1018143 03/09/2007 1.98 190.71
130670 03/23/2007 005305 TODD ENGINEERS 46201-2-07 03/08/2007 639.73 639.73
130671 03/23/2007 005326 UNITED PORTFOLIO MGT INC 19530 03/08/2007 124.43 124.43
130672 03/23/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 63160967-001 03/02/2007 57.40
60051233-002 11/01/2006 -46.75 10.65
130673 03/23/2007 000673 US POSTAL SERVICE 032207 03/22/2007 3,000.00 3,000.00
130674 03/23/2007 002137 VERIZON WIRELESS 2116919082 02/22/2007 104.61
2120529173 03/20/2007 49.62
2120365040 03/20/2007 37.27
2120749388 03/20/2007 32.28 223.78
130675 03/23/2007 002609 WATERBOYS PLUMBING 14451 03/20/2007 170.00 170.00
130676 03/23/2007 003211 DEBBIE WEICHINGER 272400 03/09/2007 37 00 37.00
130677 03/23/2007 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC 0611 03/12/2007 1,593.75 1,593.75
130678 03/23/2007 000704 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS T5757 03/02/2007 389.68 389.68
130679 03/23/2007 006038 ANNE BOREN Ref000075064 03/09/2007 39.94 39.94
130680 03/23/2007 006035 GLAIR CONNER Ref000075061 03/07/2007 18.00 18.00
130681 03/23/2007 006034 JEFF FLEISHER Ref000075060 03/07/2007 109.12 109.12
130682 03/23/2007 006037 SHANNON KOESTER Ref000075063 03/09/2007 33.95 33.95
Page: 15
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 16
04/02/2007 1:24PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date
Vendor
Status ClearlVOid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
130683 03/23/2007 006033 JASON LEEK Ref000075059 03/07/2007 102.05 102.05
130684 03/23/2007 006032 MARGARET M. Ref000075058 03/07/2007 10 41 10.41
130685 03/23/2007 006036 ALISON STEPHENSON Ref000075062 03/07/2007 16.11 16.11
130686 03/26/2007 006056 SANTA MARIA DRIVE LINE 334262 03/23/2007 632.10 632.10
130687 03/26/2007 004888 ED ARNOLD 032607 03/26/2007 217.28 21728
130688 03/26/2007 001744 JOSEPH COSTELLO 0326 03/26/2007 217.28 21728
130689 03/27/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 3/8-7762 03/08/2007 1,053.85
3/8-2083 03/08/2007 989.30
318-2059 03/08/2007 77722
3/8-2091 03/08/2007 321.05
3/8-2581 03/08/2007 8829
3/8-9444 03/08/2007 64.60
3/8-9328 03/08/2007 49.96
3/8-9436 03/08/2007 -331.00 3,013.27
130690 03/27/2007 001389 DRIVER ALLIANT 898036 03/09/2007 1,625.00 1,625.00
130694 03/30/2007 001043 ADVANCE MARKING 1-87289-1 03/09/2007 69.42 69.42
130695 03/30/2007 005180 APEX OUTDOOR POWER 27942 03/19/2007 51.43 51.43
130696 03/30/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 73D00027 03/20/2007 311.66
73L00034 03/22/2007 27622 587.88
130697 03/30/2007 005507 AT & T 3/8-9816 03/08/2007 77.85 7785
130698 03/30/2007 005615 AT&T/MCI T6189880 03/09/2007 1,656.67
T6180689 02/08/2007 29.81
T6189871 03/09/2007 29.67
T6189868 03/09/2007 16.63
T6189872 03/09/2007 14.68 1,747.46
130699 03/30/2007 006061 KRISTIN BARNEICH 032907 03/30/2007 405.41 405.41
130700 03/30/2007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-149812 03/21/2007 79.26
Page: 16
apckHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 17
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
7314-147258 03/12/2007 35. 88
7314-148306 03/15/2007 7 04 122.18
130701 03/30/2007 003168 CELLULAR ONE 01555 03/27/2007 143. 14 143.14
130702 03/30/2007 002842 COMMERCIAL 3107-3117 03/12/2007 470. 00 470.00
130703 03/30/2007 006055 DAN CONNOR PLUMBING 032607 03/26/2007 60. 00 60.00
130704 03/30/2007 006057 DREW CULLEN 032307 03/29/2007 24. 00 24 00
130705 03/30/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 11586445 03/12/2007 8. 75 8.75
130706 03/30/2007 001840 DELL MARKETING LP U58461473 03/14/2007 4,824. 98 4,824.98
130707 03/30/2007 002673 DOCTORS MEDPLUS 13883688 03/13/2007 255. 00
13884666 03/13/2007 65. 00
13884648 03/13/2007 65. 00
13884661 03/13/2007 65. 00
13876379 03/13/2007 65. 00
13884662 03/13/2007 65. 00
13884663 03/13/2007 65. 00
13884664 03/13/2007 65 00
13884665 03/13/2007 65. 00
13879238 03/13/2007 65. 00 840.00
130708 03/30/2007 000234 ENTENMANN-ROVIN 27609-IN 03/15/2007 270. 63 270.63
130709 03/30/2007 004202 CLAIRE FLOYD 032307 03/29/2007 24. 00 24.00
130710 03/30/2007 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 032307 03/23/2007 96. 00 96.00
130711 03/30/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 032307 03/23/2007 88. 00 88.00
130712 03/30%2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 24952 03/14/2007 172. 25
24951 03/14/2007 4. 83 177.08
130713 03/30/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 3/12-200 N 03/12/2007 329. 44 329.44
130714 03/30/2007 004142 STAN GAXIOLA 032307 03/23/2007 40. 00 40.00
130715 03/30/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 70239 02/20/2007 550. 48 550.48
Page: 17
apCkHist
04/02/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 18
~ Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNOid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
130716 03/30/2007 006058 ROD GRAY 032307 03/29/2007 60.00 60.00
130717 03/30/2007 002405 CHUCK HARE 032307 03/23/2007 60.00 60.00
130718 03/30/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 032307 03/29/2007 48.00 48.00
130719 03/30/2007 006060 MICHAEL HUBERT 032807 03/29/2007 13.74 13.74
130720 03/30/2007 005648 ICOM AMERICA INC 7820783 03/22/2007 675.10 675.10
130721 03/30/2007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 032307 03/23/2007 120.00 120.00
130722 03/30/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070669 03/22/2007 135.00
070670 03/22/2007 135.00
070671 03/22/2007 135.00 405.00
130723 03/30/2007 006020 RYAN MICHAEL 032307 03/29/2007 180.00 180.00
130724 03/30/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 124246 03/23/2007 35.38
123551 03/16/2007 32.08
123674 03/17/2007 17.12
123735 03/18/2007 14.76
123939 03/20/2007 11.78
124624 03/26/2007 10.68
124255 03/23/2007 10.29
124160 03/22/2007 6.83
142583 03/23/2007 5.15
124273 03/23/2007 4.95
123943 03/20/2007 4.80
124634 03/26/2007 4.15
123764 03/18/2007 3.74
124090 03/22/2007 2.89 164.60
130725 03/30/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD 176283 03/08/2007 950.07 950.07
130726 03/30/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 378089344-001 03/09/2007 88.81
379658650-001 03/ 16/2007 18.33 107.14
130727 03/30/2007 000477 P J'S TOP SHOP 618472 03/25/2007 141 57 141.57
130728 03/30/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS 8 ELECTRIC 3/27-704689 03/27/2007 74.27 7427
Page: 18
apCkHist
04102/2007
1:24PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 19
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
130729 03/30/2007 000975 PITNEY BOWES PURCHASE 42167122 03/18/2007 33.53 33. 53
130730 03/30/2007 000498 PITNEY BOWES, INC 7658355-MR07 03/13/2007 855.45 855 45
130731 03/30/2007 000523 R 8 T EMBROIDERY, INC 30696 03/19/2007 14.48 14 48
130732 03/30/2007 004833 STEVE ROMO 032307 03/29/2007 180.00 180. 00
130733 03/30/2007 000536 GREG ROSE 032307 03/29/2007 40.00 40. 00
130734 03/30/2007 006021 BLAKE ROSKELLY 032307 03/29/2007 240.00 240. 00
130735 03/30/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 032307 03/23/2007 24.00 24. 00
130736 03/30/2007 006022 LEAH RUIZ 0323 03/29/2007 24.00 24. 00
130737 03/30/2007 001189 SLO COUNTY FIRE DEPT 032807 03/28/2007 60.00 60. 00
130738 03/30/2007 000598 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 162878 03/21/2007 225.54 225. 54
130739 03/30/2007 000602 SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT 22807 02/28/2007 85,699.39 85,699. 39
130740 03/30/2007 000540 ST PATRICK'S SCHOOL 032507 03/25/2007 157.50 157. 50
130741 03/30/2007 002370 TITAN INDUSTRIAL 1018229 03/14/2007 3.70 3. 70
130742 03/30/2007 005305 TODD ENGINEERS 46201(2) 05/08/2006 2,046.86 2,046. 86
130743 03/30/2007 004233 TRI COUNTY OFFICE FURN, 26881 03/22/2007 4,693.51
26897 03/22/2007 678.16 5,371. 67
130744 03/30/2007 005532 UC REGENTS 031907 03/19/2007 300.00 300. 00
130745 03/30/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 62785081-001 02/14/2007 129.32
62557836 02/02/2007 92.68
62033974 01/09/2007 92.68
59820202 10/05/2006 45.26
62560001-001 02/02/2007 7.29 367. 23
130746 03/30/2007 000866 JAMIE WHARTON 032307 03/29/2007 40.00 40. 00
130747 03/30/2007 003994 WILDLAND FIREFIGHTER 031507 03/15/2007 32.90 32. 90
Page: 19
Check History Ltst~np
CITY OF ARROYO G~
apGkHist t.24PM
04!0212007 S, t~~
Bank code: boa Date Vendor ODGERS 1NC
°~- p0A897 SNOOD R
03!3012007 YOUNG ~ ASSOC INC.
130748
130749 0313012007 006059
263 checks in this report
ClearN~ °~~ Invoice
54250
307072
~~ ~C,h~eck-'T'o'tal
Amy ~"~ 21 78214
Inv. Date
`""`.~~ 2178214 277.90
0310912007 277.90
0312012007 292,344.25
boa TataL
292,34425
Total Ghecks:
Page: i
ATTACHMENT 2
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
2/23/07 - 3/8/07
03/16/07
FUND 010 391,034. 55 5101 Salaries Full time 213,882.28
FUND 220 18,456. 58 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 21,849.47
FUND 284 706. 85 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 17,974.09
FUND 285 706. 88 5105 Salaries OverTime 17,118.76
FUND 612 6,773. 05 5107 Salaries Standby 389.19
FUND 640 19,467 91 5108 Holiday Pay 1,375.63
437,145. 82 5109 Sick Pay 6,426.08
5110 Annual Leave Buyback 3,191.00
5111 Vacation Buyback
5112 Sick Leave Buyback
5113 Vacation Pay 8,075.03
5114 Comp Pay 3,564.59
5115 Annual Leave Pay 1,625.50
5121 PERS Retirement 71,386.76
5122 Social Security 20,781.98
5123 PARS Retirement 486.54
5126 State Disability Ins. 633.53
5127 Deferred Compensation 675.00
5131 Health Insurance 39,663.25
5132 Dentallnsurance 4,371.99
5133 Vision Insurance 1,012.28
5134 Life Insurance 590.20
5135 Long Term Disability 857.67
5143 Uniform Allowance
5144 Car Allowance 700.00
5146 Council Expense
5147 Employee Assistance 240.00
5148 Boot Allowance
5149 Motor Pay 75.00
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00
9J/,140.OL
ATTACHMENT 3
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
3/9/07 - 3/22107
03/30/07
FUND 010 342,121 .17 5101 Salaries Full time 216,859. 48
FUND 220 14,996 .96 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 20,154. 61
FUND 284 625 .43 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 16,197. 74
FUND 285 625 .47 5105 Salaries OverTime 13,735. 86
FUND 612 5,308 .78 5107 Salaries Standby 374. 64
FUND 640 15,767 .23 5108 Holiday Pay 1,391. 89
379,445 .04 5109 Sick Pay 6,226. 36
5110 Annual Leave Buyback -
5111 Vacation Buyback
5112 Sick Leave Buyback
5113 Vacation Pay 6,371. 72
5114 Comp Pay 4,096. 53
5115 Annual Leave Pay 923. 35
5121 PERS Retirement 72,023. 92
5122 Social Security 20,018. 52
5123 PARS Retirement 434. 36
5126 State Disability Ins. 636. 06
5127 Deferred Compensation -
5131 Health Insurance -
5132 Dentallnsurance -
5133 Vision Insurance -
5134 Life Insurance -
5135 Long Term Disability -
5143 Uniform Allowance
5144 Car Allowance -
5146 Council Expense
5147 Employee Assistance -
5148 Boot Allowance
5149 Motor Pay -
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay -
379,445. 04
S.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COST ALLOCATION PLAN
DATE: APRIL 10, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Cost Allocation Plan.
FUNDING:
The Fiscal Year 2007-08 Cost Allocation Plan will provide resources to the General
Fund in the amount of approximately $531,800.
DISCUSSION:
A Cost Allocation Plan is a method of recovering the cost of General Fund services
provided to other funds. In March of 1996, the first Cost Allocation Plan was adopted by
the City Council. This was the first time that City costs were identified and divided
between direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are expenses incurred in providing a
specific cost objective, such as street maintenance, police protection, landscape
maintenance, and water service. Indirect costs are expenses not readily identifiable
with a particular operating program, but rather are incurred for a joint purpose, which
benefits more than one fund/department. Common examples of indirect costs are
accounting, purchasing, personnel, building maintenance, and utilities. Though indirect
costs are not readily identifiable with direct operating programs; they can be allocated.
based on rational, logical methodology.
The Cost Allocation Plan is a method of allocating indirect costs, provided by the
General Fund, based on the proportionate share of benefits received. Different indirect
costs have different methods of allocation. For instance, payroll costs are allocated on
the number of full time positions and building maintenance costs are allocated on the
number of departmental square feet in City buildings.
The Cost Allocation Plan is based on the current year's Annual Budget. The budget is
used for allocation purposes, as the amounts are the best available projection of costs.
Each year, the Cost Allocation Plan is updated because (1) the more current the
numbers, the better the allocation will mirror actual costs, and (2) technology allows for
timely updating.
CITY COUNCIL
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
APRIL 10, 2007
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
Approve staff recommendation and approve plan;
- Deny staff recommendation and retain current cost allocation numbers;
- Modify staff recommendation and approve;
- Provide direction to staff.
CITY OF ~-~ (~ ~TDE
AIZRDYQ 1~ ~~' "
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
FISCAL YEAS 2007"2 08
CITY OF
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Overview-Purpose of Cost Allocation Plan ..............................................
Determining Direct and Indirect Costs .....................................................
Allocating Indirect Costs ..........................................................................
Uses of the Cost Allocation Plan ..............................................................
Prepazation Frequency ..............................................................................
Indirect Cost Allocation
Summary of Direct and Indirect Costs .................................................................
Schedule of Exclusions by Activity .....................................................................
Schedule of Exclusions by Type .....................::...................................................
Bases of Allocation of Indirect Costs ..................................................................
Summary of Departmental Indirect Cost Allocations and Rates .............:...........
Summary of Indirect Cost Allocations .................................................................
Indirect Program Cost Allocations:
Legislation & Policy ................................................................................
Administration .........................................................................................
Finance-Accounts Payable .......................................................................
Finance-Payroll ........................................................................................
Finance-Administration ...........................................................................
Administrative Services ...........................................................................
City Attorney ............................................................................................
Government Buildings Maintenance-Personnel ......................................
Government Buildings Maintenance-Services/Supplies .........................
Auto Shop ................................................................................................
Page
.....1
........:..........................................1
...................................................2
...................................................3
...................................................3
.................................................4
.................................................5
.................................................6
.................................................7
.................................................8
.................................................9
...10
.....................................................11
.....................................................12
.....................................................13
.....................................................14
.....................................................15
.....................................................16
.....................................................17
.....................................................18
.........................................:...........20
~'ITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INTRODUCTION TO THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN
OVEN
Y A se arate cost
p~ ose services or producing .
roviding direct services to th thetcos sof deliveringrande:
lan is to estimate the total costs of p ublic or private,
The purpose of this cost alUOCed to do this, because in virtually all organizations, p
accounting analysis is req
goods can be classified into two categories: direct and indirect cos s.
rotection, street maintenance, or water service.
olice p oint purpose that
Direct and Indirect Costs but aze incurred fora 1 maintenance.
ecificall identified with a cost objective, suc e a ng program,
which can be sp Y le al services, and build of the total cost
which are not readily identifiable with a dvec o
Direct costs are those, ort costs, overnment are accounting, g an integral p
Indirect costs are supp ieal indirect cost activities in a ems, their cost should be reflected ~
benefits more than one cost objective. TYp
Although indirect costs are generally not identifiable with direct cost pr gr
of providing specific goods or services.
enerally Preclude such
d Accountin for Indirect Costs vehicle to display
Bud etin an ro ems, but practical colem ntal rep rung
y ed to direct service p bn rovide a supp
et and account four noseeof cost allocation plans: to allocate indirect costs to direct service
All indireeInsteadcmosa ohganizatilon sseparately budg chazg
bandit°g' rovide a direct program service. Such is the p p
estimated total costs to p
programs in a logical and uniform manner. D1reCt and Indirect CO$t5 that
Determinin P ental rograms
The costs of de artm ide services to the
inin direct and indirect costs. which primazdY P
lan is determ g ro ems, ° rating costs are utilized in
grin the City's cost allocation P direct costs whereas the costs of P gr rinciples, only Pe
The first step in prep g ublic are identified as enerally accepted accounting P
primarily provide service to the p
organization, are identified as indirect costs. In accordance wit g
allocation plans: debt service, transfers, and capital outlay costs are excluded from calculations.
1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Introduction to the Cost Allocation Plan
Allocatin Indirect Costs
rate is simply the ratio between
Such a ined.
been determ
ase
indirect costs. et along with the
is for allocating o erating budg be
Indirect Cost Rates be used as the bas ro ram can
a whole once the don the 2007.2t~08 cpst that P g would be
a citywide indirect CObarcomputed for the City as Grande based up the total in ~°Y° Grande
For general purposes, which can ro ram
of direct and indirect costs for AnoY° s ecific d~ 100 Q00 d'ue~ cost p g
indirect costs one 4t~sca summary the total cost of a $
Provided on P g a lying the overall indirevere 2~ dote t° any P
citywide indirect cost rate. gY PP
ined. For example, if the overall indirect cost rate
determ ams. However,
$12h,h~• to each of the direct service PTO~ctivity indicator
ortionately ~ more closely related to an it from a
incurred ATOP ent may distributing personnel costs to
Bases of Allocation aids by a direct service dePa~ ~iated with it,
ose method above assumes thent paogr t costs are City staffing
The general-pure certain supp°rt dap ent does not have any in major
for certa rimatY
the benefit received from if a service dla a~ ation of costs. of cost allocation la s the p
reasonab orate and variable bases'Stently. Page 7 disp Y and dividing
other than cost. e ~ tvou d not be a Grande establishes sep also torts athering the cost
support departm for AnoY° fair yet simple manner, and t that the cost of gln performing
lan developed allocated in a iven to the concep m the study. stem. Under a
ttte cost allocation p thus be gecognition is g to ~ gained fro
Therefore, nett costs can lex sequential allocation sY to other
ones. Ind ed the benefits likes amore comp
identifiable cost categ lan should not eXatt~15 rather than using Attorney costs would first be all wo ld be fairly
used for various indirect cost PrO~ants or City Such a procass would
methods of allocation a reasonable cost allocation P to direct progr Services, ams. stem
information to develop costs, or Administrative the direct cost pCOgix Sequential allocation sy
Administration would then be allocatedthe gain from a comp
allocations, all indirect costs levCt~en allocated on Y roach roach utilized here.
sequential system for examp those expanded indirect costs ler apP
In turn, conceptual difficulties with redu ed in the situp
indirect cost progt~' there are some d review is significantly
time consuming. Although re oration an
be insignificant, and the cost of p P
2
pf ARRpYp GRA~~ plan 1 °onla
CITY to the Cost Allocation T ALj,pCAT10N PLAN is analyttcal too
In~oduetion U~Eg QF THE CQ5 eking situations. The mam areas of use of this bas
ed in numerous financial decision m
General Fund indirect
,this cost allocation plan can be us
d Accountm ~ achieved by extended allocation °
~~ hex Utili Fun utility can
to rise and ~ Granae, s water enterprise Could a hieve such a goal.
W atex En d recreation
rroy° e Cost allocation Plan ]anning applications an
A complete cos uutgr~ °peTations. Th and services such as F
supP°rt pOSts t° General F
ine apPtOPtiate user fees for
User Char es BY
GenexalFund eterm ant PCOgams•
lion plan can be utilized to d for gr
accounting aired under Circular A-S?
This cost slloca indirect costs in t be req
activities. rtnissible to include to allocations m1~
n g~~ it is pe vexed. Modest changes
Grant Ad~ntstxatlo Circular A- and reco
cost accounting°P°~ cons oan be apFlied for
a $ervice "in_house" to conaacting
under Federal t rates,
establishing indirect COSOSe toviding
when used f°r this Pub comparing the cost °f P
douse when
put V exsus cost allocation plan
Contxactin use of this ed on ~tual
e {tequent UENC'Y bas
could ut ovidet. P~pARA•t10N ~ hoot the fiscal Ye ficant accounting
City employees ice p au ong°ing basis throng
outside sere but would consume sign
with au ose,
used and alloeat~y Specific purp
would be Comp serv
costs al finance would not Yepated annually.
be
In a true cost a ero freq g sy °e daendedctm~lcrp allocation plan p
uent p that the c°st
costs. H° As such, it is recomm
teSOUrces.
3
CITYOFARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Summary of Direct and Indirect Costs
DIRECT PROGRAMS COSTS INDIRECT PROGRAM COSTS
Community Development 588,300 Legislation and Policy 100,860
Police 5,704,574
Fire 1,542,250 Administration:
Building Safety 330,800 City Manager 450,990
Printing/Copying 220,150
Public Works: Management Information System 42,350
Engineering 779,650 Administration Total 713,490
Street Lighting & Maintenance 287,000 _
Sewer Maintenance 280,317 Financial Services:
Street Maintenance 798,000 Accounts Payable 305,670
Water System Maintenance 1,127,280 Payroll 152,835
Lopez Water System 2,566,696 Business Licensing 50,945
Financial Services Total 509,450
Parks Maintenance 711,320
Administrative Services 171,000
Recreation:
Administration 175,300 City Attorney 183,250
General Recreation 139,170
Otlmr Recreation Programs 675,460 Non Departrnental 504,095
Soto Sports Complex 233,095
Government Buildings
Other Budget Activity: Personnel 59,630
Redevelopment Agency 329,125 Services/Supplies 132,800
Landscape District Maintenance 3,600 Govemment Buildings Total 192,430
Transportation 5,000
Downtown Pazking District 2,850 Auto Shop 104,900
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 16,279,787 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS 2,479,475
Overall indirect cost rate:
(indirect costs divided by direct costs) 15.23%
Capital projects, capital equipment, transfers, and debt services costs aze excluded from amounts shown, for calculating
indirect cost rates in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Only operating costs are utilized. See
pages five (5) and six (6) for schedules of exclusions.
