Agenda Packet 2007-06-12Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
CITY OF
City Council
Tony Ferrara
Ed Arnold
Joe Costello
Jim Guthrie
Chuck Fellows
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
3. FLAG SALUTE:
4. INVOCATION:
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
6. AGENDA REVIEW:
y~'r'~ ~
V' CALIFORNIA y
Agenda
Steven Adams City Manager
Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Kelly Wetmore City Clerk
AGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2007
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
7:00 P.M.
COUNCILIRDA
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
DR. MAYER-HARNISH
BAHAI FAITH
6a. Move that all ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings
be waived.
AGENDA SUMMARY -JUNE 12, 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Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit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 May
16, 2007 through May 31, 2007.
8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes (WETMORE)
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City
Council Meeting of May 8, 2007 and the Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency
Meeting of May 8, 2007, as submitted.
8.c. Consideration of Confirmation of Assessments for Tracts 1158. 1769. 2310, and
2236 (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution confirming landscaping assessments for
all parcels within Tract 1158; 2) Adopt Resolution confirming landscaping and lighting
assessments for all parcels within Tract 1769; 3) Adopt Resolution confirming the
assessments for the Parkside Assessment District for all parcels within Tract 2310
(Parkside Village Subdivision); and 4) Adopt Resolution confirming the assessments
for the Grace Lane Assessment District for all parcels within Tract 2236 (Grace Lane
Subdivision).
AGENDA SUMMARY -JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 3
8. CONSENT AGENDA fcont'd):
8.d. Co_nsideration of Agreement of Consultant Services for Audit Services
[COUNCIL/RDA] (KRAETSCH)
Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor/Chair to enter into a three-year
consultant services agreement with the audit firm of Moss, Levy & Hartzheim,
Certified Public Accountants.
8.e. Consideration of Confirmation of Appointment of Interim Chief of Police
(ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Confirm the appointment of Steve Andrews as the Interim
Chief of Police.
8.f. Consideration of Appropriation of Funds for Safetv Netting at Porter Baseball
Field (PERRIN)
Recommended Action: Appropriate Parkside Assessment District funds for
installation of concrete, poles and safety netting between Porter Baseball Field and
Parkside Park.
8.g.
8.h. Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.60 of the
Arrow Grande Municipal Code Regarding Signs (McCLISH)
Recommended Action: Adopt an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter
16.60 regarding Signs.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.a.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution accepting the public improvements and
easements for Conditional Use Permit 00-019 and Parcel Map AG 00-301, located at
the southeast corner of South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue, constructed
by E.F. Moore and Company.
Recommended Action: Continue public hearing to the July 10, 2007 meeting.
AGENDA SUMMARY -JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 4
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd):
9.b
(McCLISH)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution to amend and add policies to the
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan regarding
creek protection; 2) Introduce Ordinance to Amend Title 16, implementing creek
setback standards for all creeks in the City of Arroyo Grande; and 3) Provide staff
direction on other recommendations in the draft Creek Resources Protection Study.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
11.a. Consideration of FY 2007-08IFY 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: 1) Adopt the attached resolution approving the FY 2007-
08/FY 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget; and 2) Approve the proposed changes to the City's
Fiscal Policies.
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS:
The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by a Council Member who would like
to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal
agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action
can be taken.
a.
(FELLOWS)
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.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution of the Citv Council to Amend the
AGENDA SUMMARY -JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 5
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.
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.orp
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-soan.oro.
8.ao
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE
BY: FRANCES R. HEAD, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR LI.I-1
SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION f `U'f,V~/
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for
the period May 16 through May 31, 2007.
FUNDING:
There is a $608,261.11 fiscal impact that includes the following items:
• Accounts Payable Checks 131402-131587 $ 183,914.07
• Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks $ 424,347.04
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-May 16, 2007-May 31, 2007, Accounts Payable Check Register