TY OF ARROYO GRANDE 7 Zoos
cr AR 200 -
COST ALLOCAS hOa lPof ExclusO~ionF y Accivi~
DIRECT FROGRAM COSTS
Community Development
Equipment
Police:
Equipment
Fire:
Equipment
Building 8c Safety
Equipment
Public Works:
Equipment
Pazks:
Equipment
Recreation:
Equipment
Transportation
Transfers
Redevelopment Agency
Transfers
Lanscape Maintenance
Transfers
Sewer Maintenance:
Equipment
Debt
Transfers
Water System:
Equipment
Debt
Transfers
Lopez System:
Transfers
Downtown Parking
Transfers
TOTAL DIRECT PROGRAM COSTS
INDIRECT PROGRAM COSTS
Administration: 16,450
Equipment
96,500 Non Departmental: -
Land 12,500
64,000 Debt 81,050
~~ 93
550
Transfers ,
500
31,450 Government Buildings: 16,900
Struuture Improvement
~ ~
16,b30
26,200 Auto Shop
COSTS
PROGRAM 153,900
TOTAL INDIRECT
- 544,855
- TOTAL DIRECT & INDIRECT ~---=
6,400
1,750 g 150
SUMMARY OF EXCLUSIONS:
147,525 321,030
EquipmenUlmprovemenu 142,775
- Debt
Transfers 544,855
~ TOTAL DIRECT & INDIRECT ~-
3
19,000
128,525
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Schedule of Exclusions by Type
DIRECT PROGRAM COSTS
Equipment:
Community Developmt
Police
Fire
Building & Life Safety
Public Works
Parks
Recreation
Sewer Maintenance
Water System
Total Equipment Exclusion
Debt:
Sewer Maintenance
Water System
Total Debt Exclusion
Street Maintenance
Landscape Maintenance
Transportation
Redevelopment Agency
Sewer Maintenance
Water System
Lopez System
Downtown Parking
$ -
96,500
64,000
500
31,450
16,630
26,200
6,400
19,000
1,750
i~o <u
Total Transfer Exclusion:
TOTAL DIRECT PROGRAM COSTS
260,680
130,275
INDIRECT PROGRAM COSTS
EquipmenUlmprovements:
Non Departmental -
Administration 16,450
Government Buildings 16,900
Auto Shop 27,000
Total Equipment Exclusion 60,350
Debt:
Non Departmental 12,500
Transfers:
Non-Departmental
81,050
TOTAL T\DIRECT PROGRAM COSTS 153,900
SUMMARY OF EXCLUSIONS:
390,955
6
EquipmenUlmprovements
Debt
Transfers
TOTAL EXCLUSIONS
32],030
142,775
81,050
544,855
CITYOFARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Bases of Allocation of Indirect Costs
legislation and Policy
Administration:
City Manager
Printing/Copying
Management Information System
Non Departmental
Financial Services:
Accounts Payable (60%ofBudget)
Payroll (30%ofBudget)
Administration (]0%ofBudget)
Administrative Services
City Attorney
Government Buildings:
Personnel
Services and Supplies
Council Agenda Items
Total Operating Budget
Total Operating Budget
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Stang
Total Operating Budget
Council Agenda Items
Total Operating Budget
Square Footage (w/o Fire Station)
Dept. Square Footage
Auto Shop Vehicle Maintenance Budget (w/o Fire & Building Vehicles)
7
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Summary of Departmental Indirect Cost Allocations and Rates
Indirect Direct Indirect Legis. & City Financial Admin. City Non- Govt. Bldg. Auto
Direct Program Program Rate Cost Cost Policy Admin. Services Services Attorney Depart. Maint. Shop
Community Development 30.74% $ 588,300 $ 180,863 $ 38,448 $ 25,757 $ 22,839 $ 65,100 $ 6,615 $ 18,198 $ 3,906 $ -
Police 14.12% 5,704,574 805,223 9,461 250,150 184,834 16,057 64,247 176,736 48,236 55,503
Fire 15.48% 1,542,250 238,791 4,418 67,568 48,734 7,490 17,354 47,738 45,490 -
Building Safety 13.97% 330,800 46,220 - 14,484 12,222 - 3,720 10,233 5,561 -
Public Works:
Engineering
Street Lighting & Maint
Sewer Maintenance
Street Maintenance
Water System Maint.
Lopez Water System
Total Public Works
Parks Maintenance
Recreation:
Administration
General Recreation
Other Rec. Programs
Soto Sports Complex
Total Recreation
Other Activity:
Redevelopment Agency
Landscape Maintenance
Transportation
Downtown Parking
TOTALS
19.03% 779,650 148,373 14,494 34,176 30,379 24,573 8,778 24,146 7,832 3,997
11.36% 287,000 32,597 - 12,557 7,942 - 3,225 8,872 - -
17.13% 280,317 48,005 2,511 12,272 9,450 4,275 3,152 8,670 1,674 6,000
17.48% 798,000 139,493 7,565 34,961 30,771 12,842 8,979 24,701 1,674 18,001
14.07% 1,127,280 158,559 5,033 49,374 32,977 8,567 12,681 34,883 5,048 9,997
10.80% 2,566,696 277,]50 - 112,517 56,238 - 28,899 79,496 - -
13.77% 5,838,943 804,178 29,602 255,858 167,757 50,257 65,713 180,768 16,228 37,995
14.93% 711,320 106,168 3;157 31,180 28,040 5,352 8,008 22,029 - 8,402
23.04% 175,300 40,384 3,782 7,706 6,343 6,413 1,979 5,444 8,717 -
39.68% 139,170 55,229 6,939 6,065 6,348 11,765 1,558 4,285 17,473 797
17.92% 675,460 121,070 1,261 10,203 7,591 2,138 2,620 7,209 - 2,203
14.25% 233,095 33,224 635 29,610 17,291 1,077 7,605 20,920 43,932 -
20.43% 1,223,025 249,906 12,618 53,583 37,572 21,392 13,7 2 37,858 70,121 3,000
13.73% 329,125 45,183 2,522 14,413 7,204 4,275 3,702 10,183 2,886
57.34% 3,600 2,064 635 143 71 1,077 37 101 -
10.54% 5,000 527 - 214 107 - 55 151 -
12.33% 2,850 351 - 143 71 - 37 101 -
15.23% $ 16,279,787 $ 2,479,475 $ 100,860 $ 713,490 $ 509,450 $ 171,000 $ 183,250 $ 504,095 $ 192,430 $ 104,900
8
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Summary of Indirect Cost Allocations
INDIRECT PROGRAM COST ALLOCATIONS
Legis. & Admin- Financial Services Admin. City Non- Gov. Bldg. Gov. Bldg. Auto
Direct Program Program Policy istration Acct. Payroll Admin. Services Attorney Depart. Staff Supplies Shop Total
Community Develop. $ 38,448 $ 25,757 $ 11,035 $ 9,965 $ 1,839 $ 65,100 $ 6,615 $ 18,198 $ 1,210 $ 2,696 $ - $ 180,863
Police 9,461 250,150 107,168 59,804 17,861 16,057 64,247 176,736 14,943 33,293 55,503 805,223
Fire 4,418 67,568 28,947 14,963 4,824 7,490 17,354 47,738 14,097 31,394 - 238,791
Building Safety - 14,484 6,205 4,982 1,034 - 3,720 10,233 1,723 3,838 - 46,220
Public Works:
Engineering 14,494 34,176 14,642 13,297 2,440 24,573 8,778 24,146 2,427 5,405 3,997 148,373
Street Light. & Maint. - 12,557 5,380 1,666 897 - 3,225 8,872 - - - 32,597
Sewer Maintenance 2,511 12,272 5,258 3,317 876 4,275 3,152 8,670 519 1,155 6,000 48,005
Street Maintenance 7,565 34,961 14,978 13,297 2,496 12,842 8,979 24,701 519 1,155 18,001 139,493
Water System Maint. 5,033 49,374 21,152 8,299 3,525 8,567 12,681 34,883 1,568 3,479 9,997 158,559
Lopez Water System - 112,517 48,204 - 8,034 - 28,899 79,496 - - - 277,150
Total Public Works 29,602 255,858 109,613 39,875 18,269 50,257 65,713 180,768 5,033 11,195 37,995 804,178
Parks Maintenance 3,157 31,180 13,358 12,456 2,226 5,352 8,008 22,029 - - 8,402 106,168
Recreation
Administration 3,782 7,706 3,301 2,491 550 6,413 1,979 5,444 2,701 6,016 - 40,384
General Recreation 6,939 6,065 2,598 3,317 433 11,765 1,558 4,285 5,414 12,058 797 55,229
Other Rec. Programs 635 29,610 12,685 2,491 2,114 1,077 7,605 20,920 13,614 30,318 - 121,070
Soto Sports Complex 1,261 10,203 4,371 2,491 729 2,138 2,620 7,209 - - 2,203 33,224
Total Recreation 12,618 53,583 22,956 10,790 3,826 21,392 13,762 37,858 21,729 48,392 3,000 249,906
Other Budget Activity
RDA 2,522 14,413 6,175 - 1,029 4,275 3,702 10,183 894 1,992 - 45,183
Landscape Maint. 635 143 61 - 10 1,077 37 101 - - - 2,064
Transportation - 214 92 - 15 - 55 151 - - - 527
Downtown Parking - 143 61 - ]0 - 37 101 - - - 351
TOTALS $ 100,860 $ 713,490 $ 305,670 $ 152,835 $ 50,945 $ 171,000 $ 183,250 $ 504,095 $ 59,630 $ 132,800 $ 104,900 $ 2,479,475
9
pY0 GRANDE
CITY OF ARRpOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2408
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Indirect program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROG~M'
BUDGET CATION:
BASE OE ALLO
COST PROGRAM
DIRECT peveloprnent
Community
police
Fire Safety
Building
public Works:
gngineering & Maintenance
Street Lighting
Sewer Maintenance
Street Mainten~aintenance
Water System
Lopez W ater System
Legislation & Policy
$100,860 endattems
Council Ag
parks Maintenance
Recreation & Bmldmg tvlamtenance'~
Administration
General Re rams n
ether oRs Complex
Soto Sp
Other Budget Activity:
Redevelopment Agency
Landscape Maintenance
Tmnsportatiparking Disttict
Downtown
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
BASE OF
ALLO~ C___--ATE
61
15
7
0
23
D
4
l2
8
0
5
b
11
l
2
PERCENT
OFD
38.12%
9.38%
4.38%
0.00%
4
l
0
1~
10
14.37%
0.00%
2.49°l0
7.50%
4.99%
0.00%
3.13%
3.75%
6.88%
0.63°Io
1.25%
COST
ALLO__._- ~ ION
$ 3g,448
9,461
4,418
2.50°l0
0.63%
0.00%
0~
10~
14,444
2,511
7,565
5,033
3,157
3,782
6,939
635
1,261
x,522
- 635
$~
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Indirect Program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROGRAM: Administration
BUDGET: $713,490
BASE OF ALLOCATION: Total Operating Budget
BASE OF PERCENT COST
DIRECT COST PROGRAM ALLOCATION OF TOTAL ALLOCATION
Community Development $ 588,300 3.61% $ 25,757
Police 5,704,574 35.06% 250,150
Fire 1,542,250 9.47% 67,568
Building Safety 330,800 2.03% 14,484
Public Works
Engineering 779,650 4.79% 34,176
Street Lighting & Maintenance 287,000 1.76% 12,557
Sewer Maintenance 280,317 1.72% 12,272
Street Maintenance 798,000 4.90% 34,961
Water System Maintenance 1,127,280 6.92% 49,374
Lopez Water System 2,566,696 15.77% 112,517
Parks Maintenance 711,320 4.37% 31,180
Recreation & Building Maintenance
Administration 175,300 L08% 7,706
General Recreation 139,170 0.85% 6,065
Other Programs 675,460 4.15% 29,610
Soto Sports Complex 233,095 1.43% 1Q,203
Other Budget Activity:
Redevelopment Agency 329,125 2.02% 14,413
Landscape Maintenance 3,600 0.02% 143
Transportation 5,000 0.03%. 214
Downtown Parking District 2,850 0.02% 143
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS $ 16,279,787 100.00%
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
$ 713,490
11
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Indirect Program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROGRAM:
BUDGET:
BASE OF ALLOCATION:
Financial Services-Accounts Payable
$305,670
Total Operating Budget
BASE OF PERCENT COST
DIRECT COST PROGRAM ALLOCATION OF TOTAL ALLOCATION
Community Development $ 588,300 3.61% $ 11,035
Police 5,704,574 35.06% 107,168
Fire 1,542,250 9.47% 28,947
Building Safety 330,800 2.03% 6,205
Public Works
Engineering 779,650 4.79% 14,642
Street Lighting & Maintenance 287,000 1.76% 5,380
Sewer Maintenance 280,317 1.72% 5,258
Street Maintenance 798,000 4.90% 14,978
Water System Maintenance 1,127,280 6.92% 21,152
Lopez Water System 2,566,696 15.77% 48,204
Parks Maintenance 711,320 4.37% 13,358
Recreation & Building Maintenance
Administration 175,300 1.08% 3,301
General Recreation 139,170 0.85% 2,598
Other Programs 675,460 4.15% 12,685
Soto Sports Complex 233,095 1.43% 4,371
Other Budget Activity:
Redevelopment Agency 329,125 2.02% 6,175
Landscape Maintenance 3,600 0.02% 61
Transportation 5,000 0.03% 92
Downtown Parking District 2,850 0.02% 61
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS $ 16,279,787 100.00%
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
$ 305,670
12
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Indirect Program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROGRAM: Financial Services-Payroll
BUDGET: $152,835
BASE OF ALLOCATION: Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees
BASE OF PERCENT COST
DIRECT COST PROGRAM ALLOCATION OF TOTAL ALLOCATION
Community Development 6.00 6.52% $ 9,965
Police 36.00 39.13% 59,804
Fire 9.00 9.79% 14,963
Building Safety 3.00 3.26% 4,982
Public Works
Engineering 8.00 8.70% 13,297
Street Lighting & Maintenance 1.00 1.09% 1,666
Sewer Maintenance 2.00 2.17% 3,317
Street Maintenance 8.00 8.70% 13,297
Water System Maintenance 5.00 5.43% 8,299
Lopez Water System - 0.00% -
Parks Maintenance 7.50 8.15% 12,456
Recreation & Building Maintenance:
Administration 1.50 1.63% 2,491
General Recreation 2.00 2.17% 3,317
Other Programs 1.50 1.63% 2,491
Soto Sports Complex 1.50 1.63% 2,491
Other Budget Activity:
Redevelopment Agency - 0.00% -
Landscape Maintenance - 0.00% -
Transportation - 0.00% -
Downtown Parking District - 0.00% -
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS 92.00 100.00%
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $ 152,835
13
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Indirect Program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROGRAM:
BUDGET:
BASE OF ALLOCATION:
Financial Services- Administration
$50,945
Total Operating Budget
BASE OF PERCENT COST
DIRECT COST PROGRAM ALLOCATION OF TOTAL ALLOCATION
Community Development $ 588,300 3.61% $ 1,839
Police ~ 5,704,574 35.06% 17,861
Fire 1,542,250 9.47% 4,824
Building Safety 330,800 2.03% 1,034
Public Works
Engineering 779,650 4.79% 2,440
Street Lighting & Maintenance 287,000 1.76% 897
Sewer Maintenance 280,317 1.72% 876
Street Maintenance 798,000 4.90% 2,496
Water System Maintenance 1,127,280 6.92% 3,525
Lopez Water System 2,566,696 15.77% 8,034
Parks Maintenance 711,320 4.37% 2,226
Recreation & Building Maintenance:
Administration 175,300 1.08% 550
General Recreation 139,170 0.85% 433
Other Programs 675,460 4.15% 2,114
Soto Sports Complex 233,095 1.43% 729
Other Budget Activity
Redevelopment Agency 329,125 2.02% 1,029
Landscape Maintenance 3,600 0.02% 10
Transportation 5,000 0.03% ]5
Downtown Parking District 2,850 0.02% 10
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS $ 16,279,787 100.00%
TOTAL 1NDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $ 50,945
14
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Indirect Program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROGRAM:
BUDGET:
BASE OF ALLOCATION:
DIRECT COST PROGRAM
Community Development
Police
Fire
Building Safety
Public Works:
Engineering
Street Lighting & Maintenance
Sewer Maintenance
Street Maintenance
Water System Maintenance
Lopez Water System
Parks Maintenance
Recreation & Building Maintenance:
Administration
General Recreation
Other Programs
Soto Sports Complex
Other Budget Activity:
Redevelopment Agency
Landscape Maintenance
Transportation
Downtown Parking District
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS
BASE OF PERCENT COST
ALLOCATION OF TOTAL ALLOCATION
61 38.07% $ 65,100
15 9.39% 16,057
7 4.38% 7,490
0 0.00% -
23 14.37% 24,573
0 0.00% -
4 2.50% 4,275
12 7.51% 12,842
8 S.OI% 8,567
0 0.00% -
5 3.13% 5,352
6 3.75% 6,413
11 6.88% 1],765
1 0.63% 1,077
2 1.25% 2,138
4 2.50% 4,275
1 0.63% 1,077
0 0.00% -
0 0.00% -
160 100.00%
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $ 171,000
Administrative Services
$171,000
Council Agenda Items
15
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR ?007-2008
Indirect Program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROGRAM: City Attorney
BUDGET: $183,250
BASE OF ALLOCATION: Total Operating Budget
BASE OF PERCENT COST
DIRECT COST PROGRAM ALLOCATION OF TOTAL ALLOCATION
Community Development $ . 588,300 3.61% $ 6,615
Police 5,704,574 35.06% 64,247
Fire 1,542,250 9.47% 17,354
Building Safety 330,800 2.03% 3,720
Public Works
Engineering 779,650 4.79% 8,778
Street Lighting & Maintenance 287,000 1.76% 3,225
Sewer Maintenance 280,317 1.72% 3,152
Street Maintenance 798,000 4.90% 8,979
Water System Maintenance 1,127,280 6.92% 12,681
Lopez Water System 2,566,696 15.77% 28,899
Parks Maintenance 711,320 4.37% 8,008
Recreation & Building Maintenance:
Administration 175,300 1.08% 1,979
General Recreation 139,170 0.85% 1,558
Other Programs 675,460 4.15% 7,605
Soto Sports Complex 233,095 1.43% 2,620
Other Budget Activity:
Redevelopment Agency 329,125 2.02% 3,702
Landscape Maintenance 3,600 0.02% 37
Transportation 5,000 0.03% 55
Downtown Parking District 2,850 0.02% 37
TOTAL D[RECT COST PROGRAMS $ 16,279,787 100.00%
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
$ 183,250
16
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
Indirect Program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROGRAM: Non Departmental
BUDGET: $504,095
BASE OF ALLOCATION: Total Operating Budget
BASE OF PERCENT COST
DIRECT COST PROGRAM ALLOCATION OF TOTAL ALLOCATION
Community Development $ 588,300 3.6]% $ 18,198
Police 5,704,574 35.06% 176,736
Fire 1,542,250 9.47% 47,738
Building Safety 330,800 2.03% 10,233
Public Works
Engineering 779,650 4.79% 24,146
Street Lighting & Maintenance 287,000 1.76% 8,872
Sewer Maintenance 280,317 1.72% 8,670
Street Maintenance 798,000 4.90% 24,701
Water System Maintenance 1,127,280 6.92% 34,883
Lopez Water System 2,566,696 15.77% 79,496
Parks Maintenance 71 ],320 4.37% 22,029
Recreation & Building Maintenance:
Administration 175,300 1.08% 5,444
General Recreation ]39,1'70 0.85% 4,285
Other Programs 675,460 4.15% 20,920
Soto Sports Complex 233,095 1.43% 7,209
Other Budget Activity
Redevelopment Agency 329,125 2.02% 10,183
Landscape Maintenance 3,600 0.02% 101
Transportation 5,000 0.03% 151
Downtown Parking District 2,850 0.02% I OI
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS $ 16,279,787 100.00%
TOTAL [NDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $ 504,095
17
CITY OF ARROYO GRA~'DE
N FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
COST AI-7-OCATION FLA Cost Allocation
Indirect Program
INDIRECT COST PROG1tAM'
BUDGET TION:
BASE OE ALLOCA
T COST PROGRAM
DIREC Developtnent
Comrnunity
police
Fire
Building Safety
Public Works:
Engineering & Maintenance
S[reet Lighting
Sewer Maintenance
Street Maintenance
Water System Maintenance
Lopez Water System
Government Building Maintenance Personnel
$59,630 care Footage
pepartment SQ
parks Maintenance
Recreation & Bwlding 1vlaintenance:
Administration
General Recreation
Other P~ ~Co~plex
gota Sp
Other Budget Activityency
Redevelopment Ag
Landscape Maintenance
Transportation pisuict
powntown Parking
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
BASE OF
ALLO
7,400
6,979
852
1,200
258
258
774
4.07°f°
0.00°f°
0,87°l0
0.87°l0
2.63%
0.00%
2,427
519
Sl9
1,568
0.00%
4.53%
l>338 9.0$%
2.680 22.83°!0
b,738 p.00°fo
442
18
PERCENT
OFD
2.03%
25.06°fo
23.64°l0
2.89%
2,701
5,414
13,614
894
COST
ALLOJ
$ 14,943
14,097
1,723
1.50%
0.00°f0
0.00%
0
10~
_-~
CITY OF ARROYO C~N~E x 200-loos
COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL
Indirect Program Cost Allocation
INDIRECT COST PROGRAM:
BUDGET: TiON:
BASE OF ALLOCA
DIRECT COST PROmentM
Community Develop
Police
Fjte Safety
Building
Public Works:
Engineering & Maintenance
Street Lighting
Sewer Maintenance
Street Maintenana ntenance
Water System M
Lopez W ater System
Government Building Maintenance Supplies
$132,800
Department Square Footage
BASE OF
ALLO ~p
7,400
6,979
852
1,200
258
258
774
Parks Maintenance
Recreation & BuildingMaintenance:
Administration
General Re ramson
Other Prog
Soto Sports Complex
Od-,er Budget Activity:
Redevelopment Agency
Landscape Maintenance
Transportation District
Downtown Parking
TOTAL DIRECT COST PROGRAMS
TOTAL INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
4.p7%
0.00°l0
0.87°l°
0.87°l0
2,62°l0
0.00%
0.00°/0
5,405
1,155
1,155
3,479
6,016
12,058
30,318
4.53%
1,338 g_p8%
2,680 22.83%
6,738 0.00%
442
~~
19
PERCENT
OFpF T
2.03°t°
25.07%
23.b4°1o
2.89%
l ,942
COST
ALLO, C 9
$ 33,293
31,394
3,838
1.50%
0.00°!0
0.00°I°
0~
10
13~ 800
F ARRD~D GRA~'DE
CITY 0 N pORFYSCAL YEAR 2007-2008
COST A~~OCATION FLA Cost Allocation
Indirect Program
fNp1RECT COST PROGRAP'i'
BUpOETt L~CATION~
BASE OF A
DIRECT CO T PROGRAM
Development
Community
police
Fire Safety
Building
public W otks'.
Engineering ~ Maintenance
Street Lighting
Sewer Maintenance
Street Maintenance
Water System Maintenance
Lopez W ater System
d Building Safety vehicles)
Auto Shoe
$lOQ,400 °et ~w(o Fire an PERCENT
Vehicle Maintenance Bude BASE OF OF TOTAL
parks Maintenance
Recreation & Butldrng priamtenance'.
pdministratton
CtenetaP ogcamson
Other
Soto Sports Complex
Other Budget ActivityencY
Redevelopment Ag
Landscape Maintenance
Transportation District
Downtown Parking OGRAMS
ALLOCATION p,00/
52.91°l0
55,500 0.00%
' 0.00°I°
3.81%
4,000 0.00%
5.72°10
b,000 17,16°10
18,000 9,53%
10,000 0.00%
8.01°l0
g,400
0.00°l0
' 0.76%
800 0,00°l0
- 2,10°!0
2,200
~~
COST
ALLO
55,503
0.00%
0 00°10
0 00°l0
os
10~
1RECT COST pR staff.
TOTAL D T10N Auto Sh°p
COST' ALLOCA rsonneY rather thau
TOTAL 1NDlRECT intained bS' [ire volunteer pe
d Building Safety vehicles ace ma
20
dote l: Fire an
3,997
6,000
18,001
9,997
g,402
797
2,203
S.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CITY INVESTMENT POLICY
DATE: APRIL 10; 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve the City of Arroyo Grande Investment
Policy and the Resolution to deposit City funds in various Financial Institutions.
FUNDING:
There is no funding involved with this policy review.
DISCUSSION:
Attached is the City's Investment Policy, which was last reviewed by the City Council on
March 28, 2006. State law (AB 943) requires the treasurer or chief financial officer of
local government entities to annually submit a statement of investment policy to their
governing body. In compliance with that State law, the City's Investment Policy is
presented for City Council review. The City's Investment Policy authorizes only the
more conservative investments, requires monthly investment reports to City Council,
and requires that the due diligence of a "prudent person" be followed in the investment
of City funds.
Also attached is a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, Accounting Supervisor and
Director of Financial Services to deposit or withdraw funds on behalf of the City of
Arroyo Grande, from various Financial Institutions. The previous Resolution No. 2261,
was adopted on October 25, 1988 and listed specific individuals (rather than the
positions) that no longer work for the City.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
- Approve the Investment Policy and attached Resolution as presented;
- Deny approval of Investment Policy and attached Resolution;
- Modify Investment Policy and/or attached Resolution and approve;
- Provide direction to staff.
CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
9'
IN~TESTMENT POLICY
APRIL 10, 2007
Prepared by the Financial Services Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
Investment Policy .......................................................................................................................1
Investment Objective .................................................................................................................. l
Prudence Standazd ..................................................................................................................... 2
Areas of Investment Policy:
I. Authorities, Control, and Caze .................................................................................2
II. Portfolio Diversification
Eligible Financial Institutions ............................................................................3
Code Authorized Instruments and Portfolio Limitations ...............................3
Safekeeping of Securities ...................................................................................4
City Placement Practice .....................................................................................4
III. Cash Management and Maturities ..........................................................................6
Investment Reporting, Policy Review and Effective Policy Term ............................................6
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
Investment Policv
The purpose of this document is to identify various policies and procedures that enhance opportunities
for a prudent and systematic investment process and to organize and formalize investment-related
activities. The ultimate goal is to enhance the economic status of the City of Arroyo Grande while
protecting its cash resources.
The investment policies and practices of the City of Arroyo Grande and the Arroyo Grande
Redevelopment Agency aze based on state law and prudent money management. All funds will be
invested in accordance with the City's Investment Policy and the authority governing investments for
municipal governments as set forth in the California Government Code.
Investment Obiective
The investment objective of the City of Arroyo Grande is to optimize the following goals:
• Safety
• Liquidity
• Yield
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments shall be undertaken in a manner
that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. Investment decisions should
not incur unreasonable credit or mazket risks in order to obtain current investment income. Credit risk
is the risk of loss due to the failure of the security issuer or broker. Mazket risk is the risk that the
mazket value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general level of interest rates.
The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet its cash flow
requirements. Liquidity of the investments guarantees the City's ability to meet operating expenditures.
The City's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a mazket rate of return
on its' investments consistent with the constraints imposed by its safety objective and cash flow
considerations. Yield is to be a consideration only after the basic requirements of safety and liquidity
have been met.
Optimization means striving to achieve a balance between all three objective goals. Should a demand
be perceived to prioritize the three goals, they aze listed in preferred order.
Prudence Standard
The standard of prudence to be used by the Financial Services Director/designee shall be the "prudent
person rule" and shall be applied in the context of managing City investments. Persons acting in
accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal
responsibility for an individual investment loss, provided that deviations aze reported in a timely
fashion, and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.
Areas of Investment Policv
Authorities. Control and Care:
The Director of Financial Services has been authorized, via Resolutions #2260 and # , to
establish deposit and investment agreements and undertake deposit/investment transactions on
behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande. The Director of Financial Services may delegate to
another official the individual placement of monies in deposit/investment transactions, but
must review and approve each one.
2. The Financial Services Department is responsible for implementing this policy, and
maintaining a system of internal control designed to prevent employee error or imprudent
actions, misrepresentation by parties to an investment agreement, fraud, or unexpected
changes in the financial mazket place.
3. State of California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. 53683 and 16429.1 regulate the
deposit/investment activities of general law cities. See Sec. 53635 and 16429.1. Based
upon the relatively small size of the City's portfolio, the City does not utilize a professional
investment manager. Rather, Arroyo Grande's investment program is simply a part of the
City's financial management activity.
4. The Director of Financial Services (and any delegate) shall use good judgement and care, as
a "prudent person" would, when entering contracts for deposits and investments, and when
placing individual investment transactions. Such care is that which would be exercised by a
person concerning his/her own affairs; not for speculation, but for safe investment and
earned interest.
Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction. Losses could be incurred due to
market price changes, technical cash flow complications such as the need to withdraw a non-
negotiable Time Certificate of Deposit eazly, or even the default of an issuer. To minimize
such risks, diversification of the investment portfolio by institution and by investment
instruments will be used as much as is practical and prudent.
Portfolio Diversification:
1. Eligible Financial Institutions:
Government Code Section 53635 distinguishes between "deposits" and "investments". It
provides that "as faz as possible" City monies shall be "deposited" in State or National
banks, or State or Federal savings and loan associations; or maybe "invested" in specified
instruments. Thus, eligible financial institutions would include:
A. Banks plus savings and loans, primarily for active demand deposits (checking accounts
and passbook savings) and inactive deposits (non-negotiable Time Certificates), also
for investment instruments. See Govemment Code Sec. 53638 for maximum deposit
limitations for banks and savings and loans, involving bank paid up capital and saving
and loan net worth.
B. Brokers and issuers, for various investment instruments listed below.
2. Code Authorized Instruments and Portfolio Limitations:
A. Instruments and Portfolio Limitations are authorized as provided in Government Code
Section 53635 and 16429.1, as follows:
1) Bonds issued by the City of Arroyo Grande. No limit.
2) U.S. Treasury Notes, bonds, bills, or other certificates of indebtedness. No
limit.
3) California State registered notes, bonds, or warrants. No limit.
4) O[her local agencies within California, bonds, notes, warrants, or other
indebtedness. No limit.
5) Obligations issued by Federal agencies such as Federal Home Loan Bank
(PHEW), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), Federal Farm
Credit Bank (FFCB), etc. No limit.
6) Banker's acceptances (bills of exchange or time drafts) drawn on and accepted
by a commercial bank, and which aze'eligible for purchase by the Federal
Reserve System. These are limited to 30 percent of the City's surplus funds,
and limited to 180-day maximum maturities.
7) Commercial paper of "prime" quality, as rated by Moody's htvestor Service or
Standard and Poor's Corporation. These are limited to 15 percent of the City's
portfolio, and limited to 270-day maximum maturities, plus some other
qualifications.
8) FDIC insured or fully collateralized time certificates of deposit in financial
institutions located in California, including United States branches of foreign
banks licensed to do business in California. The maximum maturity of a time
deposit shall not exceed five years.
9) Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, issued by either a National or State bank or
a state or federal savings and loan provided that the senior debt obligations of
the issuing institution are rated "AA" or better by Moody's or Standard &
Poor's. The maximum maturity of a negotiable certificate of deposit shall not
exceed five years. Purchase of negotiable certificates of deposit may not
exceed 30 percent of the book value of the City's portfolio.
10) Repurchase agreements or reverse repurchase agreements, whereby the seller
of securities will repurchase them on a specified date and for a specified
amount.
11) Local Agency Investment Fund, State of California, per Government Code Sec.
16429.1. Pooled monies of various agencies within California. Account size is
limited to a minimum of $5,000 and a maximum limit of $40 million.
Safekeeuin¢ of Securities:
To protect against fraud or embezzlement or losses caused by collapse of an individual securities
dealer, all securities owned by the City shall be held in safekeeping by a third party bank bust
department. Designated third party shall act as agents for the City under the terms of a custody
agreement. All trades executed by a dealer will settle delivery vs. payment (DVP) through the City's
safekeeping agent. Investment officials shall be bonded to protect the public against possible
embezzlement or malice.
Securities held in custody for the City shall be independently audited on an annual basis to verify
investment holdings.
Citv Placement Practice:
1. The following financial institutions will be used by the City of Arroyo Grande, for non-
negotiable Time Certificates of Deposit:
a) Commercial banks having offices in the State of California.
b) Savings and loans maintaining offices in the State of California.
2. The State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (L.A.I.F.) will be utilized, to pool
current surplus City monies for demand deposit earnings.
3. For other investment instnunents, three institutions may be selected from a list of qualified
primary or regional broker/dealers qualifying under SEC rule 15c3-1 (uniform net capital
4
rule). Broker/dealers must be licensed in the State of California and be headquartered or
maintain a branch office in the State of California.
All brokers/dealers shall carry Errors and Omissions insurance with a limit of not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence. Proof of existence of said insurance shall be provided to the
City at its request and the City shall be notified if the policy is cancelled or coverage is
reduce below $1,000,000.
4. Prior to establishing a contract for deposit of monies per Sec. 53649, or placing an
individual investment, the credit-worthiness of each financial institution will be
determined. As a minimum, the ratio of net worth (equity) to total assets shall be 3.0% or
more.
5. No more than 30% of the City's available surplus shall be placed with any one financial
institution (excluding the State L.A.I.F. and government agency issues).
6. No more than 50% of the City's available surplus shall be placed with savings and loan
institutions.
7. The City, as authorized in Government Code Sections 53635 and 16429.1, may use all
deposit and investment instnunents; except repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements
shall not be used. However, non-negotiable time certificates with commercial banks and
savings and loans, plus deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, will be the
primary instruments used by the City, along with possible U.S. Treasury bills and bankers
acceptances.
8. Collateral security on Certificates of Deposit will be provided in accordance to
Government Code Sections 53651and 53653 by the commercial banks and savings and
loans, at 110% when government securities are used, or at 150% when promissory notes
secured by 1st mortgages or 1st bust deeds on improved residential real property located in
California are used.
9. Individual placements of deposits and investments will be made based upon highest rate
quotes, inmost instances.
10. Within the context of any portfolio limitations and quoted rates, deposits shall be
distributed between institutions as evenly as practical or possible.
5
Cash Manaeement and Maturities:
1. A maximum investment of all City monies, not needed to meet current cash flow needs,
will be maintained as closely as practical. A sufficient compensating balance will also be
provided, regarding the City's banking service agreement.
2. All monetary resources will be pooled for investment purposes, to maximize interest
earnings, which will be periodically allocated to the various funds of the City based upon
average cash balances at month ends. No interest will be credited to individual accounts
within the various funds.
3. Time deposits and investments will be held to maturity, unless it is absolutely necessary to
sell an investment early due to an unexpected liability.
4. Maturities of deposits and investments will be scheduled in such a manner as to provide a
steady stream of available cash to meet cash flow needs. The California State Local
Agency Investment Fund deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande are available on a same-
day/next-day telephone call basis.
Investment Reuortin~, Policv Review and
Effective Policv Term
Government Code Secfion 53646 requires a report of earned interest be prepared following each
calendar quarter. The text requires the Director of Financial Services to submit annually to the City
Council a statement of investment policy. Tn addition, the text requires the Director of Financial
Services to submit to the City Council a monthly report, providing the following information:
1. Type of investment.
2. Financial institution (bank, savings and loan, broker, etc).
3. Date of maturity.
4. Principal amount.
5. Rate of interest.
6. Current market value for all securities having a maturity of more than 12 months.
7. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of investment policy.
The City's independent certified public accountant shall review and make recommendations, when
appropriate, regarding the City of Arroyo Grande's investment policy.
6
RESOLUTION NO._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHOR121NG THE DEPOSIT OF
CITY FUNDS IN VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande normally has excess funds not currently needed
to fund operating expenditures, and such excess funds are currently deposited by prior
agreement with various financial institutions, including, but not limited to the State Local
Agency Investment Fund (LAIF);
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53635 distinguishes between "deposits" and
"investments", and specifically provides that City monies shall be "deposited" in State or
National banks, or State or Federal savings and loan associations; or may be "invested"
in specified instruments; and
WHEREAS, eligible financial institutions would include banks and savings and loans,
primarily for active demand deposits (checking accounts and passbook savings),
inactive deposits (non-negotiable Time Certificates), and investment instruments.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. That the City of Arroyo Grande employees in the positions listed below, are hereby
authorized to enter into agreements to deposit or withdraw money from financial
institutions located in California, including United States branches of foreign banks
licensed to do business in California, upon determination of financial soundness of
such financial institutions, by the City of Arroyo Grande.
Director of Financial Services
Accounting Supervisor
City Manager
2. This Resolution supersedes Resolution 2261 dated October 25, 1988.
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 AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
8.d.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Ferrara called the Regular City Council/RDA meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council/RDA: Council/Board Members Joe Costello, Jim Guthrie, Chuck Fellows, Mayor
Pro TemNice Chair Ed Arnold and Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara were present.
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, Assistant City Engineer
Mike Linn, Chief of Police Tony Aeilts, Police Commander Craig Hendricks,
and Director of Building and Fire Mike Hubert.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Ferrara led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor Randy Ouimette, St. John's Lutheran Church and Arroyo Grande Fire Chaplain, delivered
the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Presentation of Badge to Michael Hubert, Director of Building and Fire.
Mayor Ferrara introduced and welcomed Michael Hubert as the new Director of Building and
Fire/Fire Chief for the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. City of Grover Beach Mayor
Steve Lieberman also welcomed Chief Hubert. Mayor Ferrara presented Chief Hubert with his
Badge and invited Mrs. Robin Hubert to pin the Badge on Chief Hubert. On behalf of the
Firefighters, Firefighter Kevin McLean presented Chief Hubert with a new belt buckle.
5.b. Honorary Proclamation Declaring April 2007 as "Month of the Child" and "Child
Abuse Prevention Month".
Mayor Ferrara presented an Honorary Proclamation declaring April 2007 as "Month of the Child"
and "Child Abuse Prevention Month" and April 14, 2007 as "Day of the Child". Maddy Quaglino
accepted the Proclamation, announced that Arroyo Grande United Methodist Children's Center is
hosting an Open House on Thursday, April 26'h at 6:30 p.m., and spoke of upcoming events to
assist in fundraising efforts for their facility improvement projects. She also distributed a flyer
announcing an upcoming event on April 14`" called "Children's Day in the Plaza" to be held at San
Luis Obispo's Mission Plaza, and distributed Month of the Child ribbons, pins, and artwork to the
Council and staff.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page 2
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council/Board Member Costello 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
Linda Sheoard, Linda Drive, expressed concerns regarding plans for a proposed pet store in Phase
2 of the Five Cities Center as it relates to the sale of dogs and cats. She noted that she did not
oppose the pet store itself; however, she opposed the sale of dogs and cats and suggested the City
consider regulations to prohibit pet stores from selling dogs and cats. She also expressed concerns
about drainage flowing from the cemetery to Bennett and Linda Drive.
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.
Steve Ross, Garden Street, referred to Item 8.d. and requested an explanation of the proposed
changes to the Community Tree Program. City Manager Adams explained that the Ordinance
includes language to define a dead regulated tree, as well as provisions regarding tree replacement
in the event a regulated tree dies.
There were no further public comments received.
Council/Board Member Fellows moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.1., with the
recommended courses of action. Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Arnold seconded the motion. City
Attorney Carmel read the title of the Ordinance in Item 8.d. as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER
12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
COMMUNITY TREE PROGRAM" The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Fellows, Arnold, Costello, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period March 1, 2007 through
March 15, 2007.
8.b. Consideration of Statement of Investment Deposits.
Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of February 28,
2007.
8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meeting and
Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of March 13, 2007, as submitted.
8.d. Consideration of Adoption of 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
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page 3
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 585 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
COMMUNITY TREE PROGRAM"
8.e. Consideration of Funding Request for the America In Bloom Program.
Action: Approved $500 for the America In Bloom Program.
8.f. Consideration of Agreement with Bob Murray & Associates for Police Chief
Recruitment.
Action: Authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Bob Murray &
Associates to provide consultant services to coordinate the recruitment process for the
position of Police Chief and appropriate $16,500.
8.g. Consideration of Temporary Use Permit No. 07-001 to Authorize the Use of City
Property and to Close City Streets for the Annual Arroyo Valley People's Choice
Cruise Night on July 27, 2007 and Car Sho on July 28, 2007.
Action: Considered the request from the Arroyo Valley Car Club and adopted
Resolution No. 4002 as follows: `A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 07-001;
AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS AND THE USE OF CITY
PROPERTY FOR THE ARROYO VALLEY PEOPLE'S CHOICE CAR SHO AND
CRUISE EVENT TO BE HELD ON FRIDAY, JULY 27 AND SATURDAY, JULY 28,
200T'.
8.h. Consideration of Authorization to Use City Property and Close City Streets for the
Annual Arroyo Grande Strawberry Festival on May 26-27, 2007; Temporary Use
Permit No. 07-003.
Action: Considered the request from the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement
Association and adopted Resolution No. 4003 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE
OF CITY STREETS AND USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR THE ANNUAL STRAWBERRY
FESTIVAL, MAY 26-27, 2007; TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 07-003"
8.i. Consideration of Approval of Agreement for Contractor Services Regarding Tow
Services.
Action: Approved the Agreement for Contractor Services regarding tow services with
College Towing, Inc., dba College Towing South, 94 Atlantic City Avenue, Grover
Beach, for two (2) years, beginning March 28, 2007 through March 27, 2009.
8.j. Consideration of Authorization to Accept the 2006 Department of Homeland
Security Assistance to Firefighters Grant and Provide Matching Funds.
Action: Accepted the 2006 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Firefighters
Grant and provide matching funds.
8.k. Consideration of Use of City Property at Faeh Street and EI Camino Real by the
San Luis Obispo County YMCA for a Fireworks Stand.
[COUNCIL/RDA]
Action: Authorized the use of the City owned property at Faeh Street and EI Camino
Real by the YMCA for sale of fireworks.
8.1. Consideration of Resolution Certifying the Five-Year Radar Speed Survey and
Establishment of Speed Limits on West Branch Street and East Grand Avenue.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page 4
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 4001 as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE FIVE-YEAR
RADAR SPEED SURVEY AND ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON EAST GRAND
AVENUE AND WEST BRANCH STREET':
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS
10.a. Consideration to Remove the Existing Stop Sign and Crosswalk on James Way at
the Intersection of Hidden Oak Road.
Assistant City Engineer Linn presented the staff report and recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution to remove the existing stop signs, advanced lighting assemblies, and the crosswalk
on James Way at the Hidden Oak Road intersection.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter.
Cade Newman, representing Village Glen Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the
removal of the stop signs and crosswalks on James Way at the intersection of Hidden Oak Road.
He requested the Council postpone consideration of the proposal until a final decision has been
made by Lucia Mar Unified School District regarding development of the Hidden Oaks school site.
He also stated there was a need to stripe James Way between Hidden Oak and Tally Ho as an
additional safety measure.
Joan LeGrand, Village Glen homeowner, spoke in opposition to the removal of the stop signs and
crosswalks on James Way at the intersection of Hidden Oak Road.
Steve Ross, Garden Street, noted that he was a member of the City's Traffic Commission and
spoke in support of removing the stop signs and crosswalks on James Way at the intersection of
Hidden Oak Road. He noted that the stop signs and lighting are unwarranted according to Caltrans
standards.
James LeGrand, Village Glen homeowner, spoke in opposition to the removal of the stop signs and
crosswalks on James Way at the intersection of Hidden Oak Road.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council comments and discussion ensued regarding State regulations for installation of stop signs;
that stop signs are not intended to be used as traffic calming devices; acknowledgment of safety
concerns expressed by the residents, as well as the costs incurred for installation of the signs and
crosswalks; acknowledgment that there is a lot of traffic on James Way, but not from the side
streets; that there is a good, clear line of sight approaching the intersection from both directions;
that redundant stop signs are known to result in increased air pollution; acknowledgment that the
stop signs were originally installed to be a protective measure for the pedestrians accessing the
proposed school site, however, there are no immediate plans to build a school at the Hidden Oak
location according to the Lucia Mar Unified School District; recognition that if the lighting assemblies
were to be removed, the conduit would remain under the street for future use; support for
researching other traffic calming measures; and consensus supporting the removal of the stop
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
signs and crosswalks. Mayor Ferrara stated he was reluctant to approve removal of the signs and
noted that when standards could not be met, he believed mitigating circumstances and factors
relating to safety could be identified that would justify the need for the signs. He said he did not
have any concern with disconnecting the flashing light sign; however, he did not support removing
the stop signs and crosswalks at this time.
Council Member Guthrie moved to adopt a Resolution as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE REMOVING STOP SIGNS ON JAMES WAY AT
HIDDEN OAK ROAD" and to direct staff to research options for traffic calming measures between
Rancho Parkway and Tally Ho Road. Council Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed
on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Fellows, Costello, Arnold
NOES: Ferrara
ABSENT: None
11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
11.a. Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.28.050.D. of Title 2
of the Municipal Code to Allow the Senior Advisory Commission, by Resolution,
to Adopt Rules and Regulations to Govern Meetings.
Interim Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Perrin presented the staff report and
recommended the Council introduce an Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Section 2.28.050.D. to allow the Senior Advisory Commission, by resolution, to adopt rules and
regulations to govern meetings.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter,
and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period.
Mayor Ferrara stated that a member of the Senior Advisory Commission had brought this issue to
his attention. Council comments included support for the proposal, noting that it was a logical step
and that it would provide the Commission with flexibility to set their own meeting schedule by
Resolution and would reduce costs.
Council Member Costello moved to introduce an Ordinance as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION
2.28.050.D. OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE MEETINGS
OF THE SENIOR ADVISORY COMMISSION". Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the
motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Costello, Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
11.b. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section 10.08.060.B. of the City of
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.
City Manager Adams presented the staff report and recommended the Council introduce an
Ordinance amending Section 10.08.060.8. of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code entitled
"Prohibition of Solicitation at Entrances to Commercial Parking Areas and Upon Public Right of
Way Areas".
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter,
and upon hearing no public comments, he closed the public comment period.
Council comments included support for the proposed Ordinance, which would allow fundraising
activities in the public right of way by any person or organization acting on behalf of anon-profit
organization, provided the activity does not interfere with the safe and orderly flow of traffic and
the person or organization has obtained a public safety and welfare permit from the Chief of
Police.
Council Member Costello moved to introduce an Ordinance as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 10.08.060.8. OF
THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE". Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion
passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Costello, Arnold, Guthrie, Fellows, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
a. MAYOR TONY FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). Attended Executive Board meeting at which the
Regional Traffic Model was discussed. Mayor Ferrara expressed concerns with the
population and job generation projections for Arroyo Grande and felt the numbers
need to be further explored. Upon consensus of the Council, staff was directed to
review the data in context with the City's General Plan.
(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). Met last week; Primary
issue is County review of a proposed Ordinance dealing with the disposal of plastic
bags. Members of the Board will be working with the City Attorneys to draft a model
Ordinance regarding restrictions for the use of plastic bags.
(2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). Reported that the Wine Study was
completed and released; noted that there are over 220 wineries located in San Luis
Obispo County.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Page 7
b. MAYOR PRO TEM ED ARNOLD (con'd):
(3) Other. As member of the Oceano Dunes Task Force, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold
reported that he met with Rick Castro, President of Arroyo Grande Hospital, who
indicated that the off-road vehicle activities on the Dunes have a neutral to positive
impact on the Hospital's cash flow.
c. COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board. Received an update on the Downstream Release
Program; budget for the upcoming year has been approved; the Board has
requested a review of the annual budget for the Lopez Recreation area.
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD). No report. Meets tomorrow.
(3) Fire Oversight Committee. Cooperation between Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach
continues to move forward; acknowledged and welcomed new Fire Chief Mike
Hubert.
(4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee. Looking for economies of equipment
and potential surplus of equipment among various agencies; and continuing to look
towards consolidation of dispatch functions.