Attachment 2- May 25, 2007, Payroll Checks & Benefit Checks Register
ATTCHMENT 1
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 1
06/04/2007 1:51 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor
131402 05/16/2007 000403 MAINTENANCE
131403 05/18/2007 000012 AGRI-TURF SUPPLIES, INC
131404 05/1812007 004815 AIRGAS WEST INC
131405 05/1812007 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC
131406 05/1812007 005709 AMERICAN MESSAGING
131407 05/18/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA)
131408 05/18/2007 005507 AT & T
131409 05/18/2007 005615 ATST/MCI
131410 05/18/2007 002180 AVAYA, INC
131411 05/1812007 000057 R BAKER, INC
131412 05118/2007 000065 BRENDA BARROW
131413 05/18/2007 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL
131414 05118/2007 006137 KATHERINE BOXER
131415 05/18/2007 000087 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL,
131416 05/18/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL 8 LUMBER
131417 05/18/2007 001577 BURDINE PRINTING (DBA)
131418 05/18/2007 006138 CA MUNICIPAL TREASURERS
131419 05/18/2007 000126 CA ST DEPT OF CONSUMER
131420 05/18/2007 000129 CA ST EMPLOYMENT DEVEL
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
051407 05116/2007 20.00 20.00
58072 04/03/2007 1,007.68 1,007.68
103171334 04/30/2007 27.25 27.25
2279 05/09/2007 626.80 626.80
L5245715HE 05/15/2007 11.34 11.34
74X00039 05/09/2007 508.21
74K00027 05/01/2007 385.49 893.70
5/7-0183 05/07/2007 193.32
5/7-3953 05/07/2007 33.13
5/7-3956 05/07/2007 33.13
517-3959 05/07/2007 33.13 282.71
T6433506 04111/2007 29.89
T6433507 04/11/2007 14.79 44.68
2725485787 05101/2007 41.22 41.22
07-04-1872 05/09/2007 776.28 776.28
051507 05/16/2007 178.29 178.29
V 05121/2007 SI5306831 05/07/2007 444.48 444.48
V 05/21/2007 051407 05/14/2007 631.66 631.66
70151 05/09/2007 109.00 109.00
133117 05/07/2007 2.25 2.25
5961 04/30/2007 306.06 306.06
59305 05101/2007 150.00 150.00
70750 06/30/2007 125.00 125.00
050407 05/04/2007 1,786.00 1,786.00
Page: 1
aPCkHist Check History Listing Page: 2
0610412007 1:51 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check# Date Vendor Status ClearlVoid Date Invoice
131421 0511812007 003853 CALIFORNIA LIGHTING 7012
131422 05118/2007 000143 ARON CANBY WELDING 6744
131423 05118/2007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 161732
131424 05/1812007 000160 CHAPARRAL
131425 05/18/2007 001925 CLEARWATER COLOR
131426 05118/2007 000171 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF
131427 05/18/2007 000174 COASTLINE
131428 05/18/2007 002842 COMMERCIAL
131429 05/18/2007 005167 CREDIT BUREAU, THE
131430 05/1812007 000190 CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL
131431 05/18/2007 000195 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER
131432 05/18/2007 001250 CTINALUELINE
131433 05/18/2007 001854 JIM DECECCO
131434 05/18/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES
131435 05/18/2007 006141 DEMSEY, FILIIGER & ASSOC
131436 05/18/2007 005435 CHARLES DICKEY
131437 05/18/2007 000240 FARM SUPPLY CO
131438 05/18/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,
7314-158761
7314-161341
253689
44784
749612
4911219
4297-0407
4287-0407
043007
02424
63949
4/30-048519
5/3-070931
4/30-14273
385749
051407
11927117
1365
051707
314925
296176
1297531
1299940
Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
05/08/2007
05/0212007
05/08/2007
04/26/2007
05/07/2007
05/09/2007
04/25/2007
05/07/2007
04/25/2007
05/07/2007
05/07/2007
04/30/2007
05/04/2007
05/09/2007
04/30/2007
05/03/2007
04/30/2007
04/19/2007
05116/2007
04130/2007
0 511 3/2 00 7
05/17/2007
04/19/2007
04/03/2007
04/3012007
05/04/2007
75.16
600.06
61.42
19.35
1.85
145.34
54.70
560.00
389.76
420.00
350.00
46.82
105.00
30.00
28.75
28.75
27.25
37.77
120.00
112.46
4,000.00
170.00
54.44
1.15
311.03
192.52
75.16
600.06
82.62
145.34
54.70
560.00
389.76
770.00
46.82
105.00
114.75
37.77
120.00
112.46
4,000.00
170.00
55.59
Page:2
apckHist
06104/2007
1:51PM Check History Listing
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Page: 3
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status Clear/Void Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
1302179 05/09/2007 8787 591.42
131439 05/18/2007 006139 FINE HOMEBUILDING 051507 05/15/2007 37.95 37.95
131440 0511812007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 519-200 N 05/09/2007 220.57
5/4-200 E 05/0412007 83.72
5/4-214 05/04/2007 44.85
5/4-208 05/04/2007 24.83
5/8-910 05/08/2007 11.87
5/8-1500 05/08/2007 1072 396.56
131441 05/18/2007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 70637 05/15/2007 128.49 128.49
131442 05/18/2007 002358 GREAT WESTERN ALARM 070400013101 05/0112007 28.00
070400713101 05/0112007 2500 53.00
131443 05/18/2007 000288 CITY OF GROVER BEACH 5110- ACCT #3 05/10/2007 42.33
050807 05/16/2007 10.60 52.93
131444 05/18/2007 001237 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 100370 05/03/2007 532.23 532.23
131445 05/18/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 051407 05/14/2007 40.00 40.00
131446 05/18/2007 000301 HEACOCK TRAILERS & 23988 03129/2007 19.31 19.31
131447 05/18/2007 000311 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS 0012807-IN 05/07/2007 975.00 975.00
131448 05/18/2007 006140 ICC CENTRAL COAST 051507 05/16/2007 150.00 150.00
131449 05/18/2007 001793 J J KELIER & ASSOCIATES, 006158339 04/25/2007 173.16 173.16
131450 05118/2007 005833 KERN TURF SUPPLY INC 247504 05/02/2007 228.73 228.73
131451 05/18/2007 000366 KEY TERMITE R PEST 27461 05/01/2007 56.00 56.00
131452 05/18/2007 004845 JOHN CARSON 051407 05116/2007 80.00 80.00
131453 05/18/2007 000376 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 5604885 05/07/2007 127.49 127.49
131454 05/18/2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 051407 05/16/2007 16.00 16.00
131455 05/1812007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070806 05/01/2007 285.00
070807 05101/2007 285.00
Page: 3
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 4
0610412007 1:51PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor
131456 0511812007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE,
131457 05/18/2007 000441 MULLAHEY FORD
131458 05/1812007 000832 NEXT DAY SIGNS
131459 0511812007 002849 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
131460 05/18/2007 000452 NFPA - NATL FIRE
131461 05/18/2007 002174 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER,
131462 05/18/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT
131463 05/1812007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
131464 05/18/2007 000497 CITY OF PISMO BEACH
131465 05/18/2007 002670 RICOH LEASING
131466 05/18/2007 003363 NINA RIPPY
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
070808 05/01/2007 285.00
070820 05/01/2007 52.50 907.50
904115 05/04/2007 146.43
141589 03/15/2007 107.24
124247 03/23/2007 105.28
205325 05/14/2007 80.09
905398 05/14/2007 7715
204717 05/0912007 68.93
142524 03/23/2007 44.24
201084 04/12/2007 35.84
201008 04/12/2007 33.66
200893 04/11/2007 15.87
204759 05/09/2007 6.99
204539 05/08/2007 5.46
200146 04/05/2007 4.31
200959 04111/2007 224 733.73
FOCS177624 04/19/2007 179.99 179.99
4510 05/10/2007 32.18 32.18
933066312-066 04/29/2007 134.13 134.13
3769486X 0511512007 390.00 390.00
207534 04/0912007 2,993.67 2,993.67
383589833-001 04/20/2007 114.28
385936001-001 05/04/2007 30.73 145.01
4/20-853299 04120/2007 18,735.07
5/3-194097 05/03/2007 15,317.96
4/19-704689 04119/2007 74.75 34,127.78
051507 05/16/2007 154.00 154.00
07053195930 05/01/2007 155.28 155.28
051407 05/14/2007 58.10 58.10
Page: 4
apckHist Check History Listing Page: 5
06/04/2007 1:51PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code:
Check # boa
Date Vendor
Status ClearNoid Date Invoice
Inv. Date
Amount Paid
Check Total
131467 05/18/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 051407 05/16/2007 96.00 96.00
131468 05/1812007 000538 S & L SAFETY PRODUCTS 201873 04120/2007 226.11 226.11
131469 05/18/2007 005982 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 05152007 05/15/2007 60.00 60.00
131470 05/18/2007 000578 ANGELITA ANN SARMIENTO 051407 05114/2007 32.00 32.00
131471 05/18/2007 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 051407 05/16/2007 32.00 32.00
131472 05/18/2007 003024 MARK SCRAPPER 051407 05/16/2007 80.00 80.00
131473 05/18/2007 000564 SLO COUNTY NEWSPAPERS 6550969 05/04/2007 376.60
6549101 03/09/2007 108.46
654123 03/09/2007 106.59
6555734 03/21/2007 8228 673.93
131474 05/18/2007 004167 SLO COUNTY PUBLIC 0050935 05107/2007 1,131.86 1,131.86
131475 05/18/2007 004860 TAMMY SMITH 051407 05/16/2007 80.00 80.00
131476 05/18/2007000613 STATEWIDESAFETYB 54430 05/07/2007 197.21
54357 05/02!2007 72.39 269.60
131477 05/18/2007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 51039736.001 04/17/2007 72.75 72.75
131478 05/18/2007 000627 TARGET SPECIALTY 051407 05/14/2007 140.00 140.00
131479 05118/2007 002904TEMPLETON UNIFORMS 10012 05/11/2007 171.60 171.60
131480 05/18/2007 004233 TRI COUNTY OFFICE FURN, 28114-2533 04/20/2007 3,614.40
27672-2524 05/16/2007 1,300.55 4,914.95
131481 05118/2007 004609 TROESH RECYCLING, INC 6041 05103/2007 169.88
6052 05/04/2007 153.69 323.57
131482 05/18/2007 000653 DOROTHY TRULOCK 050707 05/16/2007 68.80 68.80
131483 05118/2007 000669 UNION ASPHALT, INC 274281 05/03/2007 169.11 169.11
131484 05118/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 61697744-001 12/20/2006 129.32 129.32
131485 05/18/2007 000685 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF 22609 04111/2007 18,237.88
Page: 5
apCkHist
06/04/2007
1:51PM 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
22612 04111 /2007 1,085.38
22611 0411112007 819.25
22610 04/11/2007 536.75 20,679.26
131486 05/18/2007 000687 WAYNE'S TIRE, INC 766311 04/18/2007 381.09
764863 02/20/2007 189.25
766690 05/03/2007 142.40 712.74
131487 05118/2007 000688 WEST COVINA NURSERIES 20833 04/26/2007 48.26 48.26
131488 05118/2007 005819 CHAD WOHLFORD 2 04/30/2007 6,976.00 6,976.00
131489 05/21/2007 006137 KATHERINE BOXER 051407 05/14/2007 631.66 631.66
131490 05/21/2007 001944 BASIC CHEMICAL SI5306831 05/07/2007 444.48 444.48
131491 05/22/2007 000904 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC INV0108465 05/14/2007 10,000.00 10,000.00
131493 05/24/2007 006130 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC 2361 05/16/2007 833.78
2308 05/10/2007 399.81 1,233.59
131494 05/24/2007 003857 ANDERSON BURTON PW2006-09 05/22/2007 2,996.90 2,996.90
131495 05/24/2007 002632 API WASTE SERVICES (DBA) 75600032 05/18/2007 280.63 280.63
131496 05/24/2007 005507 AT & T 5/8-9816 05/08/2007 77.46 77.46
131497 05/24/2007 003453 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC V 05/30/2007 50481253 05/11/2007 77.58 77.58
131498 05/24/2007 000090 BRISCO MILL & LUMBER 132944 04/23/2007 6.97 6.97
131499 05124/2007 005843 CALIFORNIA 5646562 05/18/2007 49.68 49.68
131500 05/24/2007 000994 CALVARY CHAPEL CHURCH 051707 05/17/2007 30.00 30.00
131501 05/24/2007 000603 CAROUEST AUTO PARTS 7314-162473 0511112007 19.16
7314-156493 04/17/2007 6.12
7314-161896 0510912007 4.69
7314-162491 05/11/2007 -19.16 10.81