(5) Other. None.
d. COUNCIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT). Announced that the new hybrid bus will be
debuted at Ramona Garden Park in Grover Beach on Thursday, March 29"' at 2:00
p. m.
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). No report.
(3) Other. None.
e. COUNCIL MEMBER CHUCK FELLOWS:
(1) South County Youth Coalition. No report.
(2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). No report.
(3) Other. Attended the League of California Cities Planner's Institute.
13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
Council Member Costello referred to public comment earlier regarding pet store sales of dogs and
cats and asked about potential follow-up. Following brief Council discussion, staff was directed to
research whether or not local regulations exist regarding the sale of dogs and cats from pet stores.
14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
None.
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Member Fellows gave a report on his attendance at the League of California Cities
Planner's Institute and noted he attended the following sessions: "Potential for California Growth";
"Avoiding Litigation by Identifying a Project's Impacts and Drafting Conditions of Approval that
Mitigate Impacts and Drafting Findings that Support Conclusions"; "Analyzing a General Plan - Is it
Good, Is it Working"; "Pros and Cons of Parking Meters"; "Creating Activity Friendly Community
Environments"; "Round-Abouts and Other Alternative Traffic Devices"; "Making Good Decisions
That Can Withstand a Challenge"; "Addressing Concerns Regarding Affordable Housing"; and
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 8
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
"Making Better Use of Public Input by Recognizing and Understanding Generations". He stated the
workbook was available for review if anyone was interested.
Mayor Ferrara announced that he, Council Member Costello, and Mayor Pro Tem Arnold would be
attending League of California Cities Policy Committee Meetings this week.
Mayor Ferrara announced that he and staff had taken Chip Visci, President and Publisher of The
Tribune, and several members of his editorial staff on a tour of the City.
Mayor Ferrara announced that the Mayor and Council Member Department of the League would be
sponsoring an Executive Forum in July where new workshops would be offered. He stated that
Planner Jim Bergman and Bob Lund would be presenting the America In Bloom and Arroyo Grande
In Bloom programs. He noted that facilitators were needed to moderate some sessions and
encouraged the Council to participate.
16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
City Manager Adams stated that a Special Meeting/Budget Workshop would be scheduled in May
and asked whether the Council would be available on May 16"'. Council Members Guthrie and
Costello responded they would not be available on that date. Following brief discussion, May 29'"
was identified as a potential date and each Council Member was requested to follow up with staff to
confirm their availability.
17. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
None.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg )
8.e.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MICHAEL E. HUBERT, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE /'~~`'`
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE AWARD OF BID FOR PURCHASE OF BUILDING AND
LIFE SAFETY DIVISION 4 x 4 UTILITY PASSENGER HYBRID VEHICLE
AND APPROVE FUNDING INCREASE
DATE: APRIL 10, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council: 1) authorize the award of bid to purchase a 2008
4x4 Utility Passenger Hybrid Vehicle for the Building and Life Safety Division from
Mullahey Ford in the amount of $28,063.41; and 2) appropriate an additional $7,063.41
to be added to the already budgeted $21,000.
FUNDING:
Funding in the amount of $21,000 is budgeted in the FY 2006/07 Building and Life
Safety Division Vehicle account fora replacement vehicle. The recommended
purchase bid price for the vehicle is $26,788.41 plus $1,275 for a Seven Year/75,000
mile Ford Premium Care Extended Warranty, for a total of $28,063.41. An additional
$7,063.41 is needed to purchase the vehicle, which will be budgeted from the
unappropriated General Fund Balance.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 2006/07 Building and Life Safety Division budget contains funding for one
passenger vehicle to allow replacement of the 1987 Chevy Blazer. To meet the needs
of the Building & Life Safety Division, this additional funding will allow for the purchase
of a hybrid vehicle to meet the City's desire to be economically, environmentally, and
fiscally responsible. This request complies with the City's Administrative Policies and
Procedures Manual Section C-006, Evaluation Criteria for Replacement of Standard
Equipment.
The following bids were received for the replacement vehicle:
1. Perry Ford, San Luis Obispo, CA $27,339.09
2. Mullahey Ford, Arroyo Grande, CA $28,063.41
3. Paso Robles Ford, Paso Robles, CA $32,006.56
All three bids include tax, shipping, warranty, and dealer preparation. Staff
recommends that the vehicle be purchased from Mullahey Ford. This request complies
with the City's Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual General Policies, which
state that a 5% local preference is given to community vendors when all factors are
equal except price.
CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF BID FOR PURCHASE OF BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY
DIVISION 4x4 UTILITY PASSENGER HYBRID VEHICLE AND APPROVE FUNDING
INCREASE
APRIL 10, 2007
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staff's recommendation;
- Do not approve staff's recommendation;
- Modify as appropriate and approve staffs recommendation;
- Provide direction to staff.
8.f.
MEMORANDUM -~
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER ~~`t'
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO STANDARDS FOR
WEST BRANCH STREET SPECIAL EVENT BANNERS
DATE: APRIL 10, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution, which will
approve recommended amendments to the City's Standards for West Branch
Street Special Event Banners.
FUNDING:
There is no cost impact from this item.
DISCUSSION:
At the January 23, 2001 meeting, the City Council approved Plot Plan Review
Case No. 00-016, which involved an application by Derril Pilkington on behalf of
the Car Sho to install two steel cables across West Branch Street for the display
of community based special event banners. Along with the project approval,
standards involving installation and the types of banners were adopted. To
ensure the banners are displayed safely, they are placed and removed by the
Fire Department.
In response to recent requests received for banners for additional events, staff is
recommending the following changes to the standards:
1. It is recommended the Village Summer Concert Series be included in the
list of ongoing events that are authorized to display a banner.
2. It is recommended that other one-time community activities that the City is
a co-sponsor of, or involved in, be allowed to display a banner. This will
enable the City to restrict requests from private organizations to display
banners for miscellaneous events, but allow banners for one-time public
events that occur. For example, a request has been submitted to display
a banner for the Clark Center 5-year anniversary celebration. Since the
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO STANDARDS FOR WEST BRANCH
STREET SPECIAL EVENT BANNERS
APRIL 10, 2007
PAGE 2
City provided funding assistance for construction of the Clark Center, this
event would be allowed.
3. It is recommended the restrictions on the amount of time banners may be
displayed be changed from no more than 10 days before and 2 days after
to 30 days before and 7 days after the event. As an example, the Harvest
Festival normally requests to make the banner available for the entire
month of September. In addition, while attempts are made to remove the
banner as quickly as possible after the event is completed, two days is
often unrealistic given other staffing demands.
4. It is recommended that the requirement for aten-day interval between
banners be eliminated. There may instances when it saves staff time to
install the next banner at the same time one is being removed.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Adopt the attached Resolution, which will approve recommended
amendments to the City's Standards for West Branch Street
Special Event Banners;
- Require that any event not specifically listed in the City's Standards
for West Branch Street Special Event Banners require City Council
approval in order to display a banner;
- Make other changes and then approve the City's Standards for
West Branch Street Special Event Banners;
- Provide staff with other direction.
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Banner Standazds Report 4.10.07.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL EVENT BANNERS
FOR COMMUNITY BASED EVENTS
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2001, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted
Resolution No. 3504, which approved Plot Plan Review Case No. 00-016 to install two
steel cables across West Branch Street attached to the Posies Building at 106 West
Branch Street and the Olohan Building at 102 Bridge Street for the display of community
based special event banners, as well as established standards for the special event
banners; and
WHEREAS, the standards were designed to restrict the special event banners for
promotion of community based events, to direct the design of banners to be consistent with
the character of the Village, and to ensure that banners will be created and installed in a
safe manner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the City to
modify the standards for special event banners for community events in order to address
items that have been identified in administering the existing standards and in response to
banner requests that have been submitted to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
approves the standards for West Branch Street special event banners as set forth in
Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
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
STANDARDS FOR WEST BRANCH STREET
SPECIAL EVENT BANNERS
Current Approved List of Events: (Banners may be permitted only for community-
based events)
Easter in the Village/ Easter Egg Hunt (first weekend in April)
Strawberry Festival (last weekend in May)
Fourth of July (July 4`h)
Arroyo Grande Car Show (last weekend in July)
Harvest Festival (last weekend in September)
Halloween Carnival (last weekend in October)
Christmas In The Village (December)
Village Summer Concert Series (summer)
Other one-time community activities that the City is involved with and/or a co-
sponsor of.
Banner Location: Two cables span West Branch St. attached with eye bolts
directly to the Posies Store at 106 West Branch Street and the "Olohan" building
at 102 Bridge Street.
Banner Review Process: Apply for banner approval through the Community
Development Department. ARC reviews banners the first time they are proposed
during the Temporary Use Permit process. Additional events, not listed above,
shall be reviewed by the Staff Advisory Committee prior to approval. The Fire
Department will place and remove banners.
Banner Standards:
^ Banner size shall be 32 inches tall and up to 24 feet long.
• The banners should have aturn-of-the-century/early 1900 's appearance and be
consistent in layout with graphics to complement the particular event. "Old-
time" fonts are preferred to give the banner a handcrafted appearance. Fonts
with a modern, computer generated look are discouraged. See attached font
examples.
^ Banners may have lettering on both sides.
• Support cables shall be 40 ft. long with the banner centered. The bottom cable
shall have a 20 foot clearance. Support cables shall be 3/8 inch steel. The
banner shall include eyelets to slide across cables, and be double-stitched
across the full length. Each corner shall be quadruple-stitched for 1 ft. from
each corner and across the support cables.
Special Event Banner Standards
Page 2 of 2
• Banners may be displayed for no more than 30 days prior to an event and 7
days afterward.
• Banners shall have wind relief cuts, 1 ft. on center 14" X 4" horseshoe cuts).
Banner material is to be weather resistant.
• The name of the Event shall be printed in the largest and boldest type. The
location and date shall be printed in a type size smaller that that of the event.
The name and/or logo of the non-profit organization sponsoring the event may
be displayed in a type size smaller than that of the date and location. No other
messages, including advertising may be displayed.
• All banners must be approved by the ARC.
8.g.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM DESTINATION
IMAGINATION
DATE: APRIL 10, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve a $500 contribution to the Destination
Imagination Global Competition teams.
FUNDING:
The cost impact of the recommendation would be $500. There are existing funds in the
General Fund budget due to cost savings in non-departmental accounts that can be
utilized. Therefore, rio appropriation is necessary.
DISCUSSION:
During the past several years, the City Council has received and approved funding
requests from the Destination Imagination program for costs associated with teams from
Arroyo Grande representing California in the Global Finals competition. Last year, the
City Council approved a contribution of $1,000. Previous contributions have been as
high as $2,000.
Destination Imagination has requested $1,000.this year. However, staff recommends a
contribution of $500 because expenditures may exceed revenues in FY 2006-07 due to
a number of necessary mid-year expenditures that have been appropriated. In
addition, existing planning for the upcoming budget indicates that budget reductions will
likely be necessary in the operating budget. However, staff recommends that the City
maintain some level of sponsorship for the program. Destination Imagination leaders
are pursuing a proposal to host the State finals in Arroyo Grande next year.
Demonstration of a partnership with the City will assist them in obtaining approval,
which would provide a number of benefits to the community.
This year, two teams are competing from the Lucia Mar Unified School District -one
from Ocean View Elementary School and one from Judkins Middle School. Both teams
have members from Arroyo Grande. The City of Pismo Beach and County Board of
CITY COUNCIL
FUNDING REQUEST FROM DESTINATION IMAGINATION
APRIL 10, 2007
PAGE 2
Supervisors have also been requested to approve donations. Both jurisdictions have
provided financial support in the past.
The Global finals will be held at the University of Tennessee on May 23 -May 27, 2007.
Destination Imagination is a world problem solving competition. A copy of their request
is attached.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Appropriate and approve a contribution of $500 to Destination Imagination;
- Approve a contribution of a different amount;
- Do not approve a contribution;
Provide staff direction.
Attachment:
Funding request from Mike Liebo
S:\Administra[ion\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports\Destination Imagination Report 2007.doc
Rc~E1VE11~ ~;. ~,~,;~,~~
TO: Steve Adams (;1T~t ~l~ r~1~t~.QYQ
Ol RPR -2 Pty 3' 16
FROM: Mike Liebo
CONCERNING: Destination Imagination Global Finals Funding
Hi Steve,
California State Global Finals, as you know, was held in Sacramento on Saturday, March 31. Two
teams from our azea, Ocean View in Arroyo Grande, and Judkins in Pismo Beach are winners of the state
championship and will proceed to Global Finals at the University of Tennessee May 23-May 27.
I am hoping the City of An•oyo Grande can contribute $1000.00 towazds the national finals. When
this annual competition begins each October, I tell parents and students that it is supported by the Lucia Mar
Unified School District, the cities of Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach, and the Board of Supervisors.
Because this partnership has occurred for a number of years, I have proposed to the Lucia Mar
Unified School District that we hold the State Finals in Destination Imagination in Arroyo Grande and
Pismo Beach in 2009. Five thousand competitors will come to our area for Destination Imagination State
Finals. My belief is that this would have a tremendous impact on tourism, not only for 2009, but for years
to come. When people come to our area for the first time, I strongly believe that they fall in love with the
Central Coast and return again and again.
Our district would have to absorb the cost of holding this competition; my argument is that we are
helping tourism in our local cities for supporting the Destination Imagination program.
Hence, it would be extremely helpful if Arroyo Grande could, once again, contribute $500.00 for
each team this yeaz. I believe this support fosters encouragement to parents and students who attend our
local schools. Thank-you for your consideration of this funding.
Sincerely,
Mike L~b~
8.h.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
STEVEN ADAMS CITY MANAGER
' ~.
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY~~
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
10.08.060(b) OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE
DATE: APRIL 10, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Section 10.08.060(b)
of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code entitled "Prohibition of Solicitation at
Entrances to Commercial Parking Areas and Upon Public Right-of-Way Areas."
FUNDING:
There is no funding impact to the City from this Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
At the March 27, 2007 meeting, the City Council introduced the attached Ordinance,
which will amend the City's existing Municipal Code regulations prohibiting solicitation at
entrances to commercial areas and upon public rights-of-way. The purpose of the
prohibition is to eliminate traffic safety hazards that are created by these activities.
Exemptions are provided to non-profit organizations in parking lots under certain
circumstances.
The Ordinance will provide the ability to issue permits for solicitation in the public right-
of-way when it can be demonstrated that the applicant possesses the necessary public
safety and traffic safety knowledge and expertise to ensure the activity will not create a
traffic safety hazard. The Ordinance also extends exemptions to organizations raising
funds on behalf of anon-profit organization.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Approve staffs recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Section
10.08.060(b) of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code;
2. Modify and reintroduce the proposed Ordinance;
3. Do not approve staffs recommendation;
4. Provide direction to staff.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 10.08.060.6. OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 559 which
prohibited solicitation at entrances to commercial areas and upon public right of ways;
and
WHEREAS, such prohibition was intended to promote the safe and orderly flow of
traffic; and
WHEREAS, Arroyo Grande Municipal Code 10.08.060.6. exempts from such prohibition
non-profit organizations conducting fundraising activities within a commercial parking
area with the permission of the owner, provided such activity does not interfere with the
safe and orderly flow of traffic entering or exiting the parking area onto city streets and
said organization has obtained a public safety and welfare permit from the chief of
police; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that an exemption should be provided to any person
or organization raising money on behalf of any non-profit organization as well as to
allow fundraising activities on certain public rights of way, so long as such activities do
not negatively impact traffic flow or public safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande, as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals and findings are true, correct, and incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 10.08.060.6. is hereby amended in
its entirety to read as follows:
10.08.060.6. This section shall not apply to any non-profit organization, or any person or
organization acting on behalf of anon-profit organization, conducting a fundraising activity;
provided such activity does not interfere with the safe and orderly flow of traffic and said
person or organization has obtained a public safety and welfare permit from the chief of
police, with appropriate conditions imposed thereon. A public safety and welfare permit
shall be issued only when the following apply: 1) the applicant satisfactorily demonstrates
an understanding of the principles of traffic flow and public safety through education,
training or experience adequate to address the circumstances of the proposed fundraising
activity; and 2) that the location and time of the proposed fundraising activity will not
significantly impact traffic flow or public safety.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
SECTION 4. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, is for
any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinande,
and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions,
sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
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.
On motion by Council Member
and by the following roll call vote to wit:
seconded by Council Member
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2007.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
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
.1.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DOUG PERRIN, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND
FACILITIES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 2.28.050D OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ALLOW THE SENIOR ADVISORY COMMISSION, BY
RESOLUTION, TO ADOPT RULES AND REGULATIONS TO GOVERN
MEETINGS
DATE: APRIL 10, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code Section 2.28.050.D of Title 2 to allow the Senior Advisory Commission,
by Resolution, to adopt rules and regulations to govern meetings.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
On March 27, 2007, the City Council introduced, without modification, the attached
Ordinance amending Section 2.28.050.D of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to allow
the Senior Advisory Commission, by Resolution, to adopt rules and regulations to
govern meetings. The amendment would provide the Senior Advisory Commission with
the flexibility to establish meeting dates and times without having to introduce
Ordinance amendments.
It is recommended the City Council adopt the Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the Ordinance;
2. Modify and reintroduce the Ordinance;
3. Do not adopt the Ordinance; or
4. Provide direction to staff.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 2.28.050.D. OF
THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
THE MEETINGS OF THE SENIOR ADVISORY COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Senior Advisory Commission currently meets on a quarterly basis on the first
Wednesday in August, November, February and May at 3:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the Senior Advisory Commission desires to amend its regular meeting
schedule from a quarterly basis to an as needed basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Section 2.28.050.D. of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended
in its entirety, as follows:
Section 2.28.050.D. Rules and Regulations--Meetings. The commission shall, by
resolution, adopt rules and regulations to govern meetings.
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be
declared unlawful.
SECTION 3: Within fifteen (15) days after passage of this Ordinance, it shall be published
once, together with the names of the Council Members voting thereon, in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its passage.
On motion of Council Member ,seconded by Council Member ,and on the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted this day of 2007.
ORDINANCE 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
10.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~
BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER'~~
SUBJECT: PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION (CASE NO. 06-009): REVISED
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CASE NO. 01-001)
TO SUBDIVIDE A 26.6-ACRE PROPERTY INTO SEVENTEEN
(17) RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE PERMANENTLY
PRESERVED OPEN SPACE PARCEL
DATE: APRIL 10, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Review and provide preliminary comments on a revised project description for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development 01-001, otherwise
known as Tract 1998 (Attachments 1-2); and
2) Approve a contract amendment for the preparation of Addendum No. 2 to the
previously certified Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
by Rincon Consultants (Exhibit "A").
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On November 22, 2005 and December 13, 2005, the City Council considered a
proposed 21 unit project on the 26.6 acre property at James Way and La Canada.
Attachment 3 contains the findings for denial documenting concerns about the project
emphasized by the City Council during the public hearing. Discussion at the public
hearings for the proposed 21 unit project focused on the configuration of proposed
development and infrastructure, and the resulting significant environmental effects. The
City Council voted 5-0 to deny the project, without prejudice. It should be noted that the
Council discussed proposed mitigation measures and project enhancements, and
expressed a concern that due to some positive aspects of the project, a no-project
alternative was not necessarily the most desirable outcome.
Denial of a project without prejudice means that the applicant is able to modify the
proposal considering the findings made by the City Council and return to the City
clrv couNCIL
APRIL 10, 2007
Page 2 of 6
Council for consideration of a modified project within one year and maintain the project's
original vesting status. On December 13, 2006, the applicant submitted a revised
project description. The applicant has requested the pre-application be presented to the
City Council in order to receive feedback on whether the proposal addresses and
resolves concerns expressed by the Council and community prior to proceeding with the
formal application (Attachment 4.)
Revised Proiect Description
The revised project description includes 17 lots ranging from 7,200 - 9,985 sq. ft.,
clustered on about 3.5 acres in the northeastern area of the site, and one approximate
22-acre lot (82% of the project area) permanently reserved as open space. Access to
the site remains to be provided by a public road from La Canada, varying in width from
32 ft. to 24 ft. in order to reduce impacts to trees, areas of Pismo clarkia (a listed rare
and endangered plant) and riparian habitat.
Proiect Comparison and Issue Identification
Attachment 3 includes additional background and an analysis of the prior project, zoning
and General Plan details and information on the Rancho Grande Master Plan. The
proposed project removes all the density and road from the southern area of the project
site and concentrates development in the vicinity of an eroded hillside drainage on the
northern section of the site. However, as previous environmental constraint maps
S:\COmmuniry Development\PROJECTS\TfM\VTTM 01-001 (T1998)\2007\cc 041007 sr.doc
clTV couNCa
APRIL 10, 2007
Page 3 of 6
indicate, there are very few areas of the site where development would not cause some
level of adverse impact.
The primary issues of concern for the Council in previous deliberations concentrated on
Pismo clarkia protection, Oak tree removal, riparian area impacts, fire safety, wildlife
corridor, slope and adequacy of HOA managed long-term maintenance of the open
space parcel and habitat. Environmental impacts for the previous project are
summarized in the 2005 SEIR Addendum (Attachment 5). Environmental review of the
revised project is forthcoming. Preliminary analysis of some of the relevant issues are
as follows:
• Pismo clarkia is a federally listed Endangered and State-listed rare plant species
that requires avoidance for adequate mitigation. The proposed project appears
to avoid the areas of known occurrences, as well as the required 50-foot buffer
as required by the certified SEIR. Environmental review will consider if the Class
I impact would be mitigated by the project redesign to a level less than
significant. Additional mitigation measures would still be required in order to
protect the Pismo clarkia during construction, after construction, and for long
term monitoring and reporting.
• Oak Tree removal and impacts to Oak woodland habitat are described in the
2005 Addendum to the SEIR, along with mitigation measures that would still
apply to the proposed project. Of the estimated 1,260 Oak trees on site, 33 Oak
trees are proposed to be removed and mitigated by replanting new Oak trees of
various sizes at a ratio of 4 replacement trees for each tree removed. An
additional 27 Oak trees will be transplanted. Mitigation for failed transplants over
time are included in project mitigation. The project avoids areas of densely
clustered trees and generally avoids areas of connected canopy by lot location
and road width and meander. Mitigation also includes pre-construction survey
and detailed tree protection plan prior to approval of any grading permits to allow
for re-evaluation after final tract approvals. However, direct impacts to Oak trees
and indirect impacts to Oak woodland habitat will be evaluated in terms of
required project and environmental findings. The extension of the development
along the north perimeter of the site may still impact the wildlife corridor if it
disconnects areas of Oak woodland. Additionally, some trees that are proposed
to be removed are substantial in size; two have 30-inch diameter trunks. The
proposed project represents a reduction of impacted trees from a total of 170 to
60 Oak trees. Several Eucalyptus trees would also be removed in order to
contribute to riparian corridor enhancement and restoration.
• Riparian and wetland impacts are reduced by the proposed project, but are still
impacted due to the road crossing and culvert, proximity of the road within the
riparian buffer, and lot development along an incised hillside drainage.
However, these impacts are reduced since the roadway and lots are removed
from the southern area of the site and from the northwestern portion of the
roadway. Aside from the road, only proposed Lot No. 1 appears to encroach into
S:\Community Developmenl\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM 01-001 (T1998)\2007\cc 041007 sr.doc
clrv courlca
APRIL 10, 2007
Page 4 of 6
the 50 ft. buffer area delineated in the SEIR. Riparian and wetland mitigation
measures previously identified will still apply. The drainage plan will be carefully
evaluated to determine appropriate mitigation. Additionally, a "Riparian and
Wetland Enhancement Plan" previously submitted by the applicant's consultants
describes the quality of existing habitat and measures to affect the long-term
viability of the habitat. This remains critical to the project. The riparian area is
also a wildlife corridor from areas of the Rancho Grande open space to the
south, through the site, and into rural development through the Easy Street area
to the County to the north.