131502 05124/2007 006146 CENTRAL COAST QUILTERS 051807 05/18/2007 218.50 218.50
131503 05/2412007 003883 CENTRAL COAST STRIPING 5541 05/11/2007 9,650.00 9,650.00
Page:6
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 7
06104/2007 1:51PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131504 05/24/2007 006147 SAMANTHA CHRISTY 051707 05/17/2007 30.00 30.00
131505 05/24/2007 000174 COASTLINE 3954348 05/11/2007 72.99 72.99
131506 05/24/2007 002842 COMMERCIAL 5147-60807 05/22/2007 4,250.00 4,250.00
131507 05/24/2007 001854 JIM DECECCO 052107 05/23/2007 40.00 40.00
131508 05/24/2007 005091 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 11996160 05/08/2007 107.70 107.70
131509 05/24/2007 000208 J B DEWAR, INC 931983 05/28/2007 150.42 150.42
131510 05/24/2007 006148 SANDRA DORADO 051707 05/23/2007 30.00 30.00
131511 05/24/2007 005085 EVERYDAY CHURCH 051707 05/1712007 100.00 100.00
131512 05/24/2007 001525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, 1307045 05/17/2007 157.67 157.67
131513 05/24/2007 000897 FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD 747 05/15/2007 270.00 270.00
131514 05/24/2007 006149 FLO-SYSTEMS INC F8587-7R159 05/14/2007 4,477.38 4,477.38
131515 05/24/2007 004790 DEANNA FLOYD 051507 05/15/2007 40.00 40.00
131516 05/24/2007 003590 SERENA FLOYD 051507 05/23/2007 32.00 32.00
131517 05124/2007 006158 PAUL FORDYCE 052307 05/23/2007 60.00 60.00
131518 05124/2007 000262 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY 25248 05/09/2007 26.94
25217 05/01/2007 4.85 31.79
131519 05/24/2007 006150 AMY GALLAGHER 051707 05/17/2007 30.00 30.00
131520 05/24/2007 000605 THE GAS COMPANY 5/10-1375 05/10/2007 186.08
5/10-350 05/10/2007 128.82 314.90
131521 05/2412007 000499 GRAND AWARDS, INC 70544 05/14/2007 399.99
70334 03/09/2007 281.53
70645 05/16/2007 57.27 738.79
131522 05/24/2007 004188 EDDIE HARRIS 052107 05/21/2007 40.00 40.00
131523 05/24/2007 005456 JOHNATHAN HURST 052107 05/21/2007 70.00 70.00
Page: 7
apckFlist Check History Listing Page: 8
06104/2007 1:51PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131524 05/24/2007 000338 IIMC - INTL INST OF 052307 05/23/2007 75.00 75.00
131525 05/24/2007 005265 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER, INC 052307 05/23/2007 3,326.40 3,326.40
131526 05/2412007 004845 JOHN CARSON 052107 05/21/2007 100.00 100.00
131527 05/24/2007 006151 STEPHEN LIEBERMAN 051807 05/23/2007 45.00 45.00
131528 05/24/2007 005511 CHRISTOPHER LINTNER 041607 04/16/2007 64.00 64.00
131529 05/2412007 001136 DOUG LINTNER 052107 05/23/2007 80.00
051407 05/14/2007 60.00 140.00
131530 05/24/2007 000393 LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL 070798 05/01/2007 894.61
070757 04/19/2007 467.33
070819 05/01/2007 301.35 1,663.29
131531 05/24/2007 006020 RYAN MICHAEL 051507 05/15/2007 60.00 60.00
131532 05/24/2007 000419 MIDAS AUTO SERVICE 0017837 05/14/2007 102.31 102.31
131533 05/24/2007 000429 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, 906613 05/22/2007 49.34
202061 04/19/2007 12.92 62.26
131534 05/24/2007 006152 NATL ASSOC OF WATCH & 051807 05/18/2007 232.00 232.00
131535 05/24/2007 000468 OFFICE DEPOT 386775233-001 05/22/2007 95.29
386773496-0Ot 05/11/2007 6726 162.55
131536 05/24/2007 000481 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 5/11-620838 05/11/2007 189.18
5/11-781296 05/11/2007 16.35 205.53
131537 05124/2007 006153 PETE'S UPHOLSTERY 233780 04/18/2007 330.74 330.74
131538 05/24/2007 004757 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. PD-6772 05/14/2007 48.26 48.26
131539 05/24/2007 003626 IRENE ROCHA 051707 05/17/2007 30.00 30.00
131540 05/24/2007 000536 GREG ROSE 051507 05/15/2007 40.00 40.00
131541 05/24/2007 003649 CHARLES D (DON) RUIZ 052107 05/21/2007 120.00 120.00
131542 05/2412007 006142 CHRIS SANDOVAL 0503 05/03/2007 350.00 350.00
Page: 8
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 9
06/0412007 1:51 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check t< Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131543 05/24/2007 000578 ANGELITA ANN SARMIENTO 052107 05/23/2007 32.00 32.00
131544 05/24/2007 006080 MARTINA SARMIENTO 052107 05/21/2007 24.00 24.00
131545 0512412007 003024 MARK SCRAPPER 052107 05/21/2007 40.00 40.00
131546 05/24/2007 005417 SLO COUNTY BICYCLE 052307 05/23/2007 25.00 25.00
131547 05/24/2007 004860 TAMMY SMITH 052107 05/21/2007 48.00 48.00
131548 05/24/2007 006154 SOUTH COUNTY AREA 7460-07-046 05110/2007 464.54 464.54
131549 05/24/2007 004393 SP MAINTENANCE 18610 05/11/2007 85.00 85.00
131550 05/24/2007 000609 BOB SPEAR 051507 05/15/2007 120.00 120.00
131551 05/24/2007 006155 SPORTIME 204900108612 05/05/2007 105.12 105.12
131552 05/24/2007 000613 STATEWIDE SAFETY & 54705 05/17/2007 382.08
54613 05/13/2007 10082 482.90
131553 05/24/2007 000620 STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 1042734 05/14/2007 10.39 10.39
131554 05/2412007 002837 ROB STRONG 052307 05/23/2007 680.25 680.25
131555 05124/2007 000623 SUNSET NORTH CAR WASH 1113 04/30/2007 321.52 321.52
131556 05/24/2007 000624 SUPERIOR QUALITY 34164 05/15/2007 480.00 480.00
131557 05/24/2007 000637 TEXAS REFINERY CORP 788423 05/0712007 187.26 187.26
131558 05/24/2007 004801 TOMARK SPORTS 0478737-IN 05/04/2007 498.72 498.72
131559 05/24/2007 002377 TURF STAR, INC 6508955-00 03/30/2007 115.11
6513629-00 05/01/2007 84.88
6510987-00 04/12/2007 -115.11 gq.gg
131560 05/24/2007 000666 UNITED RENTALS 64362553 05/04/2007 573.15 573.15
131561 05/24/2007 000678 VALLEY AUTO SERVICE 16000 05118/2007 20.00 20.00
131562 05/24/2007 006156 STEVE AND KAREN VIERRA 052307 05/23/2007 1,800.00 1,800.00
131563 05/24/2007 000685 WALLACE GROUP A CALIF 20616 08/15/2006 10,345.30 10,345.30
Page: 9
~ apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 10
06/04/2007 1:51 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
131564 05/24/2007 000866 JAMIE WHARTON 051507 05/15/2007 24.00 24.00
131565 05/24/2007 000699 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC 3109 03/31/2007 753.51 753.51
', 131566 05/24/2007 004897 WOOD RODGERS INC 56005 05/14/2007 14,060.91 14,060.91
131567 05/24/2007 006157 JUAN LOPEZ ZARATE 051707 05/17/2007 30.00 30.00
131568 05/24/2007 000716 ZOLL MEDICAL CORP 1410302 03/1512007 420.84
1410783 03/19/2007 163.74 584.58
131569 05/2512007 001834 PAPA -PESTICIDE 052407 05/25/2007 260.00 260.00
131570 0512512007 006159 GG-ONE SOFTWARE INC 051807 05/18/2007 2,334.10 2,334.10
131571 0512912007 004077 CA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 052907 05129/2007 65.00 65.00
131580 0513012007 006143 EDWARD MULLAHEY Ref000077018 05116/2007 164.91 164.91
131581 0513012007 006145 CAROL RODER Ref000077020 05/15/2007 97.71 97.71
131582 0513012007 006144 DARCY SHEWBERT Ref000077019 05/16/2007 55.77 55.77
131583 05/30/2007 006126 MARGARET VOGE Ref000077021 05/14/2007 48.60 48.60
131584 05131/2007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS V 05131/2007 0.00 0.00
131585 05/31/2007 003817 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SVCS F034525 12/19/2006 61.65
F152585 04/10/2007 34.90
F164078 04/24/2007 34.90
' F146848 04/03/2007 22.40
F158379 04/17/2007 22.40
F146866 04/03/2007 19.60
F 152601 04/10/2007 19.60
' F158398 04/17/2007 19.60
F164094 04/24/2007 19.60
F146847 04/03/2007 18.20
F152584 04/10/2007 18.20
F158378 04/17/2007 1820
F164077 04/24/2007 18.20
F146858 04103/2007 17.25
Page: 10
apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 11
06/04/2007 1:51 PM CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Bank code: boa
Check # Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv. Date Amount Paid Check Total
F158390 04/1712007 17.25
F152599 04/10/2007 15.00
F164092 04/24/2007 15.00
F152592 04/10/2007 11.80
F164084 04/24/2007 11.80
F146862 04/03/2007 10.35
F158394 04/17/2007 10.35
F152598 04/10/2007 9.50
F164091 04/24/2007 9.50
F152591 04/10/2007 8.80
F164083 02/24/2007 8.80
F146864 04/03/2007 8.50
F158396 04/17/2007 8.50
F146861 04/03/2007 6.00
F158393 04/17/2007 6.00
F146865 04/03/2007 5.60
F152600 04/10/2007 5.60
F158397 04/17/2007 5.60
F164093 04/24/2007 5.60
F146863 04/03/2007 5.00
F158395 04/17/2007 5.00
F146853 04/03/2007 2.80
F158383 04/17/2007 2.80
F146854 04/03/2007 2.80
F158384 04/17/2007 2.80
F040492 04/17/2007 1.10
F040491 04/17/2007 0.55 547.10
131586 05/31/2007 000058 BANK OF AMERICA 5/8-9444 05/0812007 2,777.25
5/8-9163 05/08/2007 1,533.84
5/8-2083 05/08/2007 1,331.40
5/8-0915 0510812007 369.11
5/8-2059 05/08/2007 336.73
5/8-7762 05/08/2007 298.36
5/8-2581 05/08/2007 211.35
5/8-9328 05/08/2007 92.14 6,950.18
Page: 11
Page: 12
apCkHist
08IOg12007 1:51PM
Bank code iwa
Date Vendor
~~ 0517 000152 C~NT~~ COAST PRiNTI~G
131587
177 checks in this report
Check History Listing
CIT'~ OF ARROYO GRANDE
Check Total
Ind Amy ~~i~
1,928.50
ClearNoidDate invoice 1,928.`.>o
Stagy _.._.-~--" 0512112007 183,914.07
30411
boa Total:
183,914.07
Total Checks:
~l
i
Page: 12
ATTACHMENT 2
DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION
PAY PERIOD
5!4107 - 5117107
05/25/07
FUND 010 378,264.20 5101 Salaries Full time 219,443.28
FUND 220 18,552.96 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 18,105.25
FUND 284 707.71 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 10,175.81
FUND 285 707.76 5105 Salaries OverTime 15,431.24
FUND 612 6,761.18 5107 Salaries Standby 372.18
FUND 640 19,353.23 5108 Holiday Pay 1,755.53
424,347.04 5109 Sick Pay 1,799.32
5110 Annual Leave Buyback
5111 Vacation Buyback 142.41
5112 Sick Leave Buyback
5113 Vacation Pay 6,599.35
5114 Comp Pay 3,743.47
5115 Annual Leave Pay 4,135.19
5121 PERS Retirement 72,581.37
5122 Social Security 20,254.04
5123 PARS Retirement 349.26
5126 State Disability Ins. 639.21
5127 Deferred Compensation 725.00
5131 Health Insurance 39,986.91
5132 Dentallnsurance 4,412.10
5133 Vision Insurance 1,029.06
5134 Life Insurance 595.70
5135 Long Term Disability 953.96
5143 Uniform Allowance
5144 Car Allowance 600.00
5146 Council Expense
5147 Employee Assistance 242.40
5148 Boot Allowance
5149 Motor Pay 75.00
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 200.00
4L4,J4/.V4
8.b.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor Ferrara called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Council Member Joe Costello, Council Member
Jim Guthrie, Council Member Chuck Fellows, City Manager Steven Adams, and City Attorney Timothy
Carmel were present. Mayor Pro Tem Arnold was absent.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold arrived at 6:34 p. m.
3. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:
Title: Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams, City Manager
Unrepresented Employees: Management Employees
4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Ferrara announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session.
5. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:46 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ferrara called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council/RDA: Council/Board Members Chuck Fellows, Jim Guthrie, Joe Costello, Mayor
Pro Tem/Vice Chair Ed Arnold and Mayor/Chair Tony Ferrara were
present.