• Fire safety remains an important issue for the project due to the high potential of
wildland fires and lack of adequate access for emergency crews. Emergency
access and fire-sprinklers will still be required by conditions of approval. The
project affords an emergency access route via an 18-ft. access road that
traverses the project's open space parcel (lot 18) at the northeastern corner of
the site, through the open space parcel of Tract 1834 and connecting to Hidden
Oak Road at the Hidden Oak School Site. This access would also function as a
trail that is required by the 1990 General Plan Parks and Recreation Element and
Rancho Grande Master Plan. An altemative access easement to the property
line is proposed to the east of Lot No.11. The previous project had an alternative
easement adjacent to the riparian corridor in the vicinity of Lot No. 3. However,
that area is now proposed for a mitigation area for transplanted trees.
• Slope areas steeper than 20% are indicated in the site plans. The project
includes development in steeply sloped areas including in areas exceeding 30%
slope. However, this is due to the condition of eroded hillside drainage. Steep
hillside areas outside of the gully are generally avoided as are areas of known
liquifaction. However, mitigation and engineering design will have to be
evaluated to ensure appropriate conditions can be feasibly implemented affecting
slope stability and drainage. Aesthetic impacts remain a consideration for
structures visible on the north side of the site from public vantage points.
• Homeowner Association (HOA) and long term maintenance provisions for the
project were identified as a concern by both the Planning Commission and
Council. Since the project must still provide for maintenance of the pedestrian
trial, and for the protection and enhancement of the riparian corridor, areas of
wetland, and habitat for Pismo clarkia, adequate monitoring and enforcement
remain concerns. Conditions could include a provision that the HOA is required
to hire and pay a consultant to perform all required maintenance activities and
report to the City. Staff believes formation of an HOA is preferable in-order to
minimize impacts on other City operations. Alternatively, a benefit maintenance
assessment district would have to be established to assess costs to specifically
benefiting lots.
The applicant has provided a response to the Council's previous findings for denial in
light of the project redesign (Attachment 6).
S:\Communiry Developmenl\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM 01-001 (TI998)\2007kc 041007 sr.doc
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 10, 2007
Page 5 of 6
Project Enhancements
The previous project denied by the Council included several project enhancements as a
means of improving project benefits to the community in order to balance against
remaining significant impacts (Class I impacts in accordance with CEQA). Project
enhancements included dedication of the exiting on-site well and related. easements
and construction of offsite infrastructure; acquisition of easements and construction of
an offsite emergency access road and trail to connect to the Hidden Oak School Site;
monetary contribution for sediment control and habitat restoration for Meadow Creek;
and the funding and preparation of a two-year research and recovery plan for the Pismo
clarkia consistent with the California Department of Fish and Game's Recovery Plan. It
is unclear at this time whether or not specific project or cumulative project Class I
impacts remain or if the project redesign affords mitigation to a level less than
significant. The level of impacts will be reviewed and analyzed prior to formal public
hearings and consideration of the project. It is uncertain at this time what project
enhancements are still part of the project description other than the offsite emergency
access road.
Environmental Assessment
In compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of
CEQA, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared by Rincon
Consultants and extends from the program EIR prepared for Rancho Grande in 1991. A
draft SEIR was circulated in FebnJary 2003 and then amended and re-circulated in
November 2003 to evaluate a modified project design submitted by the applicant and
clarification of the biological resources analysis. The City Council cert~ed the Revised
Final SEIR {RFSEIR) on April 13, 2004. By mutual agreement, the project decision was
delayed to allow consideration of an alternative. An Addendum to the RFSEIR was
prepared in February 2005 to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated
with the reduction in the number of residential lots (Attachment 5.)
The revised project description was evaluated in order to determine what documentation
is needed to disclose the possible environmental effects associated with project revisions.
The City's consultant (Rincon Consultants) has preliminarily evaluated the project
revisions in accordance with Section 15164 of CEQA Guidelines. As a result, Rincon
Consultants determined that an Addendum to the RFSEIR is likely the most appropriate
environmental document in this instance because the new information does not involve
new sign cant environmental effects beyond those identified in the RFSEIR. The revised
project reduces density and reconfigures development in order to reduce or avoid
previously identified environmental impacts and no new significant impacts have yet been
identified. If authorized, the Addendum will evaluate and compare the potential specific
and cumulative impacts from the revised project. Although addendums are not required
to be circulated as would an EIR or supplemental or subsequent EIR, because of the prior
substantial public involvement in this project staff will circulate the 2007 Addendumrf
desired by the Council. A decision making body must consider an Addendum prior to
making a decision on the project. Exhibit A is a scope of work and agreement for Rincon
S:\Commonity Devslopmeri[W20JECTS\TTM\VTTM 07-00! (T1998)\200Tcc 041007 sr.doc
CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 10, 2007
Page•6 of 6
Consultants preparation of an Addendum. Staff is requesting Council's comments and
approval of the agreement.
Public Comments
Although this item is not a public hearing, 100 courtesy notices were sent on March 28,
2007 to all property owners within 500 feet of the project.
Attachments:
1) Project plans
2) Applicant response to previous Council findings and Preliminary Drainage Study;
(and packet including additional historical information and reduced plans set
provided by the applicant available for review at the Community Development
Department)
3) November 22, 2005 and December 13, 2005 staff reports, City Council Resolution
including findings for project denial, and City Council minutes
4) Letter from the applicant regarding the pre -application
5) 2005 Addendum to the SEIR (on file and available for review at the Community
Development Department)
S:\Community Developmen[\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM 01-001 (T1998)\2007\cc 041007 sr.doc
EXHIBIT A
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 3
The Consultant Services Agreement by and between the CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE and RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC., dated March 25, 2002, is hereby
amended this 10~h day of April, 2007, to include the scope of work, timeline, and cost of
the contract amendment as outlined in CONSULTANT'S letter, dated April 2, 2007
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". All other terms and conditions set forth in said
Consultant Services Agreement shall remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this amendment
the day and year first above written.
RINCON CONSULTANTS
By:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
By:
EXHIBIT "A"
Rincon ConsultaMS, Inc
153D Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
eo5 547 0900
r a>< 547 0901
info®rincontonsultants.com
www. rinconconsultants.tom
Apri12, 2007
Project No. 07-60690
Teresa McClish
City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, California 93421
Subject: Scope to Prepare an EIR Addendum for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map and P.U.D. 01-001
Dear Ms. McClish:
In response to your request, we aze pleased to submit a scope of work and cost to prepaze an
EIR Addendum for the applicant's revised map for the VTTM and P.U.D. 01-001 project.
This would be called the Second Addendum to the Revised Final Subsequent EIR; the EIR itself
was originally certified in Apri12004, and an Addendum had previously been prepared to
address an additional alternative to the originally proposed project.
Background. The City Council certified the Revised Final Subsequent EIR for the
VTTM Ol-0Ol project in Apri12004, but did not take action on the project at that time. At
the Ciry's request, Rincon prepared an EIR Addendum in January 2005 to address a revised
project alternative. The Ciry Council ultimately denied the project without prejudice, which
allowed the applicant to reconsider a revised submittal. The currently proposed EIR
Addendum would tier off the originally certified EIR for the project, and would address a
revised site plan for the project area. Our presumption at this time is that the revised site plan
would not introduce new impacts or mitigation measures that were not already contemplated
in previous environmental documentation, consistent with the approach used for the previous
Addendum prepazed for this project.
Scope of Work. Because of the newly submitted project's generally reduced size and
area of development, it has been determined by the City that an Addendum would be
appropriate, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. An Addendum is not circulated or
noticed except as part of a normal agenda noticing process, but instead at[ached to the staff
report and put into the record of decision.
The specific requirements of an Addendum are described below (CEQA Guidelines Section
15164):
15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR ifsome changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for preparation ofa subsequent EIR have occurred.
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s Engineer s
City of Arroyo Grande
Tentative Tiact Map 01-001 EIR Addendum
Page 2
(b)An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for the preparation ofa subsequent EIR or negative declaration
have occurred.
(cJ An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the jt"nal EIR or adopted negati~rx declaration.
(d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or
adopted negative declaratzon prior to making a decision on the project.
(eJ A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Sedion 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agenry's
findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported
by substantial evulence.
The Addendum to be prepared by Rincon would include the following general components:
• Brief description of the project history, including the environmental review
process to date;
• General description of the newly submitted project, with a comparison of
how it differs from what was examined in the previous CEQA
documentation;
• A description of City staff concerns regarding the new project (to be supplied
by City staff);
• A description of the required contents and applicability of prepazing an
Addendum;
• An analysis of the how the new project conforms with CEQA Addendum
requirements;
• If any mitigation measures from previous CEQA documentation are found
not to apply to the new project, the Addendum will note these measures.
Cost and Schedule. Rincon would prepare an Addendum that conforms to this scope
for $14,690. We anticipate this would require three working weeks of preparation time, and
assumes one round of City staff review for the administrative draft Addendum. The total
timeframe of completion would be 5 weeks, including City review.
This report would be parallel in format to the original January 2005 Addendum, which
provided a discussion of each of the EIR issues in manner consistent with an approach used in
an EIR alternatives analysis. This schedule assumes that City comments on the draft
Addend~un are received by Rincon within five working days of Rincon's administrative draft
submittal to the City.
Our scope also assumes attendance at two meetings with staff, one Planning Commission
hearing, and one City Council hearing. Consistent with CEQA requirements, our scope
assumes there that Rincon will not respond to any comments that may arise from
consideration of the EIR Addendum. We have assumed that City staff will manage all noticing
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
r
City ofArroyo Grande
Tentative Tract Map 01-001 EIR Addendum
Page 3
and filing requirements. These assumptions are subject to City staff review and concurrence.
Rincon can manage additional tasks on a time and materials basis, at rates shown on our
attached Schedule of Fees.
Thank your for the opportunity to assistance you with this consulting assignment.
Sincerely,
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
i~,
Stephen Svete, AICP
President
Q ~ 1,
<`~ohn Rickenbach, AICP
Principal
Attachments: Cast Estimate
Standard Fee Schedule
E n.viron menial Scientists Planners Engineers
r
City of Arroyo Grande
EIR Secund Addendum - VTTM 01-001 Project
Cost EstMnate
City of Arroyo Grande
Tentative Tract Map 01-001 EIR Addendum
Cost Estimate
2-Apr-07
Rn 1oOn
TSSk3 Goal Fours Pondpal Si Aasoc. PmJ. Mgr. Analyal Graphics AOmin.
$145mr $123/how' $95mour $fi3fhour S66rTOUf $15Afour
1 AkFOR M1IratNOrp $960 9 / 4
2. Pn/M Deaerlptba, beblOp lMroouctbn $1.800 16 2 70 4
8. Adoantlum Anay4k
a AEmb OraRAne/ya0 $4,770 SO 4 6 12 24 4
6 RwbbnabrvaporMbataRrommenGl $1,600 i6 2 2 4 8
4. Pu69c Haarbga (2) $1,260 72 d 8
5. AfaMMgf nlth atarT(21 $1,760 i6 8 B
8. Menagemam $1,640 i6 4 4 4 6
Suutolel Labor $13.790 702 16 34 b 8 4
ACO91ena1 Leah
PurNng (20 <apMa ®530 aach) 5600
Su Aa entl Mlsnllansou0 Eapanals $500
Total AO001oMl COSH: 5900
OTAL LABOR s ADDmOFUL COSTS: $11,090
Environmental Scientists Planners Engrne ers
RINCON CONSULTANTS INC.
Standard Fee Schedule for Environmental, Geoenvironnlental,and Planning Services
Rincon Consultants' fee schedule is based on the time that is charged to projects by our professionals and
support stuff. Direct costs associated with completing a project are also billed to the project as discussed under
Reimbursable Expenses below. The following sets forth the billing rates for our personnel.
Professional and Technical Personnel Hourly Rate
Principal ................................................................................... ....................$ 130-150/hour
Supervising Environmental Scientist/Planner ................... ....................$ 110-125/hour
Senior EnvironmentalScientist/Planner ............................. ....................$ 95-110/hour
Environmental Scientist/Planner ......................................... ....................$ g5-95/hour
Environmental Technician ..................................................... .................... $ 65-85/hour
Environmental Field Aide ..................................................... .................... $ 45-55/hour
AutoCAD,GISTechnician ..................................................... ....................$ 75-85/hour
Graphic Designer .................................................................... ....................$ 65/hour
Clerical/Administrative Assistant ....................................... ....................$ 55/hour
Expert wimess services consisting of depositions and in-court testimony are charged at a rate of $250/hour.
Eguipmer t Unit Rate
Photo-Ionization Detector (PID) ........................................... .................... $ 100/day
Four Gas Monitor .................................................................... .................... $ 100/day
Oil-Water Interface Probe ...................................................... ....................$ 75/day
Water Level Indicator ............................................................. .................... $ 25/day
Temperature-pH-Conductivity Meter ................................. .................... $ 40/day
Bailer ........................................................................................ ....................$ 20/day
Disposable Bailer ..................................................................... ....................$ 15/each
Hand Auger Sampler ............................................................. .................... $ 50/day
Brass Sample Sleeves .............................................................. .................... $ 8/each
Decontamination Equipment ................................................ ....................$ 20/day
Level C Health and Safety Equipment ................................. .................... $ 50/person/day
Submersible Pump .................................................................. .................... $ 150/day
UCPurgePump ...................................................................... ....................$ 30/day
Dissolved Oxygen Meter ....................................................... .................... $ 40/day
Turbidity Meter ....................................................................... ....................$ 25/day
Sound Level Meter .................................................................. .................... $ 100/day
GPSLocator ............................................................................. ....................$ 30/day
Laser Range(inder ................................................................... ....................$ 35/day
IntegratedGPS/GIS ................................................................ ....................$ 500/day
Field Computer Equipment ................................................... .................... $ 40/day
Vacuum Gas Chamber Sampler ............................................ .................... $ 20/day
Digital Projector/Computer .................................................. ....................$ 40/day
Infrared Sensor Digital Camera ............................................ .................... $ 50/day
Anemometer ............................................................................ ....................$ ZS/day
Soil Vapor Extraction Monitoring Equipment .................... ....................$ 125/day
Photocopy in¢ and Printing
Photocopies will be charged at a rate of $0.08/copy for single-sided copies and $0.16 for double-sided
copies. Colored copies will be charged at a rate of $1.00/copy for single-sided and $2.00/copy for double-
sided or 11"x17" copies. Oversized maps or display graphics will be charged at a rate of $7.00/square foot.
Reimbursable Expenses
Expenses associated with completing a project are termed Reimbursable Expenses. These expenses do not
include the hourly billing rates described above. Reimbursable expenses include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Direct costs associated with the execution ofa project are billed at cost plus 15 % to cover General and Administrative
senrices. Direct costs include, but are not tm[te to, laboratory and drilling services charges, subcontractor senrices,
authorized travel expenses, permit charges and filing fees, printing and graphic charges, performance bonds, sample
handling and shipment, equipment rental other than covered by the above charges, etc.
2. Vehicle use incompany-Domed vehicles will be billed at a day rate of $75/day for regular terrain vehicle use and
$100 per day for 4WD off-road vehicle use, ylus $0.75/mile for mileage over 50 mdes per day. For
hapsportation in employee-owned automobiles, a rate of $0.75/mile will be charged. Rental vehrdes will be
billed at cost plus 15%.
August 2006
En vironmental Scientists Planners Engineers
,_;~.
„',. ,
Applicant Responses to City Council's Findings
Tract -1998
Arroyo Grande, California
March 27, 2007
ATTACHMENT 2
Castlerock Development offers the following responses to the findings made by the City
Council on December 13, 2005, Resolution No. 3892 as reflected in the revised project
design submitted for review.
Note: Council's findings are note in italics.
Tentative Tract Map Findings for denial:
Finding:
1. The proposed tentative tract map is inconsistent with the goals, objectives,
policies, plans programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General
Plan (1990) in that development and improvements are proposed adjacent to
riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats; specifically over half of the
proposed lots intrude in the required 50 foot riparian buffer area, some in close
proximity to the fop of the creek bank for East Fork of Meadow Creek, which
does not adequately mitigate direct and cumulative impacts to biological
resources specified in the certified SEIR, and which consequently is contrary to
the requirements set forth in the implementation measures for Biological
Resources in the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 5.2, a copy of
which is attached here to as Exhibit "A".
Response: With the exception of Lot 2, all of the proposed lots have been reconfigured
and moved outside of the 50-foot riparian buffer area, as defined by the FSEIR. Lots 1
and 2 are located between La Canada and the riparian boundary, with Lot 2 being the
only lot that appears to (possibly) encroach upon the 50 foot buffer zone. However, it is
important to keep in mind that the 50 foot setback as defined in the FSEIR is twice the
distance of the City's standard creek setback of 25 feet. Consequently the Lots are also
no longer within close proximity to the top of the creek bank for the east fork of Meadow
Creek.
The issues noted in the General Plan Section 5.2 per Exhibit A are proposed to be
addressed through the use of landscaping, pedestrian scale lighting, fencing and natural
barriers.
Finding:
2. The site, as shown on the tentative tract map, is not physically suitable for the
type and proposed density because the development is not clustered in such a
way that allows for all necessary easements, roadways, parking, and
improvements without a suitable deviation from requirements set forth in the
~~°.-SEIR; and failure to incorporate to the fullest extent feasible, adequate mitigation
measures specifically, development is proposed directly upon areas'identified as
habitat for the Federally-listed Endangered and State-listed Rare plant species
Pismo clarkia, and furthermore, additional development is proposed with the
required setbacks fmm identified Pismo clarkia habitat; development is also upon
:•identified riparian and wetland setback areas; and proposed development does
~, not avoid slopes greater than 20%, which without mitigation, n:main significant
impacts that cause damage to degradation of documented and important
' biological resources associated with the East Fork of Meadow Creek and Pismo
clarkia and which are integral to maintain public health and welfare.
Response: - -
The dehsity of the project has been further reduced from 21 proposed lots to 17,
specifically for the purpose of addressing the requirements of all necessary easements,
roadways; parking, and improvements. The reduced number of lots requires less road
development, resulting in even more available space for these requirements. In
addition, clustering of the Lots utilizing minimum lot sizing reduces development impacts
even further. It has been expressed by City Council during previous meetings that
smaller, clustered lots were preferred.
Relocation of the lots and .the minimization of street widths, where permitted by Public
Works,'have allowed the occurrences of Pismo clarkia to be avoided.
Impacts to areas of wetlands have also been avoided to the extent feasible. Fresh
emergent wetlands directly adjacent to the East Fork of Meadow Creek have been
avoided; however some seasonal wetlands may be impacted along the drainage on the
northeast slope of the property. These areas of wetland impacts will most likely require
some form of mitigation, as directed by Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Fish
and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Impact to the Valley Foothill Riparian primarily occurs at the road crossing of Blossom
Valley Road. This crossing location was selected based on an analysis and ranking of
the habitat by a qualified biologist. The area of the crossing is dominated by existing
Eucalyptus trees that are overpowering and degrading the growth of native species. The
Agency required mitigation efforts as result of the crossing would enhance this area of
the riparian habitat and permit the re-growth and advancement of the native species.
The geotechnical reviews included in the EIR each conclude that through proper
geotechnical engineering. and civil engineering design, including the use of drainage
swales, subsurface drainage structures and erosion control techniques (BMPs), that
construction on steeper slopes can be achieved with minimal impact to erosion. The
redesign of the project has relocated lots predominantly to slopes of less than 20%
grade. Only portions of Lots 13 and 14 slightly encroach into steeper slopes where
engineered retaining walls have been proposed to be constructed. Slope impacts are
further mitigated as recommended by the geotechnical reports by the inclusion of
swales at the top of the cut slopes and the installation of subsurface cutoff drains.
i
Additionally, the grading plan for Lot 13 further mitigates slope impacts by grading the
lot to as much as 20% on the building site. Any residence on Lot 13 would have to be
' designed to the fit the sloping profile of the lot. This reduces the need for cut slopes and
site retaining walls. Primarily under the proposed road, and also Lots .12 and 13, there
are periodic occurrences.of incised slopes encountered along the existing eroded
' drainage that is to be over-excavated and reconstructed with engineered fill in
accordance with geotechnical engineering recommendations and requirements.
' Finding:
3. The design of the tentative tract map and /or the proposed improvements are
' likely to cause substantial damage to the natural environment, including fish,
wildlife or their habitat, the potential impacts have not been adequately. mitigated
to the extent feasible and a Statement of Overriding Considerations can not be
' made for all remaining significant impacts; specifically, the resulting impacts to
biological resources are not reduced to a level that is considered less than
significant due to the proposed intensity of development and improvements
' (including areas in the vicinity of proposed lots 9, 20 and 21 that impacts
identified wetlands, in the vicinity of proposed lots 3, 8, 18 and 19 impacting the
riparian corridor, in the vicinity the westerly portion of proposed Blossom Valley
Road and the vicinity of proposed lots 18, 19 and 20 that are with in and adjacent
to identified Pismo clarkia habitat); particularly a Statement of Overriding
Considerations can not be made to override impacts to Pismo clarkia, for which,
according to expert testimony provided during the public hearings by both the
City's consultant and the applicant's biological consultant, scientific evidence
does not exist for proven mitigation measures associated with the protection of
the plant species, except for avoidance of the identified unique Pismo clarkia
habitat, and which is not achieved by the proposed project. Additionally, a
substantial number of oak trees are impacted and the project does not in
corporate adequate measures such as road design features or locating
development or infrastructure that would reduce impacts to oak trees (shown to
be approximately one hundred seventy impacted trees total), particularly in the
vicinity of the northernmost section of Blossom Valley Road and in the vicinity of
the proposed lots 3 and 17. Furthermore, the project's provisions for the essential
long-term protection of the environment through the requirements of, and
reliance upon, a Homeowner's Association, even with the additional enforcement
provisions, or maintenance district, are speculative and have not been
demonstrated to be adequate.
Response:
The reduction and relocation of lots and the minimization of street widths where
permitted by Public Works have allowed the occurrences of Pismo clarkia to be
avoided.
The clustering and relocation of lots, the revised alignment of Blossom Valley Road and
the reduction in street widths have significantly minimized impacts to the Oak tree
population. The trees identified as impacted are primarily non-contiguous with the
_.
~'
^ existing oak woodland canopy. Impacts to trees have been reduced to approximately
sixty-one oak trees of which thirty-three are to be removed and the remaining twenty-
eight are to be transplanted and relocated on to the site. This in turn would result in a
minimum of approximately one hundred thirty-three mitigation oak tree plantings to be
placed on site, consisting of a mix of fifteen-gallon and one-gallon oaks.
Planned Unit Development Findings
Finding:
1. The proposed planned unit development is not consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo
Grande General Plan (1990) in that development and improvements are
proposed upon or immediately adjacent to riparian and other biologically
sensitive habitats and are therefore contrary to the requirements sef forth in the
interpretation measures for Biological Resources in the Conservation and Open
;~ Space Element Policy 5.2, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
`' RESPONSE: Reduction and reconfiguration of the proposed lots and road removes the
majority of.development from areas identified as riparian or as other biologically
sensitive habitats.
Finding:
2. That the site for the proposed development is not adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use, all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences,
parking area, loading areas, roadways, landscaping, and other features required
for the reasons as described in the above findings for the Tentative Tract Map.
Response:
The reduction in the density of the project provides additional space and allows for
flexibility in project design as necessary to accommodate the use, yards, open spaces,
setbacks, walls and fences, parking area, loading areas, roadways, landscaping, and
other features required for the project.
Finding:
3. That the improvements required, and the manner of development, does not
adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the
proposed development and the project site, including, but not limited to slope
hazards. Specifically, impacts to geologic resources due are not reduced to a
level that is considered less than significant due to the proposed development
and improvements in the vicinity of lot 17 that impact slopes greater than 20%.