City Staff Present: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Timothy J. Carmel, Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk Kelly Wetmore, Director of Financial
Services Angela Kraetsch, Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo,
Director of Community Development Rob Strong, Chief of Police Tony
Aeilts, and Police Commander Craig Hendricks.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Rob Child and John King, representing the Arroyo Grande Fire Department, led the Flag Salute.
4. INVOCATION
Pastor George Lepper, Peace Lutheran Church, delivered the invocation.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5.a. Mayor's Commendation -Rob Child and John King, Neighborhood Services
Coordinators.
Mayor Ferrara presented Mayor's Commendations to Rob Child and John King, Neighborhood
Services Coordinators, in recognition of their membership in the City's Platinum Service Club for
service above and beyond the call of duty.
Mayor Ferrara then reported that ;the City is participating in a nationwide program called
"America In Bloom" and many citizens have come forward voluntarily to work with the Arroyo
Grande In Bloom coordinators. He introduced Mr. Bob Lund from the Village Improvement
Association and invited him to speak about the program.
Bob Lund gave a brief overview of the America In Bloom program criteria and acknowledged all
the local community organizations and members who had worked hard over the past six months
by participating in this competition. He introduced the America In Bloom judges, Diane Clasen
and Jim Corfield, who spoke briefly about the program and about their visit to Arroyo Grande.
Mayor Ferrara called for a brief break at 7:15 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:20 p.m.
6. AGENDA REVIEW
6.a. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Council Member Costello moved, Mayor Pro Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously that all ordinances moved for introduction or adoption at the meeting shall be read
in title only and all further reading be waived.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Kristen Barneich, Chair of the Tree Guild of Arroyo Grande, spoke about volunteerism in Arroyo
Grande and announced that on Saturday, April 28`h, 34 people took time out of their weekend to
help the Tree Guild beautify Traffic Way. She said that 27 trees were planted along Traffic Way,
Station Way, and Fair Oaks. She thanked each participant by name, thanked Eclair Bakery and
JJ's Market in the Village for their generous donation of sandwiches and dessert, and
encouraged members of the public to acknowledge all the individuals involved in the project.
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. Upon hearing no public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public
comment period.
Action: Council Member Fellows moved, and Council Member Costello seconded the motion to
approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.d., with the recommended courses of action. City
Attorney Carmel read the Ordinance title in Item 8.d. The motion passed on the following roll-
call vote:
AYES: Fellows, Costello, Guthrie, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
S.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period April 16, 2007 through
April 30, 2007.
8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Special (Closed Session) City Council Meeting of
April 10, 2007 and the Regular City Council Meeting of April 10, 2007, as submitted.
8.c. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Replacement Public Safety Dispatch
Console Equipment.
Action: Authorized staff to purchase replacement dispatch consoles for the Police
Department from Sterling Communications for $114,002.
8.d. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.08 of the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code Relating to the Use and Sale of Fireworks.
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 588 as follows: "LIN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.08 OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE USE AND SALE OF
FIREWORKS.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
10. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
11.a. Review of the City's Traffic Impact Study Policy.
Director of Public Works Don Spagnolo presented the staff report and recommended the
Council review the City's current Traffic Impact Study Policy and provide direction to staff.
Director Spagnolo responded to questions from Council concerning ownership of the data in the
City's traffic model and the City's ability to update the data in-house; how criteria would be used
based on location to determine if traffic studies were required; how it was determined to
recommend increasing the threshold from 20 peak hour trips to 40 peak hour trips for requiring
a traffic study; and clarification regarding the option for requiring an in-lieu fee.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter.
Terry Payne, Miller Way, asked if Mason and Le Point Streets were addressed in the study and
expressed concern about traffic impacts to these streets.
Steve Ross, member of the City's Traffic Commission, clarified the option recommended by the
Commission to vary the trip generation threshold depending on project location and its concern
that the current threshold is too low, which could discourage small development projects.
Howard Mankins, Hillcrest Drive, referred to the traffic traveling on Halcyon, particularly coming
from the top of the Mesa into the City, and inquired if the City knew where that traffic was
coming from. He suggested improvements at EI Campo would be a solution, although he
acknowledged funding issues associated with the project. He also referred to the traffic impacts
coming through Hwy 227 and E. Branch from developed areas outside the City.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments:
- Did not want to rush into making policy changes;
- Policy is intended to support goals of the circulation system, to monitor impacts and plan
accordingly;
- Noted that methods for trip generation counts have improved by capturing actual data
(driveway counts), which is beginning to serve the City well for traffic planning, and those
kinds of measurements are vital to making a valid policy;
- Need to take time to get the most accurate portrayal of what the impacts will truly be;
- Defining the term "peak period" is critical;
- Staff needs to be able to use the Traffic Model to assist applicants in determining the traffic
impacts without having to hire a consultant;
- The City needs to be able to update the Traffic Model in-house, without hiring a consultant;
and
- Instead of an in-lieu fee, suggested the applicant spend money on mitigation for the direct
impacts of a project.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments:
- Agreed that there was no rush; goal is to make the process work and have a fair, flexible
policy;
- Concerned about choosing a new threshold;
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
- Supports being able to using the Traffic Model in-house to assess project impacts;
- Acknowledged that concerns have been identified; and
- Supports stepping back and conducting further review.
Council Member Costello agreed with comments made so far and stated that he thought the
City would probably want to change the thresholds, but he did not want to guess what threshold
was appropriate at this time. He favored taking the additional time necessary to review the issue
further in order to focus specifically on what is trying to be accomplished.
Council Member Fellows stated he appreciated the work of the Traffic Commission and staff
and stated he did not oppose delaying the issue. He commented that he wasn't sure the Council
has given any clear ideas or direction.
In response to a question from Council Member Guthrie concerning the nexus between
requiring a traffic study and mitigation, City Attorney Carmel responded that a traffic study or
other data is often useful in connecting project impacts with required project improvements. He
noted that the City's Traffic Model can provide that data without relying on substantial resources
to a traffic consultant to provide that information.
Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments:
- Agreed that there should be better use of the Traffic Model to establish both the individual
and cumulative impacts;
- Noted that mast of time, impact fees are paid; he suggested looking at the whole circulation
system to establish the priorities and the projects and to also look down the road to see the
new problems that will be created by the cumulative impacts of several small projects;
- The Traffic Model should be used more often to determine future impacts;
- The need to update the Traffic Model more frequently;
- Suggested directing staff to come back with a new threshold for requiring traffic studies for
smaller projects.
Mayor Ferrara concluded by also emphasizing the need for evaluating cumulative impacts.
In response to Council comments, City Manager Adams provided a summary of issues directed
by the Council as follows: 1) Further review before increasing the threshold for requiring traffic
studies; 2) Update the Traffic Model on an ongoing basis and periodically present an overall
traffic analysis for the City rather than project specific reports; 3) Increase staff capabilities to
utilize the Traffic Model to provide traffic study analyses in-house; and 4) Use empirical data
(actual counts) and redefine "peak hours" to better reflect local conditions.
No formal action was taken on this item.
11.b. Consideration of Lease Agreement with PG&E for 5-Acre City Property at West
Branch Street and Old Ranch Road for Two-Year Temporary Park and Ride Lot
During Winter 2008 and 2009.
Community Development Director Rob Strong presented the staff report and recommended the
Council authorize the Mayor to execute a lease agreement to enable PG&E to apply for a
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Conditional Use Permit for a Park and Ride Lot for up to 400 cars including shuttle bus and
night-lighting for winter 2008 and 2009 use.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Lynn Mensinger, representing PG&E, gave an overview of
the proposed shifts and associated vehicle arrival and departures per time period. He explained
that the Environment Impact Report for the project requires specific mitigation, including a
reduction of trips into the Diablo Canyon Plant by at least 50%. He also explained that 1,200
more people will be onsite for the project and more space is needed onsite for necessary
equipment.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter.
Terry Payne, Miller Way, expressed concern over the proposal as a result of negative impacts
to the Historic Village, surrounding residential neighborhoods, private schools, and the freeway.
She inquired whether there was some other location that was more adequate for this purpose,
or if there were some other places where there could be two or three parking lots in order to
reduce the parking at this location.
Tom Swem, commercial broker, stated he was given this assignment to find offsite parking for
PG&E to accomplish trip reduction through a park and ride lot. He noted that other types of
facilities were explored, including shopping centers and some of PG&E's existing land. He said
the research in South County led to County owned land and the proposed City parcel adjacent
to the County land. He spoke about the long-term plan to develop a parking lot at the proposed
site some time in the future and stated this short-term temporary use would provide an
opportunity to develop the parking lot for long-term benefit. In response to questions from
Council regarding alternate sites, Mr. Swem noted that an alternative site for the parking lot
could be the County owned property located at St. Patrick's school; stated that the Five Cities
Center is already impacted and is not an alternative; stated that the Pismo Outlet Center has
weekend car sales in its parking lot which generate business for the Center, and a park and ride
is not desirable at that location.
Howard Mankins, Hillcrest Drive, stated he owns a business in the Village and said that the
benefits of the proposal far outweigh the impacts for a temporary use. He noted that PG&E is a
good neighbor, they have spent a lot of money in our County, and economically, the City will
benefit from the additional business.
Steve Ross, Garden Street, referred to recent press regarding vehicle emissions at the dunes
and stated this was an excellent opportunity for the City to take the lead to reduce vehicle trips
and emissions.
Terry Payne, Miller Way, asked if a deadline for the use of the parking lot would be included if a
conditional use permit were approved. Staff responded yes; however, it would not preclude a
provision for an extension.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council Member Fellows provided the following comments:
- Acknowledged two benefits including reduction in air pollution and improving the site for the
future use of the proposed sports facility;
- Negatives include concentrating traffic and parked cars in our community and further traffic
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
impacts to Brisco/Halcyon and the Village, and impacts to the residential neighborhood;
- Would be better for the community to spread the burden and create multiple parking sites;
suggested the Five Cities Center and K-Mart center;
- Not comfortable with 400 cars at this location.
Council Member Costello provided the following comments:
- Stated this was a balancing act; PG&E project will impact the area no matter what happens;
- Additional 400 vehicles will be traveling through the area and will stopping somewhere to
take a shuttle bus;
- Opportunity is there to reduce vehicles on the freeway by containing them in a park and ride
lot;
- Positive result is that the proposed area will become a recreation center and will be paved in
the near future;
- The distribution of traffic arriving and departing is spread out over certain timeframes and
may provide an acceptable level of interference in the City;
- The benefits of getting the cars off the freeway and reducing air pollution are significant;
- Not certain parking areas can be spread out in community to achieve enough parking
spaces;
- Supports project and advantages to develop the property for future use; suggested some
flexibility be provided in the lease agreement in case hours need to be adjusted.
Council Member Guthrie provided the following comments:
- Appears to be the only location in the South County that can handle 400 cars in a single
location;
- As community partner, there is some obligation to try to make this work out;
- Does not think that $150,000 is relevant as it relates to addressing traffic impacts associated
with this location;
- From traffic standpoint, would like an evaluation of alternative locations or spreading out the
park and ride lots to reduce traffic impacts;
- If no alternate locations are identified, he could approve the proposal based on the benefits
discussed.
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold provided the following comments:
- Impact is relatively minimal for a short period of time;
- There is an opportunity for long term benefit; including parking for special events like the
Strawberry Festival;
- Would like to see the City's costs covered in the lease agreement;
Suggested PG&E employ traffic control measures to ensure efficient ingress and egress
from the site;
- Can support the proposal; could also support scaling back the project to reduce the number
of parked vehicles and locating an alternate site for the remaining vehicles;
- Believes carpooling is a benefit.