Response:
The geotechnical reviews included in the EIR each conclude that through proper
geotechnical engineering and civil engineering design, including the use of drainage
swales, subsurface drainage structures and erosion control techniques (BMPs), that
i
construction on steeper slopes can be achieved with minimal impact to erosion. The
redesign of the project has relocated lots predominantly to slopes of less than 20%
grade. Only portions of Lots 13 and 14 slightly encroach into steeper slopes where
engineered retaining walls have been proposed to be constructed. Slope impacts are
further mitigated as recommended by the geotechnical reports by the inclusion of
swales at the top of the cut slopes and the installation of subsurface cutoff drains.
Additionally, the grading plan for Lot 13 further mitigates slope impacts by grading the
lot to as much as 20% on the building site. Any residence on Lot 13 would have to be
designed to the fit the sloping profile of the lot. This reduces the need for cut slopes and
site retaining walls. Primarily under the proposed road, and also Lots 12 and 13, there
are periodic occurrences of incised slopes encountered along the existing eroded
drainage that is to be over-excavated and reconstructed with engineered fill in
accordance with geotechnical engineering recommendations and requirements.
Required CEQA Findings:
Finding:
1. Changes or alternatives have not been incorporated into the project which avoids
or substantially lessens the significant environmental effects as identified in the
FSEIR and Addendum; specifically, Impacts 8-2, B-3, B-4, G-4 and the
cumulative impact to biological resources.
Response:
The revised lots for Tract 1998 have gone through extensive evaluation and re-design,
keeping in mind project objectives and City Council's concerns. The resulting lot
reduction from twenty-one to seventeen and the re-alignment of Blossom Valley Road
has significantly reduced impacts to the project environment.
The following table provides a summary comparison of the total anticipated biological
impacts since the original project design reviewed in the certified FSEIR. The current
,project proposed produces approximately a 49% overall reduction of environmental
impacts and a 126% increase in the total open space.
Im acted Items 36 Units - 2003
acres im acted 21 Units - 2005
acres im acted 17 Units - 2006
acres im acted
Wetland -Seasonal 0.106 0.411 0.205
Wetland -Fresh Emer ent 0.004 0.000 0.000
Coastal Oak / Pismo clarkia 0.569 0.058 0.000
Valle Foothill Ri arian
Ri arian -Willow 0.139 0.002 0.000
Ri arian -Oak 0.072 0.230 0.000
Ri arian - Eucal tus 0.069 0.090 0.080
Coastal Oak Woodland _______
------------------------- _____ 3.24.0
- - ----
Overall size
acrea a 0.464
-----------------------
Overall size
acrea a 0.135
----------------------
Overall size
acrea e
O en S ace Preserved 17.31 19.32 21.90
(P ~a "'
t e tr s'
" `"....-
Impacts to steep slopes have been significantly reduced with the lessening and
relocation of lots. Large cut slopes have been avoided and retaining walls used only
where needed to protect existing slopes or to save trees. The area identified as having
a potential for liquefaction has also been avoided. As summarized in the geotechnical
"engineering reports in the FSEIR and the Addendum, a project that is properly
engineered making use of recommended erosion control measures and the proper
implementation of drainage structures soils on this site are suitable for construction.
As'erosion is the primary concern for steep slopes on this particular site, it is important
to note that main cause of the natural erosion and sediment contribution to the East
Fork of Meadow Creek is the existing eroded drainage course located on the northeast
portion of the site This revised design creates a beneficial impact by capturing and
controlling the water that otherwise washes down this drainage, thereby removing it as
a source of erosion and sediment. This is done while maintaining the historical flow
pattern of the water to the existing wetlands adjacent to the East Fork of Meadow
Creek.
The concerns for erosion and sediment control are further mitigated by the
implementation of an engineered drainage system that includes surface drains,
drainage swales, subsurtace drainage structures and a sediment trap type structure.
This site is further protected from impacting Meadow Creek downstream by passing
drainage through the existing retardation basin along James Way, which operates with
the purpose of slowing and controlling runoff from not only Tract 1998, but also Tracts
1997, 1994, 1834 and the upstream watershed areas: The basin was designed to
control the maximum flow into Meadow Creek so as to be equal to or less than existing
flows that occurred prior to development of the Rancho Grande Subdivision.
Preliminary
Drainage
Assessment
TRACT 1998
Parcel 7 of PM 77-103
City of Arroyo Grande, California
March 21, 2007
Prepared for:
Castlerock Development, a California Corporation
202 H3 Tank Farm Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 546-8100
Prepared by:
Phil Burns & Associates
Phil Burns, RCE 60205
P.O. Box 2652
Bakersfield, CA 93303
(661)588-4276
_..
,, . .
,.
_ ....
~.
Trail 1998, Arroyo Grande, California
Preliminary Drainage Assessment March 21 2007
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................... .......................3
2.0 Project Location and Development Description ............. .......................3
2.01 Location of Property ...............................'........................ .......................3
2.02 Description of Property .................................................. .......................3
2.03 Proposed Development ................................................. .......................4
3.0 Master Planning and Floor Plain Information ................ .......................5
3.01 Retardation Basin .......................................................... .......................5
3.02 Existing Roadway Culverts ............................................ .......................6
3.03 Flood Plain Information .................................................. .......................6
4.0 Drainage Conditions ......................................................... .......................6
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................7
i
r
Phil Bums and Associates ~ Page 2
Tract 1998, Arroyo Grande, California
Preliminary Drainace Assessment March 21.2007
1.0 Introduction
Several Drainage Studies have been performed for the Rancho Grande
Development in the City of Arroyo Grande. This report presents the
I information, methods, and results generated from assessment of these
studies, as they pertain to Tract 1998, the subject property, and the
_ improvements proposed.
2.0 Project Location and Development Description
2.01 Location of Property
Tract 1998 is located east of Oak Park and La Canada Road and,
north of James Way in the City of Arroyo Grande. The parcel is
bordered by James Way and La Canada to the south and west, and by
^ residential Tract 1834 to the southeast and northwest.
2.02 Description of Property
' Tract 1998 is 26.6 acres in size and is currently undeveloped. Oak
woodland and grassland open space border most of the eastern
property lines, and rural residential properties border the northeast.
Elevations vary from 534 feet above sea level at the northeastern
boundary of the property to 150 feet near La Canada Road on the
southwestern boundary of the property.
An open space area in neighboring Tract 1994 (west of the project site)
contains riparian habitat that connects with Tract 1998 via a large
concrete culvert (84 inches) under La Canada and James Way.
Another open space area, a portion of Tract 1834 East, north of Tract
1998 (east of project site). contains oak woodland habitat contiguous
with Tract 1998.
'Rural residential parcels east of the property directly impact Tract 1998.
with small culverts installed discharging landscape water and
^ stormwater onto Tract 1998.
A USGS designated "Blue Line Stream" traverses the lower portion of
the property from north to south. This stream is referenced as "East
Fork of Meadow Creek" on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
covering the area. The creek is deeply incised in some places, with
banks over 20 feet high and slope approaching 100% (1H:1U).
Beginning at the west bank of the creek, the site slopes steeply (10%
to 50%) upwards to the east.
Phil Burns and Associates Page 3
1
Tract 1998, Artoyo Grande, California
Preliminary Drainage Assessment March 21.2007
Drainage impacts from the Rancho Grande Development have been
accounted for downstream from the site as part of the Master Planning.
A large retardation basin and several roadway culverts have been
installed to convey and accommodate runoff directed toward and into
the East Fork of Meadow Creek.
2.03 Proposed Development
The proposed development of Tract 1998 consists of 17 clustered
residential lots on approximately 3.6 acres with approximately 23 acres
retained as undeveloped open space. Access to the site will be
achieved by crossing the East Fork of Meadow Creek from La Canada.
Predominantly runoff from the site occurs from the open space sheet
flowing in to the East Fork of Meadow Creek. Runoff from the open
space adjacent to the proposed development is directed around the
lots and roadway through the use of swales and subsurface drains. A
portion of runoff above Lots 11 and 14, due to existing slopes, are
captured and conveyed into the public storm system. Surface flows
that intersect Blossom Valley Road are captured by swales that
parallel the proposed roadway which are then conveyed beneath the
road and discharged via a bubbler outlet structure maintaining
historical flows to the existing wetlands.
The 17 residential lots will have graded pads with mild slopes and on-
site drainage swales and drains. Surface runoff from the lots are
directed towards Blossom Valley Road where it is to be conveyed as
surface flow by curb and gutter to the proposed public storm drain inlet
facilities. The portion of the public storm system servicing Lots 3 - 17
discharges at the head of the existing wetlands through a velocity
dissipater structure to allow the runoff to sheet flow and minimize
potential for erosion while maintaining historical flows. The portion of
s` the public storm system that serves Lots 1 - 2 and a significant portion
of Blossom Valley Road collects runoffs at the low point at the crossing
of the East Fork of Meadow Creek and discharges at the headwall of
i" the box culvert crossing the East Fork of Meadow Creek.
Flows along the East Fork of Meadow Creek at the crossing of
Blossom Valley Road will be maintained via an approximate 7' box
culvert. The storm flow values or sizing of this future culvert will be
detailed in a subsequent drainage study update based on final
improvement plans. A preliminary analysis of a crossing occurring
across the East Fork of Meadow Creek is referenced later in this
preliminary report.
Phil Bums and Associates ~ Page 4
I _.~y.. .„,gym. ..~r. - ~. > _e a1M R;: q:a:-F..
l~ ~
I `::1 .
Trail 1998, Artoyo Grande, California
i Preliminary Dralnaae Assessment March 21.2007
for Tract 1998 by Rincon Consultants. Inc. and a clarification needs to
occur in regards to the issue of adeq"uate detention.
However it needs to be noted that the design of the basin does
currently accommodate the storm runoff from Tract 1998 as confirmed
by the original designe~-of the retardation basin.`
3.02 Existing Roadway Culverts
An 84 inch culvert under La Canada and 96 inch culvert under James
Way have been constructed to convey flow, from the creek basin. The
proposed development and drainage improvements for Tract 1998
comply with this. master planri'ed drainage system by directing most of
the storm runoff to this creek and thereby the retardation basin.
3.03 Flood Plain Information .
The~FEMA Flood Insurance :Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel #
060305 001 C, effective September 19, 1984, indicates the East Fork
Meadow Creek is in a Zone A' (See Appendix A). Zone A is defined as
an area of 100-year flooding with base flood elevations not determined.
However, as shown on the FEMA map, the 100-year storm runoff is
contained within the creek channel and will not impact this
development.
4.0 Drainage.Conditions
A drainage study titled "Drainage Study for Tract 1834" dated April 17,
1996 by Denny Peters, -RCE addressed adjacent offsite drainage flowing
into the East Fork of Meadow Creek. Subsequent phases of Tract 1834
updated proposed conditions of this study.
One subsequent study titled "Drainage Study Update for Rosemary Lane
Culvert -Tract 1834 at Rancho Grande" dated May 6, 1997 by Denny
Peters, RCE addressed the proposed crossing in Tract 1998 including
anticipated proposed conditions. This study conservatively anticipated a
30 percent developed area based on the original 40 lots master planned
for this.tract. Based on this conservative proposed condition the Q100 at
the crossing is 300 cfs. Since the. proposed development now totals less
than 17% of developed area including lots and roadways this total amount
of flow is expected to be significantly less.: The down stream 7' diameter
CMP culvert in La Canada has a capacity of 440 cfs..Thus the proposed
7' box culvert is more than adequate to convey the channel flow. Further
downstream an 8' diameter CMP'culvert exists under James Way with a
capacity of 540 cfs. The flow then ehters the existing retardation basin per
Phil Burns and Associates ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;, Page 8
Trail 1998, Arroyo Grande, Cal'dornla -
Preliminarv Drainage Assessment ~ March 2i. 2007
the master drairage study for the Rancho Grande development. This
retardation basin slows the runoff and discharges it at a maximum rate of
less than 252 cfs, less than pre-development flows.
Based on the previous studies for this area, it appears that the proposed
T box culvert and existing CMP culverts are adequate to convey the
proposed drainage flows. Pipe sizes shown on the tentative map are
approximated and should be verified by drainage calculations submitted
with improvement plans. -
An existing wetland area in the northeast section of the property has been
a opic of concern. Specifically the issues raised are the maintaining of
historical flows to the wetlards and the potential for erosion across the
wetlands.
Based on preliminary calculations the pre-development watershed
contributing to the wetlands was determined to be approximately 15.8 cfs
in a 10 year event with apost-development flow of approximately 17.3 cfs
for the same 10 year event. This equates to a 1.5 cfs increase in surface
flow that is to be used in conjunction with mitigation efforts to expand ttie
wetland environment.
Erosion potential is minimized through the use of properly engineered and
constructed energy dissipater :structures and svrales. Discharged water
will be reduced to velocities that permit sheet flow historical dispersal over
the wetlands promoting percolation, natural filtration and revitalization of
the wetland,environment.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Drainage from the proposed development of Tract 1998 will not negatively
impact adjacent or downstream areas of the flood control and storm water
managementfacilities of the Rancho Grande Community.
Discharge locations for the existing conditions of this site are being
perpetuated with the proposed development of this site. Historical flows
are maintained within the project Boundaries. As expected, some peak
runoff values for the proposed conditions exceed those of the existing
conditions however this was expected and well planned for in the drainage
master planning of the. Rancho Graride Subdivision. The existing
retardation basin down stream,from this site, as confirmed by the original
engineer of the basin, will ihtercept and retard the increased storm flows
from this site to less than pre-development levels.
A detailed Drainage Study will be submitted along with the final
Improvement Plans for this tract. This study will present more detailed
Phil Bums and Associates ~ Page 7
raze
s'
.
ki r~,y-,~" ~ `
t} Trad 1998, Arroyo Grande, California
, , PreliminarJ Dralnaoe AssessmenC Mareh 21.2007
hx
`'` y
I '~ i information on the proposed drainage facilities, as well as any revisions or
~ ~;+
~ changes to this conceptual study. ,
~ •
~
,
k i,` ~ Thanks for help with this mattes '
~.` Sincerely
ii
Phil Burns
RCE 60205
- .
i Exp 6/30/08
~'
~.
~e-
. A ~.
f .;
i
s
..' 4Y
''.~. }f-
•,
i
.
. ~ v
.
1:
1
x
.1.
~.~
1
_
. .
Phil$ums and Associates ~ _ ~ - Page 8
~. ~ _
ATTACHMENT 3
-~
CITY OF ARROYO
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC_HEARING
9.b.
On TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2005, 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: - .
CASE NOS.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-001 (Previously Known
As Tract 1998), Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001; Lot
Line Adjustment Case No. 01-002
APPLICANT: Taos Holding CorporatiorilCastlerock Development
LOCATION: Near Northeast Corner of the Intersection of James Way and "La
.Canada
PROPOSAL: Consideration of a residential subdivision of twenty-one (21)
':clustered lots and one (1) open space parcel on approximately
26.6 acres.
In compliance.. with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community
Development Department has determined that the potential impacts from the proposed
project have been addressed in the certified Final Revised Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (FRSEIR) for the projecf and an Addendum has been prepared for a
recommendation to City Council in accordance with section. 15164 of the CEQA
Guidelines. .
The Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or after the item
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 these, items is available by contacting Arroyo Grande City Hall at
473-5414. The Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channe120.
V /11Z~ ;
Kelly Wets or City Clerk ,
City of Arroyo rands
Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, November 11, 2005
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22; 2005
PAGE 2`OF 14
,,
Rar-cho Grande Master Plan
The development of Rancho Grande evolved from a concept of. mixed residential and
commercial uses in the middle of-the 1970's and included- several tracts of single family
residential development at various densities, as well . as town-homes proximate to
commercial development at and adjoinirig the location of the current Five Cities Center. In
1978, the City approved a master development plan for Rancho Grande, Ordinance 186
C.S., indicating 394, residential units within the area of Tracts 1132 (134 lots), 1834 (220
lots) and 1998 (40 lots) and up'to 133 residential .units for the vicinity now known as Tracts
1994, 1997,,. and Parcels 10 and 11 for a total of 527 units (Attachment 3). In 1983, a
development agreement was approved, for Rancho Grande (now expired) consistent with
the Rancho Grande Master Plan (Attachment 4). Subsequentt.~evelopment in Rancho
Grande, excluding the remaining'_undeveloped portions including the project site and
Parcels 10 and 11, has been generally consistent with the Rancho Grande Master Plan and
the Master EIR that was prepared in 1990. The majority of the Rancho Grande
development occurred pursuant to a development agreement with a fifteen (15) year term
that spanned from 1983 to 1998.
Many environmental constraints have historically been associated with the project site.
Preceding development plans for Rancho Grande indicated conceptual clustering of
S?COMMUNITY UEVELOPMENTPROIECTS\TTM\VTTM 01-0011TI998)\2WSTCI12205K'GSR. 11.22.OS.Juc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 3 OF 14
residences outside of riparian and oak woodland areas. Additionally, the Master EIR for
the Rancho Grande Master Plan revealed the potential for substantial environmental
impacts in that the necessity of a project specific ,EIR was specified. The biological
sensitivity of the site has.also been acknowledged by the project applicant in an alternative
offered to the City during the environmental review process that included use of the project
site as a public park and utilizing the Rancho Grande park site,for residential development..
This "park swap" altemative was -deemed infeasible by the`City since the Rancho Grande
park had historically been desigriated'as a park, not a residential subdivision; the park plan
included ball fields and other recreation characteristics inconsistent with'the protection of
sensitive habitat of tha project,"site; and at the- time the altemative was "offered, the
construction of Rancho Grande Park was fully funded; fully approved and imminent..
Project submittal and Vesting Sfatus
Previous projects submitted for this site .have included. 40 residential -units and a road
connection, Rosemary Lane, to phase 5 of Tract 1834 (The Highlands) that was submitted
and deemed complete in 1998, put on hold and eventually replaced,. by a 40-unit project
configuration without the ,Rosemary Lane connection that was submitted and deemed.
complete in 2001 (case No. VTTM and PUD.01-001). Subsequent revisions voluntarily
made by the applicant to address concerns during initial environmental review included
reducing the number of proposed lots to 36, which is the revision upon which the project
S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENTWROJECTS\TTM VTTM OI-001 (T1998)\200SCCI12205K'C.SR. I1.22.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION.OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005 -' "
PAGE 4 OF 14
Certified Final Revised "Subsequent Environmental:Impacf Report (SEIR) is based. Due to
specific "site constraints identified in the SEIR, the project was voluntarily revised by the
applicant to include 21-uhits, clustered; in an• attempt'to avoid environmental impacts.
Attachment 5 includes a project history provided. by" the applicant:. Further background
information and project history is contained in the Revised Draft SEIR. "
Since the project was deemed ,complete "in June of 2001 prior to adoption of the 2001
General Plan update (October 2001), it is to be processed under the 1990 General Plan.
Proiect Description
Twenty-one (21) proposed residential lots are clustered in four groupings along a proposed
32-ft. wide public street called Blossom Valley Road. Proposed residential lots range in
size from 7,740 sq. ft. (lots 19-21) to 13,462 sq. ft. (lot 2). The proposed open space lot is
961,782 sq. ft. or approximately 22 acresand comprises about 82% of the project site. The
gross project density is .79 units/acre, less but comparable to the maximum density allowed
in the City's Rural Residential district (at 1 du/acre.) .However, due t~ the clustered
configuration and proposed lot sizes, the project is closer in character with the Single
Family Residential district.
The project also includes a proposed lot line adjustment to enlarge lots 2 and 3 (Exhibit
"B"). The lot line adjustment is included as a means of adjusting lot lines affecting two
properties outside of the project site boundary and planned unit development.
The project is configured to avoid most areas of the site identified during environmental
review as having potential significant impacts,. including he riparian corridor, wetland areas,
steep slopes, and large clusters of-oak trees, but not the buffer areas required by the
Certified SEIR (Exhibit "E" = :previously "distributed). As a result, environmental impacts
identified in the SEIR are not mitigated to less than significant and still cause substantial
environmental damage.
A discussion of how"the proposed- project differs from the previous project, description
evaluated in the SEIR is included in the Addendum to the SEIR attached as Exhibit "C" to
the draft Resolution. Project modificatioris are also summarized below:
Table 1
Number
of lots open
s ace Range of
lot sizes Number of class I impacts requiring a Statement of
Overridin Considerations'
Previous project 36 62°k 5,500- Two -four: impact B-4 for Pismo clarkia and
40,752 sq. cumulative Impact for Biological Resources; and
ft. class II impact to biological habitat (riparian buffer)
and slope that become class I if not mitigated
Proposed 21 82% 7,740 - Two -four: impact B-4 for Pismo clarkia and
project 13,462 sq: cumulative Impact for Biological Resources; and
ft. ~ class II impact to biological habitat (riparian buffer)
and slo a that become class I if not miti ated.
"= Please refer to the discussion below under"Environmental Assessment"
S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS\7TM1V7TM OI-001 tT1996)\200SCCI 1220SCC.SR. 11.22.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001 '
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 5 OF 14 '
Planned Unit Development
The proposed design .manual is a component. of the Planned Unit Development project
.description and is intended to address residential design that is.similar in content and
function to those design manuals approved for other Rancho Grande developments.
Please refer to Exhibit "D" to the draft Resolution for the' draft design manual which.
contains detailed information, 1o address other requirements in addition to architectural
design, including standards and processes for ,landscaping (native and xeroscape),
hardscape, fuel modification, fencing, erosion control, .tree protection, lighting, and waste
management. This draft design manual would require final approval by the Community
Development Director upon a recommendation by the Architectural Review Committee
prior to final tract map recordation in order to incorporate all finalized mitigation and design
requirements (refer to Condition. of Approval 15 in the draft Planning Commission
Resolution Attachment "1A".) Additionally, condition of. approval No. 15' would require
certain changes be made in the draft manual, including decreasing building size allowances
to be consistent with those approved for Tract 1834 (The Highlands) and eliminating the
"guaranteed building minimums" in the draft manual.
The' project description has also been revised by project enhancements included by the
applicant and reflected in the Planning,Commission packet Attachment "1A" as Conditions
of Approval Nos. 9; 12, '13 and 14.' These enhancements include dedication of the, existing
on-site well and related easements and construction of offsite infrastructure to provide
irrigation water (the water is of mediocre quality and will require some treatment) to replace
City potable water now used to irrigate Rancho Grande Park; the acquisition of easements
and construction of an offsite emergency access road and trail to connect to the Hidden
Oaks School Site; monetary contribution to sediment control and habitat restoration for
Meadow Creek; and the funding and preparation of a two-year research and recovery plan
for the endangered, plant species, 'Pismo clarkia, found almost exclusively in the Arroyo
Grande and Nipomo areas, consistent with:the California Department of Fish and Game's
Recovery Plan for the plant (Attachment 7). These components of the project description
are discussed further below in the section on-CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, as well as at the end of Attachment "1 C" (an .example of drafted CEQA
findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations that would be necessary fora project
approval).
As provided for by State law, voluntary project enhancements proposed by the applicant
are intended as a means of improving the, benefits of the project to the community which
would be used in ttie required balancing against the ,project's significant unavoidable
environmental effects, as described in the project SEIR. Specific project enhancements do
not need ;to be directly related to mitigation measures fora ,project or otherwise connected
to a project characteristic:. Some other ideas that were informally considered 6y the
applicant and staff (by: invitation) included mechanisms to contribute,to: the City's stock of
affordable housing; agricultural, cultural (e.g. Windmill at the lower end of the James Way
Habitat) " or open space conservation; wildlife corridor preservation; Pismo Lake
enhancement; green building; Salmon Enhancement projects; contributions to. a community
recreation center; or community recreational trail system enhancement.
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTWROJECTS\TTM\VTTM~0I.OOF(T1998)\200SCCI12205\CC.SR.IL22.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE a OF 14
Staff Ad4isorv Committee _
The Staff Advisory Committee. (SAC) -reviewed the proposed ,project in August 2004
(Attachment 8). Main concern's and. items.discussed include emergency access, road width,
grading and drainage,. slope constraints,. the proposed tree impact and mitigation, parking,
and easements for utilities, emergency access and pedestrian trails. Additionally, the SAC
discussed the construction of a span bridge versus a culvert crossing where Mirabel Lane
crosses the creek. The draft Riparian/Wetland Mitigation Plan in Attachment 13 contains
information regarding the culvert crossing. Although a span bridge is desirable, the proposed
culvert crossing is considered adequate due to existing similar sized culverts installed
downstream. Staff also reviewed the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and. Reporting Plan
(MMRP) prepared by Rincon Consultants hat is attached as Attachment "1 B" and includes
responsible entities and timelines for each required mitigation measure as presented to the
Planning Commission. '
Adequate maintenance for the 22-acre open space parcel including the pedestrian trail, in
addition to maintenance that would be required by the MMRP for the protection and
enhancement of the riparian corridor, areas of wetland; and habitat for the endangered plant
species, ~ Pismo clarl(ia, are concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and City
Council in their review of the SEIR. ' Although a conventional homeowner's association
(HOA) is the typical mechanism for on-site maintenance, mitigation aspart of the SEIR
requires one that is more extensive due to common problems. of adequate monitoring and
enforcement (please refer to the: City Council minutes and .Resolution in Attachment 9). An
altemative, commonly used-is the formation of a benefit maintenance district established to
assess costs to specifically benefiting lot owners. This altemative, however, would continue
to impact City, staff and resources as the extensive monitoring or oversight required may
extend City staff beyond budgeted capabilities.
Another altemative considered by staff and presented to the Planning Commission is to
structure the HOA in such away to ensure long term compliance. with all ongoing and long-
term requirements: The NOA would be required to hire and pay a consultant(s) to perform
all required maintenance activities and report to the City. Such a condition would be
consistent with requirement No. 17 in Ordinance 186 (PD 1.2 Zoning approval) and reporting
would help. enforce common. requirements for other tracts in Rancho Grande. (eg.
maintenance of the drainage basin south of.the intersection of James Way and La Canada.)
The alternatives to satisfy this requirement are included in the draft Condition of Approval No.
24 in Attachment "1A" presented to the Planning Commission.
Fire Safety
Conditions of Approval Nos. 11 and 29 (Attachment "1A") as presented to the Planning
Commission include'provisions for emergency access and fire-sprinklers for each residential
unit onsite. These conditions addressed the high potential for wildland fires in the area and
the difficulties of adequate access for emergency crews. Emergency access was to be
provided in three project locations; including the, 18 foot access near the intersection of
James Way and La Canada; an easement located between .proposed lots 10 and 11; as well
as the 18-foot access road that traverses the project's open space parcel (lot 22), through the
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM OI-001 (T1998)\2005\CCI I2205\CC.SR. I I.22.OS.doe
CITY COUNCIL -.
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 7 OF 14
open space parcel of Tract 1834 and connectingto Hidden Oak~Road at the Hidden Oaks
School Site. This access also would function as a trail that. is required in the 1990 General
Plan Parks and Recreation Element and the Rancho Grande Master Plan (Attachment 10):
Additionally, the preliminary plan for the emergency access/trail connection to the Hidden
Oaks Schoot site offered by the applicant as an offsite improvement is attached as Exhibit "A-
8". This connection approaches 20% slope`in sections and will be visible from areas to-the
south and west of the site. However, it would greatly improve -fire safety,'and pedestrian
connectivity in the vicinity.
Staff has reviewed the `project under the applicable .1990 General Plan. standards and
Development Code requirements. The project is consistent with Ordinance 186C.S. (1978)
for the PD 1.2 district. General Plan (1990) Conservation and Open Space Policy No. 5.2
includes special review for the preservation of biotic resources and development, adjacent to
riparian and other biologically sensitive .habitats. This .provision is discussed further and is
reflected .both in the attached Resolution for project denial and in the section below on.
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Architectural Review Committee
The ARC' considered proposed. project layout design and the draft Design Manual for the
project on August 9, 2004 (Attachment 11 includes meeting notes). The intent of the
guidelines was to provide, general: design criteria for the residential development by
addressing building. pad locations, building design, site improvements and landscaping.
The ARC discussed size of homes, variation of floorplans, building around site constraints
including slope and trees, setbacks, design. and color schemes in corriparison with adjacent
Rancho Grande tracts, water conservation, fencing and design review process (Exhibit
"D"). The ARC recommended approval, with the condition that each architectural plan as
well as the design manual be submitted to the ARC for final review after tract approval.
Planning Commission Public Hearings
The Planning Commission heard and 4hen continued its consideration of the project from
the June 7, 2005 public.hearing to the June 21; 2005 and July 5, 2005 public hearings and
subsequently, to September 20, 2005 for the purpose of accommodating schedules of
Commissioners and applicant consultants. During the public hearings of Jurie 7~' and
September 20a', considerable discussion centered upon where the proposed project does
and does not meet required mitigation as prescribed in the project EIR (see discussion
below), particularly with respect to oak tree removal, riparian and wetland habitat and
protection of a protected plant species known as Pismo clarkia. Pismo clarkia protection
was discussed both in relation to required mitigation measures, the relationship of required
mitigation with other protections including fire protection,. grid additional protective work
proposed as a project enhancement. Other project enhancements discussed include using
water from the onsite well to offset domestic water supply used for irrigation and the offsite
emergency access road. The mechanism and feasibility of long term site monitoring was
also discussed.
"S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM OL001 (T1998)\200SCCI 122051CC.SR. 11.22.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL ,
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 200,5.
PAGE 8 OF 14
Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project as proposed,
recognizing that the project, as revised to address environmental constraints identified in
the SEIR, better met the required measures for mitigation. The Planning Commission
determined that the project does not provide for mitigation to the fullest extent feasible and
the findings, as required by CEQA cannot be met. In effect, the Planning Commission
consensus specified that although the project 'may not be able to avoid all significant
impacts, it could be modified to more substantially reduce the magnitude of those impacts
(Attachment 1).
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, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) was prepared by Rincon Consultants and extends from the master EIR prepared for
Rancho Grande in 1991. A draft SEIR was circulated in February 2003,and then amended
and re-circulated in November 2003 to evaluate a. modified project design submitted by the
applicant and clarification of the biological resources analysis. The City Couicil certified ttie
Revised Final SEIR (RFSEIR) on April 13, 2004 (City Council Resolution ahd minutes are
included in Attachment 9). The certified SEIR consists of the Revised Draft SEIR (Volumes I
ahd II) and the Revised Final SEIR. The SEIR'has been previously distributed and is on
file at the'Community Development Department, the San Luis Obispo County Library and
the Revised Draft SEIR is posted on the City's vrebsite (www.arrovoorande.oro). '
An Addendum to .the SEIR ("Addendum") was prepared iri February,. of this year in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential
environmental effects associated with the reduction in 'the number of proposed residential
lots from thirty-six (36) .to the proposed .:project configuration of twenty-one (21) (Exhibit
"C"). CEQA Section 15164 requires an addendum;when the changes do not involve new
significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the EIR. A decision making.body
must consider an addendum prior to_ making a decision on the project. In this case, no new
significant effects resulted from the project revision from 36 to 21 units. Although there,are
no re-circulation requirements for an. addendum, it was submitted. to the. California
Department of Fish and Game for their consideration of the Class 1 impact to Pismo clarkia
and cumulative biological- resources. For a discussion on the statement of significance
required for impact evaluat:on_ under.CEQA, (eg. Class I, Il and III), please refer to the
Addendum pg. 9 and 10 in Exhibit "C".;
The Addendum evaluates each project impact identified in the SEIR in comparison with the
revised project. In almost all cases, the project impacts were reduced in magnitude by the
project revisions, often materially, tiut in. all cases'.the classification, of impact was not
changed.. For example, Impact B-3 concerning impacts to oak trees reduces the number of
oak trees impacted, but it is still a Class II "significant but mitigable" impact requiring the
same mitigation measures as those required for the previous proposal. Another example
is the Class.l .impact to Pismo, clarkia habitat. Although, fewer occurrences of Pismo clarkia
are impacted as a result of the reduction in the number of, lots,, the impact remains a Class I
impact, significant and unavoidable, because all occurrences are not avoided. This Class I
S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS\1TM\V7TM 01-001 (T1998)\20051CCI12205\C'C.SR. 1112.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-OOT
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 9 OF 14
impact -and the cumulative Class I impact for biological resources remain unchanged by
project revisions even though the impact is gerierally reduced. All Class I impacts require the
City Council to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) in order to approve the
project.
Two Class II impacts associated with the project (irripacts 13-2 and G-4) address effects on
riparian and wetland habitat, and impacts from .steep slopes; respectively. These impacts
are identified.in the SEIR as Class II impacts because measures were identified that would
reduce the impacts to a level of Less than significant. These measures include a 50-ft. buffer
for the protection of riparian habitat (for impact B-2) and the avoidance of slopes greater than
20% (for impact G-4). .If these impacts are not mitigated according to the Final SEIR, then
they would have to be addressed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations as Class I
impacts.
In accordance with CEQA regulations, the City, as a lead agency, may approve findings
and adopt a Statement of Overriding ,Considerations for project impacts that cannot be
feasibly avoided or substahtially lessened pursuant .to CEQA Guidelines §15092, or
altemati4ely, deny a project if such firidings cannot be made. The draft firdings provided in
Attachment "1 C" are an example `of firidings that wduld 6e necessary for 'project approval.
The draft findings could be modified and adopted to conform to a firial project decision if the
Council grid the applicant agree on project Modifications or if the Council wishes to approve
the project. These. findings are structured to include supportive evidence for each class of
impact and mitigation identified for the project from the Revised Final SEIR and Addendum
in three categories: '
6• Findings for impacts identified as insigriificant jClass III);
• Findings for impacts identified as sign cant but mitigable:(Class II); and
• Findings for impacts identified as significant and unavoidable (Class q.
Findings maybe made to approve_ a project with potentially significant impacts if the lead
agency can determine: ,
• the mitigation i§ under the jurisdiction of another agency (e.g. impact to a State
highwaY)•
• the impact is not feasible to mitigate (e.g. a traffic. impact can not be mitigated if a
roadway cannot be widened because of inadequate land and the cost of the
widening is prohibitive):
The Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
(a)(3) includes the provisions" for making findings related to an infeasible mitigation
measure or alternative. A measure o~ alternative. is feasible if if is capable of being
accomplished. in "a successful. manner inrithih a reasonable period `of time, taking into
account economic; envirohmental, legal, social, ` and technological" factors, as well as
considerations for employment of highly trained workers. Ifeconomics are used as a factor
to support a finding of infeasibility, the City must support the finding with'data showing that
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS\7TM\VTTM 01.001 (T1998)\200SCCI 12205\CC.SR. 11.22.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005 ~ -
- PAGE 10 OF 14
the additional cost or lost profits are great enough,to make it impractical to proceed with the
project.
The conflict between impacting Pismo clarkia habitat to better protect the riparian/wetland
habitat versus avoiding Pismo .clarkia habitat and consequently impacting the' riparian/
wetland habitat " is ceritral to understanding the evolution of project alternatives and
revisions. -1t is important to make the distinction between feasible mitigation measures for
each of these potential impacts. For Pismo clarkia, since it is a protected endangered and
rare plant species and the feasibility of long-term mitigation (from translocating seeds for
example) is unknown, the required mitigation is avoidance. For riparian and wetland
habitat protection, the preferred alternative is avoidance. However, there are mitigation
measures that when implemented do provide adequate protection and offset proposed
reduction of the riparian buffer area. Additionally, the mitigation also provides potential
enhancements to the riparian/wetland.kabitat (removing non-native and increasing native
plant species, increasing cover of the aquatic bed ahd creekbanks for example). Such
mitigation for riparian/wetlarld. is commonly effected and according to the SEIR (Revised
Draft SEIR section 4.2-20), the proposed mitigation measures are expected to increase
habitat values after implementation.
Below are some additional considerations for making findings necessary for identified Class
impacts:
• Class I impact B-2, -Pismo clarkia =
" The SEIR including the Addendum describe the extent of Pismo clarkia occurrences on
the project site. 'Pismo clarkia is a federally listed Endangered and .State-listed Rare plant
species and,, as such, requires. avoidance as the appropriate mitigation measure. The
proposed project, though reduced by 15 lots still impacts areas identified as Pismo clarkia
habitat, specifically by proposed .placement of lot 18 and a portion of lot 19. Portions of
the proposed. Blossom ..Valley Road also directly -impact Pismo clarkia areas.
Additionally, portions of proposed- lots 4, 5, 6 and 20 fall within the 50-foot buffer area that
is required mitigation per final certification.of the SEIR. ,Mitigation is proposed to reduce
' potential impacts and ultimately the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) will have to
make findings independent of any City approval in order to. issue appropriate permits.
According to supplemental information`'provided by-the applicant's biologist and reviewed
by the City's consultant,~the resulting "take" or permanent loss of identified habitat would
be approximately 4% of the population as identified and averaged in four different studies.
The proposed Pismo clarkia Mitigation Plan in Attachment 12 includes tho components of
the required extensive mitigation plan expected to be imposed on the, project by the DFG.
Additionally, as previously mentioned, the applicant has included a :Pismo clarkia
Recovery Plan,. that implements a portion of the DFG's recovery, plan and which may
make a significant contribution to the scientific. knowledge base and recovery potential for
the plant: However, any "take" of the species remains. a Class I impact with
corresponding findings required by CEQA; as. well as _ adoption of a Statement of
~ Overriding Considerations by the City if the project is approved.
-. S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM 01-001 (TI998)\200SCCI12203\CC.SR. 11.22.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 11 OF 14
•:• Class I impact cumulative biological impact -
According to the Addendum,. the proposed project represents a comparative reduction in
site disturbance when. compared to previous project proposals and as such, reduces the
magnitude of project impacts. The cumulative effect is dependant upon other proposed
and approved projects in the area. Due to the loss of wildlife, wildlife breeding habitat and
Pismo clarkia habitat that would occur as a result of the project, in combination with other
expected development in the area, the cumulative impacts to biological resources remain
as a Class I impact. This level of impact is reflected in the draft finding in section 6.1.2 of
Attachment "1 C", however, as this impact is also not avoided or substantially reduced in
magnitude, the Planning Commission could not`make findings to recommend approval for
the project.
•:• Potential Class I impact B-4 riparian and wetland habitat -
Findings for impact B-4 identify the potential need to remove or relocate .proposed lots 8,
9, 20 and 21, which directly impact riparian habitat and/or the jurisdictional
drainage/wetlands. Additionally, the project plans indicate that proposed lots 1, 3, 4, 6, 7
and 10 may impact these habitats, and Blossom Valley Road impacts the riparian and
wetland areas to provide access to proposed lots 18 and19. A total of twelve lots are
within the 50-foot buffer required for riparian and wetland habitat as measured from the
top of creek bank. Impact B-2 is identified as a Class II impact in the Addendum if
mitigation can be implemented and the draft findings in section 5.2.1 in Attachment "1 C"
may apply. If development is continued to be proposed in areas that will have an
identified significant impact, it must be considered a Class I impact and draft findings in
section 6.1.3 in Attachment "1 C" would then apply if the project were approved.
However, the Plannirg Commission could 'not make the finding that the impact was
avoided or substantially reduced in magnitude, even considering that CEQA provides the
evaluation of a functional equivalent if a mitigation measure is not feasible.
Proposed mitigation for impacts to riparian and wetland habitat have been addressed in
a "Riparian and Wetland Enhancement Plan" submitted by the applicant's consultants
David Foote of FIRMA and biologist David Wolff and reviewed by the City's Consultant
(Attachment 12). The plan describes the quality of habitat and proposes enhancements
that would affect the long-term viability of the riparian/wetland habitat that. may not be
achieved if the project is denied.
The f2iparian/Wetland Mitigation Ptan includes an analysis for a potential "functional
equivalent" in that habitat protection may be effected by additional work to improve the
habitat value ensuring the creek corridor is "as good or better" than predevelopment
condition. It appears to be an issue of quality of habitat versus quantity, although
"adequate" riparian/wetland enhancement is also mitigation required in conjunction with
the 50-ft. buffer: Consequently, proposed lot 9 and the grouping of proposed lots 18-21
appear to have a greater degree of impact and it is apparent that the removal/relocation
of these lots (and consequently the segment of road providing access) would further
benefit the potential enhancements of the corridor and be more consistent with the draft
finding in section 6.1.3 in Attachment "1C". Although the applicant has removed 15
proposed lots to avoid impacts to Pismo clarkia, and the Planning Commission found
S:COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENTIPROJECTS~TTM1ViTM 01-001 (TI998)120051CC1 I77051CC.SR. 1112.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 12~OF 14
that there are some benefits to the provision of riparian enhancement, the added
protection afforded by maintaining, to the fullest extent feasible, the integrity of the
buffer area is needed to provide adequate mitigation.
• Potential Class I impact Slope stability -
Slope considerations are a concern due to both aesthetic impacts and slope stability.
Several proposed lots include areas of steep slopes, including lots 12-14 that include an
eroded drainage swale and as such, are not found to comprise a significant impact. The
only proposed lot that is comprised almost entirely of natural slopes greater than 20%
(the threshold established in the SEIR), is lot 17. Section 6.1.4 of the findings in
Attachment "1 C" include a discussion pertaining to the geologic studies performed on
the site and the mitigation required. Slope • stability can be achieved through
construction measures, however, the existing safety impact from building on excessively
steep slopes remain. If lot 17 were removed, the classification of impact G-4 would
remain as Class II, and a finding such as the one included in section 5.4.3 of
Attachment "1 C" as regards slope impacts could be made.
Attachment "1C" also includes findings that would be necessary to approve the project with
less than significant impacts (Section 4) and findings for those impacts that are significant
or potentially significant, but determined to be mitigable (Section 5).
• Class II impact Oak trees -
Impacts to Oak trees from the project are described in the Addendum (Impact B-3) and
draft findings that would be required to approve the project despite these impacts are in
section 5.2.2 in Attachment "1 C". Of the estimated 1,260 oak trees on site, 70 trees are
proposed to be removed and mitigated; another 100 are proposed to be transplanted.
Mitigation measure B-3(a) requires apre-construction survey and tree protection plan
and Mitigation measure B-3(b) requires this plan to be re-evaluated prior to the approval
of grading permits, since final tract approvals (including the incorporation of measures
required by responsible agencies in issuance of necessary permits) may affect the tree
mitigation. Although development may occur on most proposed lots that avoid or
minimize individual oak trees, there are several portions of the site where direct and
indirect impacts to oak trees and oak woodland habitat remain. The applicant provides
additional tree mitigation information in Attachment 14. The mitigation required for the
project exceeds standards included within the City's tree protection ordinance in
accordance with the, final certification of the SEIR. However, there are some areas of
the site, that if avoided, would more substantially achieve adequate mitigation. These
areas. include proposed lots 3 and 17 that are composed nearly, entirely by oak
woodland habitat, and the removal or reconfiguration of these lots would be consistent
with a finding for approval such as the one drafted in section 5.2.2 in Attachment "1C".
The City would also have to make findings regarding rejected project alternatives when
approving a project. There were eight alternatives considered in the SEIR and weighed
against project objectives. Attachment "1 C" section 8.0 contains draft findings that would
be needed for project approval considering these alternatives.
S:\COMMUNITY_DEVELOPM ENT\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM Ol-0Ol (TI998)\2005\CCI12205\CC.SR. 11.22.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 13 OF 14
In conclusion, the significant impacts of this project identified in the SEIR that cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened are the permanent loss of biological resources (Pismo
clarkia) and cumulative impact on biological resources. However, as previously discussed,
in the evaluation of the project as revised to further avoid impacts, there are two Class II
impacts that if not fully mitigated to a level of "less than significant", become Class I: Impact
B-2 and Impact G-4.
Therefore, a project approval would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations
(SOC) be made in addition to the findings, which concludes that economic, social and other
specific considerations outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects of each Class I impact of
the project. A draft SOC that was presented to the Planning Commission is included in
Attachment "1 C" section 11. The SOC is a vehicle by which the City can inform the
community of the reasons why certain considerations may justify tolerance of significant
environmental impacts.
As previously mentioned, the project description includes enhancements to benefit the
community. In addition to the Pismo clarkia recovery plan, the onsite well is proposed to be
re-activated as a source of water to offset approximately 35 acre-feet/year of the City's
domestic water supply used to irrigate Rancho Grande Park. This is a considerable benefit
as regards the City's efforts toward conservatiori of water resources. Additionally, the
applicant will provide a monetary contribution towards a project to conduct critical studies
needed for sediment capture and habitat restoration benefiting Meadow Creek and
ultimately Pismo Lake. This sedimentation project is consistent with the Coastal Resource
Conservation District's Pismo Lake Watershed Enhancement Plan (2004). The City has
long recognized the need for addressirig flooding, erosion and sedimentation problems
along the west fork of the tileadow Creek tributary within the Oak Park Acres open space
area. The City received a scope of work from Rincon Consultants for the sedimentation
project that is included in Attachment 15. Lastly, the emergency access road connection to
the Hidden Oaks school site is an offsite improvement that is 1) needed to implement
adequate emergency access for the site; and 2) important in providing greatly improved
circulation to the surrounding neighborhood to improve the public health and safety in the
vicinity.
The Planning Commission, in additioh to finding that adequate mitigation is not afforded by
the project, found that a SOC could not be reached even in light of the proposed
enhancements. In addition to CEQA findings, the draft resolution contains findings required
by the Development Code for the approval for a vesting tentative tract map, planned unit
development and lot line adjustment. The Planning Commission could not make these
findings in the affirmative, nor could they make the CEQA firdings as drafted in Attachment
"1 C". Necessarily, findings for denial of the project are provided for Council consideration
in the attached draft City Council Resolution.
Public Comments
On April 21, and November 10 2005, 85 public hearing notices were sent to all property
owners within 300 feet of the project, the site was adequately posted with information about
the public hearings, and public notices were placed in the Tribune on April 22, September 9
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PROIECTS\TTM\VTTM OI-001 (T1998)\2005\CCI12205\CC.SR.II.22.OS.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF VTTM AND PUD CASE NO. 01-001
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 14 OF 14
and November 11, 2005. Additional public comment relating to the project occurred during
the certification hearings for the SEIR in 2003 and 2004.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Take tentative action on the project and direct staff to return with any necessary
modifications to the attached Draft Resolution
2. Adopt the Draft Resolution
3. Direct staff to use or modify the findings included in Attachment "1 C" and return with
a resolution for approval of the project or a revised project avoiding specified impact
areas.
4. Provide direction to staff.
Exhibits and Attachments: [ON FILE AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT]:
Exhibits
Exhibit A - A 1- A8 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and project plans
Exhibit B - Lot Line Adjustment
Exhibit C - Addendum to the Revised Final-Subsequent EIR
Exhibit D - Draft Design Manual
Exhibit E - Revised Final Subsequent EIR [Previously distributed and on file in the
Administrative Services Department]
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution 05-1977 recommending, project denial; minutes
from the June 7, September 20, and October 4, 2005 Planning Commission public
hearings; and portions of the Planning Commission packet including:
1A - Draft Conditions of Approval
1 B - Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
1C -Example of Drafted CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations that would be necessary for a project approval.
2. Map of habitat feature and mitigation buffers
3. Ordinance 186 C.S: (Rancho Grande Master Plan)
4. Ordinance 302 C.S. (Development Agreement [expired])
5. Applicant's project background summary
6. Applicant's letter to tl:e Chair Brown and the Commission dated April 12, 2005
7. Althouse and Meade's components of the Draft Pismo clarkia Research and
Recovery Plan
8. Staff Advisory Committee Meeting Notes of August 5, 2004
9. City Council Meeting Minutes and Resolution of April 2004
10. ,Rancho Grande Master.Trails Ptan map.; ,. ,
11. Architectural Review Committee Meeting Notes of August 9, 2004
12. Draft Pismo clarkia Mitigation and, Monitoring Plan
13. Riparian and Wetland Enhancement Plan
14. Draft oak tree,mitigation information
15. Rincon SOVH for Meadow Creek Sediment Capture and Habitat Restoration
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM OI-001 (T1996)\200SCCI12205\CC.SR. 11.22.OS.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 3892
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE NO. 01-
001 (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TRACT 1998), PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 01-001, AND L:OT LINE ADJUSTMENT
CASE NO.01-002 LOCATED AT JAMES WAY AND LA CANADA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande adopted Resolution No: 3740
on April 13, 2004 certifying the Revised Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) for the project (Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development 01-
001); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed
public hearings on May 3, 2005, June 7, 2005, September 20, 2005 and October 4, 2005
on the project, filed by Taos Holding Company/Castlerock Development, to subdivide a
26.9-acre property into twenty-one (21) residential lots and one (1) twenty-two (22 acre
open space parcel. and adopted Resolution No. 05-1977 recommending that the City
Council deny the project, as proposed.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande held a duly noticed public
hearing on November 22, 2005 and has reviewed and considered the information and
public-testimony presented at the public hearing, staff report, Addendum to the certified.
SEIR, and all .other information and documents that are part of the public record for the
project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist that prevent the City Council from making the findings
required in order to approve the project:
Tentative Tract Map Findings for denial:
1. The proposed tentative tract map is inconsistent with the goals, objectives,
policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General
Plan (1990) in that development and improvements are proposed adjacent to
riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats; specifically over half of the
proposed lots intrude into .the required 50 foot riparian buffer area, some in close
proximity tb the top of the creek bank for the east fork of Meadow Creek, which
does not adequately mitigate direct and cumulative impacts to biological resources
specified in the certified SEIR, and which consequently is contrary to the
requirements set forth in the implementation measures for Biological Resources in
the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 5.2, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A".
2. The site, as shown on the tentative tract map, is not physically suitable for the type
and proposed density because the development is not clustered in such a way that
allows for all necessary easements, roadways, parking; and improvemehts without
a substantial deviation from requirements set forth in the SEIR; and failure to
incorporate to the fullest extent feasible, adequate mitigation measures,
RESOLUTION NO. 3892
PAGE 2
specifically, development is proposed directly upon areas identified as habitat for
the Federally-listed Endangeted and State-listed Rare plant species Pisrno clarkia,
and furthermore, additional development is proposed within required setbacks
from identified Pismo clarkia habitat; development is also proposed upon identified
riparian and wetland habitat in addition to impacting areas within the associated
required setback areas; and proposed development does not avoid slopes greater
than 20%, which without mitigation, remain significant impacts that cause damage
to and degradation of documented and important biological resources associated
with the East Fork of Meadow Creek and Pismo clarkia and which are integral to
maintain public health and welfare.
3. The design of the tentative tract map and/or the proposed improvements are
likely to cause substantial damage to the natural environment, including fish,
wildlife or their. habitat, the potential impacts have not been adequately
mitigated to the extent feasible and a Statement of Overriding Considerations .
can not 6e made for all remaining significant impacts; specifically, the resulting
impacts to biological resources are not reduced to a level that is considered
less than significant due to the proposed intensity of development and
improvements (including areas in the vicinity of proposed lots 9, 20 and 21
that impact identified wetlands, in the vicinity of proposed lots .3, 8, 18 and
19 impacting the riparian corridor, in the vicinity the westerly portion of
proposed Blossom Valley Road and the vicinity of proposed lots 18, 19' and 20
that are withiri and adjacent~to identified Pismo clarkia habitat?; particularly, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations can not be made to override impacts
to Pismo clarkia, for which, according to expert testimony provided during the
public .hearings by both the City's consultant and the applicant's biological
consultant, scientific evidence does not exist for proven mitigation measures
associated with the protection of the plant species, except for avoidance of
the identified unique Pismo clarkia habitat, and which is not achieved by the
proposed project. Additionally, a substantial number of oak trees are
impacted and the project does not incorporate adequate measures such as
road design features or locating •development or infrastructure that would
reduce impacts to oak trees (shown to be approximately one hundred and
seventy impacted trees total), particularly in the vicinity of the northernmost
section of Blossom Valley Road, and in the vicinity of proposed lots 3 and 17.
Furthermore, the project's provisions for the essential long-term protection of
the environment through _ the requirements. of, and reliance upon, a
Homeowners Association,. even .with additional enforcement provisions, or
maintenance district, are speculative and have not been demonstrated to be
adequate.
Planned Unit Development Findings
1. The proposed planned unit development is not consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies, plans, programs, ihtent and requirements of the Arroyo
Grande General Plan (1990} in that development and improvements are proposed
upon or immediately adjacent to riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats
RESOLUTION NO. 3892
PAGE3
and are therefore contrary to the requirements set forth in the implementation
measures for Biological Resources~in the Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 5.2, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
2. That the site for the proposed development is not adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use, all yards, open spaces; setbacks, walls and fences. parl<ing
-area, loading areas, roadways, landscaping, and other features required for the
reasons as described iri the above findings for the Tentative Tract Map.
3. That the improvements required, and the manner of developmgnt, does not
adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the
proposed development and the project site, including, but not limited to slope
hazards. Specifically, impacts to geologic resources due are not reduced to a
level that is considered less than significant due to the proposed development
and improvements in the vicinity of lot 17 that impact slopes greater that
20%.
Required CEQA Findings:
The required CEQA Findings cannot be made based on the following:
1. Changes or alterations have not been incorporated into the projects which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
FSEIR and Addendum; specifically, impacts B-2, B-3, 'B-4, G-4 and the
cumulative impact to biological resources;.
2. The specific economic, legal, social, technological; or other benefits of the
proposed project, including the project enhancements do not outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande denies without prejudice, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development Case No. 01-001 and Lot Line Adjustment 01-002, as presented to the City
Council on November 22, 2005 and December 13, 2005 and as shown in Exhibits A-E,
on file in the Administrative Services Department and incorporated herein by this
reference as though set forth in full, based on the above referenced findings.
On motion of Council Member Guthrie, seconded by Council Member Arnold, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Costello
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 13th day of December, 2005.
RESOLUTION NO. 389'
PAGE 4
TONY F A, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WEfMOR,~ CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_ ~--
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~ ~ / fj
71M0 HY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT A
5.2 Ensure that all development, including roads, proposed adjacent to riparizn and
other biologically sensitive hahitats avoid sianiiicant impac:s to such areas.
)mplementation Actions:
a. Require th?t new developrentproposedin such locations be designed to:
minimize or eliminate the potEntial /or unauthorized entry into the
sensitive araa;
• create burar areas adjacent to the sensitive area, incorporating the
most passive uses of the adjacent property; ,
• Protect the visual seclusion of forage areas from road intrusion by
providing vegetative buffering;
• Provide wildlife movement finkzges to water sources;
• Provide vege!ation that can be used by wildlife /or cover along
roadsides; and
• Avoid intrusion of night lighting into the sensitive area.
b. If, following a report by a qualified biologist, it is determined that a
subdivision design and related improvements are likely to cause
significant adverse damage to biotic resources, exercise authority under
the provisions of Government Code Section 66474 2nd deny the project.
-. 5.3 Preserve existing mattire trees arid vegetation.
!mplementation Actions:
a. Within ntrzl and hillside residential areas, permit only such natural
vegetariort to be removed as is necessary io locate homesites and
construe: access roads. '
b. Require thathealu;ymature trees bepreserved and protected from curing
or removal as set loth in the Ciry'3 revised tree ordinance.
c. Require that mature trees to be preserved within a development be
protected by enclosing them within an appropriate construc:fon barrier,
such as chain link fencing or other means acceptable to the City, prior to
the issuance of any grading permit or building permit, and prior to the
commencement of work.
d. Aequire that the barriers referenced in Item 'd' above are to remain in
place during all phases of constrvc:ion and may not be removed without
the consent of the Ciry.
e. Prohibit substantial disruption orremoval of the s:rucrura! or absorptive
roots of mature trees being preserved.
f. Prohibit the p/acement of fill material within the dripline of mature trees
being preserved without the approval of a qualified arborist or landscape
architect and consent of the Ciry.
J g. Prohibit substantial compaction of the soil within tt•,e dripline of mature
trees being preserved.
R
RESOLUTION NO. 3892
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San
Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that
Resolution No. 3892 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
on the 13th day of December 2005.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 14`"
day of December 2005.
/LSD.
KELLY WET RE, CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: TERESA MCCLISH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(CASE NO. 01-001) TO SUBDIVIDE A 26.9-ACRE PROPERTY INTO
TWENTY-ONE (21) RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ATWENTY-TWO (22)
PERMANENTLY PRESERVED OPEN SPACE PARCEL
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended based upon the tentative action taken at the City Council public hearing
for this item on November 22, 2005, that the City Council approve the attached resolution
denying without prejudice Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development 01-
001 (otherwise known as Tract 1998).
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
On November 22, 2005, the City Council voted 5-0 to tentatively deny the project as
proposed, without prejudice, and directed staff to incorporate City Council findings into the
draft resolution and return to City Council for final consideration.
The attached resolution contains the findings necessary to deny the project as proposed,
considering concerns about the project emphasized by the City Council during the public
hearing. Discussion at the public hearing included careful consideration of the applicant's
proposal, including the proposed mitigation measures and project enhancements, and an
expressed concern that due to some positive aspects of the project, a no-project alternative
was not necessarily the most desirable outcome. However, due to the configuration of
proposed development and infrastructure, and the resulting significant environmental
effects, the City Council voted to deny the project, without prejudice.
Denial of a project without prejudice means that the applicant is invited to modify the
proposal considering the findings made by the City Council and return to the City Council
for consideration of the modified project.
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
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 8, 2005
Page 2 of 2
Implementation of CEQA. Based on the review, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) was prepared by Rincon Consultants and extends from the program EIR prepared for
Rancho Grande in 1991. A draft SEIR was circulated in February 2003 and then amended
and re-circulated in November 2003 to evaluate a modified project design submitted by the
applicant, and clarification of the biological resources analysis. The City Council certified the
Revised Final SEIR (RFSEIR) on April 13, 2004.
An Addendum to the SEIR was prepared in February 2005 in -accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects
associated with the reduction in the number of residential lots from thirty-six (36) to the
proposed project configuration of twenty-one (21) (Exhibit "F").
Project consideration was delayed by mutual consent between the City and the applicant in
order to provide for project revisions given conclusions in the Revised Final SEIR.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
On April 21, 2005, 85 public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of
the project, the site was posted with information about the public hearing, and a public notice
was placed in t±~e Tribune on April 22, 2005. Additional public comment relating to the
project occurred during the certification hearings for the SEIR in 2003 and 2004.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the draft resolution;
2. Direct staff to modify the findings and adopt the draft resolution;
3. Provide other direction to staff.
S:\Community Developmen[\PROJECTS\TTM\VTTM 01-001 (T1998)\2005\CC112205\cc !21305 sr.doc
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 7
area, and direct staff to work with the Historical Society, specifically on the Mas r Plan, and also
on the potential management agreement. Council Member Arnold second d, and the motion
passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dickens, Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ferrara called for a break at 9:20 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:30 p. m.
11.b. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2005-06 First~Quarter Budget Status Report.
[COUNCIURDA]
Director of Financial Services Kraetsch prese d the staff report and recommended the
Council/RDA Hoard of Directors: 1) Approve c ryover appropriations as shown in Schedule A;
and 2) Approve budget adjustments and r ommendations as shown in Schedule A. Staff
responded to questions from Council re rding funding of the Desalination Study; and the
possibility of setting up a fund in the futur for creek restoration and maintenance.
Mayor/Chair Ferrara opened the pu Ilc hearing and invited comments from those in the audience
who wished to be heard on the atter. No public comments were received and Mayor/Chair
Ferrara closed the public heari
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Cha' Costello moved to approve carryover appropriations and approve
budget adjustments an recommendations as shown in Schedule A. Council/Board Member
Guthrie seconded, an he motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: C ello, Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Ferrara
NOES: one
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued
9.b. Consideration of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development
(Case No. 01-001) to Subdivide a 26.9-Acre Property into Twenty-One (21)
Residential Lots and aTwenty-Two (22) Acre Permanently Preserved Open Space
Parcel.
Associate Planner McClish presented the staff report and recommended the Council consider
the project, make findings determined to be necessary or appropriate, take tentative action on
the project and direct staff to return with the appropriate Resolution for formal action.
Mayor Ferrara opened the public hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who
wished to be heard on the matter.
Dennis Law, representing the applicant (Castlerock Development), gave a presentation (on file in
the Administrative Services Department) which included an overview of the project history; the
original project design; the revised/reduced project design; project mitigations for riparian habitat,
wetland, drainage, Pismo clarkia, long-term maintenance, and HOA management; and project
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 9
expressed concern with the proposed access road as it relates to emergency access; referred to
Fish and Game issues; referred to a drain line which is under the proposed access road;
supported protection of the Pismo clarkia; and stated that the project was too dense and should
be reduced to five units. He opposed the project as proposed.
Karen Tait, Arroyo Grande resident, referred to August 3 and September 1, 2001 articles in The
Tribune and quoted from portions of the articles regarding the proposed project. She noted the
community involvement with this project and the amount of news coverage this project has
received in the past. She stated there are few places so significant that so many community
members have come forward to protest a development, and clearly this is one of them. She
asked the Council to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the project as
proposed.
Don Dirksav, Arroyo Grande resident, expressed concern about access to the development.
No further public comments were received and Mayor Ferrara closed the public hearing.
Council Member Guthrie acknowledged the project's long history; noted that there are areas
where Pismo clarkia is clearly impacted; stated that not everything feasible has been done to
enable a finding of overriding consideration or that everything has been done to avoid Pismo
clarkia impacts; suggested there are other potential solutions such as reducing the size of the
project and reducing lot size; stated that there are impacts related to the proposed access road;
expressed concern about the wetland area and whether or not the HOA can manage and
enforce the mitigation measures and conditions. He reiterated that he did not think everything
feasible has been done in order to reduce the impacts to the wetlands and he would be unable to
make the required findings necessary to approve the project tonight. He acknowledged the
proposed project enhancements, including the Pismo clarkia study and the Pismo Lake
watershed enhancement. He stated that although he could not make the findings of overriding
consideration in order to approve the project tonight, he was not ready to deny the project
outright, as thf;re are opportunities for further review and modification. He stated he would like to
see the best wetland possible; the largest and most stable Pismo clarkia habitat area; and a
long-term plan to ensure that it will stay in place in perpetuity.
Council Member Arnold referred to the staff report and read a statement about CEQA findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations. He agreed with comments by Council Member
Guthrie that other things could be done in order to approve this project. He referred to the
constraint map and noted the project's negative impact to Pismo clarkia. He referred to several
lots that significantly impact the wetlands; a lot that requires extensive cuts into a hill; and lots
that are composed entirely within oak woodland habitat. He stated this is not a project that has
made an attempt to avoid significant impacts; however, he said there is probably an opportunity
to have some number of home sites there but not as many as is proposed. He could not support
the project as proposed and suggested continuing the item or denying the project without
prejudice.
Council Member Dickens acknowledged the environmental impacts on the site and the challenge
for developing. the site. He said he believed the applicant and the proposal is moving in the right
direction and applauded the applicant for bringing in various consultants and professionals that
have expertise in Pismo clarkia and the riparian areas, and the restoration and mitigation
measures that have been brought forth. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by members
of the community. He said the first priority was addressing the CEQA impacts, including doing a
better job of addressing the eastern area of the subdivision to protect the Pismo clarkia and
CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 10
lessen the direct impact; looking further at the riparian wetlands and habitat, particularly at the
western end of the subdivision, and the potential impacts to natural springs in the area;
addressing the issue of slope stability; and addressing potential impacts to oak trees at the
northern and eastern areas of the subdivision. He commented that when there is eventually a
project that addresses the issues he is concerned with, there would likely still be a need to adopt
a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He said he would need to offset that with the
proposed enhancements that the project is bringing forth. He said he was pleased with what was
being proposed; however, he referred to the water well and inquired who would be responsible to
construct the well and the infrastructure necessary to transport the water to Rancho Grande
Park, as well as what the cost would be. He also spoke of water conservation measures and
suggested connecting a dual plumbing system to the homes that are being proposed. He agreed
that the houses presented in concept seem too large and that if the area is constrained because
of its environmental concerns, he suggested a different concept of housing model that is less
intrusive. He encouraged the applicant to move forward to revise the project and come back
with a revised proposal, and supported either continuing the item or denying the project without
prejudice.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello stated that he liked some of the proposed enhancements as it relates to
the riparian corridor and doing some restoration to an area that has been damaged. He stated he
would like to see the required setback for all buildings in this project; expressed concerns about
the serious impacts to the Pismo clarkia habitat and noted that there have not been any studies
that show any success in the restoration or transplanting of Pismo clarkia; would prefer to see
the 5-year Pismo clarkia study completed before taking any Pismo clarkia from the site;
expressed concern to oak tree impacts on several lots; expressed concern about building on
slopes greater than 20%; referred to several lots that directly impact Pismo clarkia and riparian
habitat. He stated he would like to see a project come back that avoids the environmental areas
that would be impacted. He supported denying the project without prejudice or continuing the
item so it can come back with a different configuration.
Mayor Ferrara commented on the proposed preliminary riparian wetland mitigation plan and
noted that relying on the involvement of certain State agencies such as Fish & Game, Army
Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife for permitting and ongoing monitoring purposes is
not realistic. He also noted that some of the strategies in the mitigation plan have merit;
however, he expressed concern as to the degree to which they can be implemented on this site.
He acknowledged the many site constraints such as drainage, riparian wetland, oak woodland,
Pismo clarkia, setback, and slope and expressed concern about the proposed lots that involve
Class I impacts and sensitive areas. He concluded by acknowledging this project falls under the
1990 General Plan; he noted that all the subsequent discussions and meetings have examined
and reexamined the impacts that exist on this particular site; and the Council had looked at all
the facts that tiad been generated to determine what would work on the site. He stated he did not
support the project as proposed and would support denying the project without prejudice. He
said consideration must be given to all the facts that have been brought forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello moved to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande denying without prejudice approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-001
(otherwise known as Tract 1998), Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001, and Lot Line
Adjustment Case No. 01-002 located at James Way and La Canada. Council Member Arnold
seconded the motion.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
PAGE 11
Council Member Dickens acknowledged the motion; however, he asked if the motion was
appropriate based on all the feedback that was provided to the applicant. City Attorney Carmel
stated it was within the Council's discretion to adopt the subject Resolution; however, there was
so much additional material discussed tonight and so many additional findings made by the
Council that he recommended the Council direct staff to incorporate some of the additional
findings that were made into the Resolution. He stated some of the findings made tonight were
not included in the proposed Resolution. Staff recommended the Council take tentative action to
deny the protect without prejudice and direct staff to bring back a supporting Resolution
consistent with the Council's direction for adoption at a future meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Costello amended his motion to include directing staff to incorporate the
additional findings that the Council made into the Resolution and bringing the Resolution back to
the Council for formal adoption at the next meeting. Council Member Arnold seconded the
motion, and on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Costello, Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
a. MAYOR TONY M. FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/Sa uis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA). Brisco/Halcy interchange project continues to
be a priority and discussion was held on how advance the funding cycle.
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitati n District (SSLOCSD). Encouraged
Council Members to take a tour of the pl t.
(3) Other. Continuing to attend Zone 1A meetings and taskforce meetings;
discussed work plan and alternative. udy for flood mitigation.
b. MAYOR PRO TEM JOE COSTELLO:
(1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Boar No report.
(2) County Water Resources visory Committee (WRAC). No report.
(3) Air Pollution Control Di ict (APCD). APCD is working at the appropriate level
in terms of the use of th r budget and use of the revenue. APCD has a significant
increase in the amou of funds that are available for the Carl Moyer grant. APCD
will be looking at asures dealing with the issue of global warming and how it
affects APCD op ations.
(4) Fire Oversight ommittee. No report.
(5) Other. None.
c. COUNCIL MEM R JIM DICKENS:
(1) South ounty Area Transit (SCAT). No report.
(2) Sou County Youth Coalition. No report.
(3) Ot er. None.
d. COUDICIL MEMBER JIM GUTHRIE:
Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC). No report.
Other. None.
CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 13, 2005
7. CITIZENS' INPUT. COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Council/Board Member Guthrie moved, and Council/Board Member Arnold seconded the motion
to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.n., with the recommended courses of action.
City Attorney Carmel read the title of the Resolution in Item 8.j. as follows: "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande denying Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-001
(otherwise known as Tract 1998), Planned Unit Development Case No. 01-001, and Lot Line
Adjustment Case No. 01-002 Located at James Way and La Canada". The motion passed on the
following roll-call vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Dickens, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: Costello
8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for th period November 16, 2005
through November 30, 2005.
8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City C ncil meeting of October 25, 2005
as submitted.
8.c. Consideration of Acceptance of the Redev lopment Agency's (RDA) Annual
Financial Reports [COUNCIURDA].
Action: Received and filed the Redeveloprr~ent Agency's respective Annual Financial
Reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005.
8.d. Consideration of Annual Financial Rep -Fiscal Year 2004-05 Receipt and Use of
Water and Sewer Development Fees.
Action: Received and filed the annul report of the receipt and use of water and sewer
development impact fees and char es, in compliance with Government Code Section
66013.
8.e. Consideration of Resolution cepting the Status Report on Project Development
Impact Fees (AB 1600).
Action: Adopted Resolutio o. 3889 accepting the status report on the receipt and use
of Project Development I pact Fees (AB 1600) during the fiscal year ending June 30,
2005.
8.f. Consideration of Ap oval of an Open Space Easement Agreement for Tract 2816.
Action: Adopted Re olution No. 3890 approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute an
Open Space Ease ent Agreement for Tract 2616.
8.g. Consideration Disposal of Surplus Bicycles.
Action: Ado ted Resolution No. 3891 declaring the listed bicycles as surplus for
donation to a San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office to be refurbished and donated to
needy chit en.
8.h. Consicf ation to Approve Final Tract Map 2539 Subdividing Two (2) .49-Acre
Parce into Twelve (12) Parcels Located at 185 and 187 Brisco Road.
Acti n: Approved Final Tract Map 2539, subdividing two (2) .49-acre parcels into twelve
(1 parcels.
-.._.~
ATTACHMENT A
~.,
March 8, 2007
CASTLEROCK
D E V E L O P M E N T
Rob Strong, Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning- Department
P.O. Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: Tract 1998
Dear Rob:
ATTACHMENT 4
~~- ~~`
MAR 2 6 7067
_ `~ 11 ~•_.Ail
This letter is in reference to the pending vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
for Tract 1998 located at La Canada and James Way.
To briefly recap where we are in the application process; the City Council has
reviewed the tentative map application and expressed concerns with various
aspects of the project design. We have taken the Council's comments into
consideration and the current project design, although it is a part of the same
application, has been modified to address these comments. We are now seeking
feedback from Council to verify that these modifications have addressed the
issues of concern.
To achieve this we would like to take advantage of the "pre-application" process
to provide the Council with an early opportunity for review and comment. We see
it as an excellent cooperative opportunity to receive direct constructive feedback
from the Council Members and the General Public.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jason Tyra
Castlerock Development
202 H3 Tank Farm Road • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 . Lic. No. 730786 • (805) 546-8100 . Fax (805) 549-8419
~, a ..
ATTACHMENT5
•. ON F1l.G !4T e.Da
Revised Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report
Addendum
State Clearinghouse No. 2001081065
~Testirig, Tentative Tract Map
` ~~ao t
~wtR
~.r5.~;Ay3::
y. t.•r ~ ..:'.
r..4iJ~: •.
Fi'i,.