Mayor Ferrara provided the following comments:
- Asked for clarification on which communities the proposed park and ride lot would serve;
- Expressed concerns about negative air quality and traffic impacts due to volume of vehicles
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
in such a small area;
- Other communities would be driving south away from the project site to the proposed park
and ride location;
- Suggested alternative routes to diffuse concentration of vehicles in the proposed location;
- Would consider a reduced parking lot size with reduced impacts on a trial basis; would not
want to commit to a two-year lease without some flexibility;
- The Council has had a number of recent discussions centered around the traffic problems
around the Five Cities Center;
- Would result in significant impact on traffic from Rodeo Drive, Old Ranch Road, around the
Woman's Club and Community Center; and the Village;
Noted that a public hearing would have been more beneficial;
- Not prepared to move forward with the proposal when the City is dealing with an existing
problematic intersection very close to the proposed project site.
Council Member Fellows asked if this proposal moved forward in the future whether the ARC
would be able to review the plan for landscaping. Staff replied that the process would include
obtaining a conditional use permit, which would require a public hearing and include standard
conditions of approval.
Council Member Guthrie suggested additional analysis on why this is the preferred site and
whether alternative sites are available; and whether there would be consideration for additional
traffic control mitigations.
Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to direct staff to renegotiate with PG&E to look at
revising the project to include the concept of other parking sites throughout the South County to
reduce the parking on the proposed site; to restructure the lease to allow early termination; to
include potential traffic control mitigation to reduce impacts to the residential neighborhoods;
and to request PG&E to coordinate the proposed project with the County's public transportation
companies. Council Member Fellows seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Guthrie, Fellows, Costello, Arnold, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.c. Consideration of Le Point Parking Lot/Structure Feasibility Study. [COUNCIL/RDA]
City Manager/Executive Director Adams presented the staff report and introduced David Vogel
from Parking Design Group, who gave a presentation on the results of the study and an
overview of the preferred alternative. City Manager/Executive Director Adams concluded the
presentation by recommending the Council/RDA Board: 1) Approve the Le Point Parking
Lot/Structure Feasibility Study; 2) Approve Concept A, Alternate 2 as the preferred alternative or
Alternate 3 if a land swap can be achieved to acquire areas identified as Al and 61; and 3)
Direct staff to determine if Alternate 3 will be feasible and identify options for implementation.
Mayor/Chair Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on
the matter.
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Page 8
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Terry Pavne, Miller Way, stated that she lives on the street that ends at the ingress/egress point
to the parking structure; expressed concern about additional traffic impacts to Le Point Street;
asked if environmental review had been conducted on the project; expressed concern about
visual impacts with a three story parking structure, increased trip generation at Mason and Le
Point Street and the need for a three way stop at that intersection, the lack of sidewalks on Le
Point Street for pedestrian access, that the proposed design of the parking structure is not
within the Historic Design Guidelines, and that there needs to be an additional access for
circulation.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor/Chair Ferrara closed the public comment period.
Council/Board discussion ensued regarding the results of the feasibility study; clarification
concerning access issues and parking space widths; clarification that the design of the parking
structure is conceptual in nature and is not specifically being considered at this time;
acknowledgment that public comments regarding the project are important; clarification
regarding the recommended Alternatives; clarification that surface level parking is the focus with
a goal to provide potential for future expansion of the parking structure; and support for Concept
A, Alternative 2 or 3.
Action: Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Arnold moved to approve the Le Point Parking Lot/Structure
Feasibility Study and to approve Concept A, Alternate 2 as the preferred project or Alternate 3 if
a land swap could be achieved to acquire areas identified as Al and 61. Council/Board Member
Guthrie seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Arnold, Guthrie, Costello, Fellows, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.d. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance to Comply with SB 53.
City Manager Adams introduced an Ordinance to comply with requirements of Senate Bill 53,
Chapter 591 of Statutes of 2006, as codified in California Health and Safety Code Section
33342.7, by describing that the Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency does not have authority
to acquire real property by eminent domain and therefore has no program to acquire real
property by eminent domain.
Mayor Ferrara invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the
matter, and upon hearing none, he closed the public comment period.
Action: Council Member Guthrie moved to introduce an Ordinance as follows: "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TO COMPLY
WITH RQUIREMENTS OF SENATE BILL 53, CHAPTER 591 OF STATUTES OF 2006, AS
CODIFIED /N CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33342.7, BY
DESCRIBING THAT THE ARROYO GRANDE REDEVELOMENT AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE
AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN AND THEREFORE
HAS NO PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN" Mayor Pro
Tem Arnold seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
Minutes: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting page 9
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
AYES: Guthrie, Arnold, Costello, Fellows, Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS
Mayor Ferrara referred to an "At a Glance" publication on the City of Anaheim's website and
requested staff to develop a similar "atlas" which would include demographic data on the City's
employment, population, land and geographic profiles for placement on the City's website.
13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
None.
14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Arnold reminded the Council that the Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
would be conducting its Annual Goal Setting Retreat and invited the Council to provide him with
any input to take to the goal setting retreat.
15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Adams confirmed that a joint meeting of the Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and
Pismo Beach City Councils has been tentatively scheduled for Thursday, June 7"' at 6:00 p.m.
at the South County Regional Center to receive a presentation on Green Build.
16. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Joel Couser, Asilo, noted that he was a member of the City's Traffic Commission and stated that
the proposed Lease Agreement with PG&E for the 5-Acre City property at West Branch Street
and Old Ranch Road for atwo-year temporary park and ride lot during winter 2008 and 2009 did
not come before the Commission for discussion. He stated that the proposed location, lease,
and monetary benefit would not offset traffic problems generated in the area. He suggested that
spreading out parking locations throughout the area would be a more effective solution. He also
commented on proposed revisions to the Traffic Study Policy and noted that in-lieu fees for
smaller projects could be applied to needed infrastructure improvements in the City. Finally, he
referred to upcoming water rate increases, and noted that the City should be compensated by
the State for water being released from the dam into the creeks.
17. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ferrara adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
Tony Ferrara, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
(Approved at CC Mtg
8.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICE
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
TRACTS 1158, 1769, 2310, AND 2236
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
Adopt a resolution confirming landscaping assessments for all parcels within Tract
1158;
• Adopt a. resolution confirming ,landscaping and lighting assessments for all parcels
within Tract 1769;
• Adopt a resolution confirming the assessments for the Parkside Assessment District
for all parcels within Tract 2310 (Parkside Village Subdivision);
• Adopt a resolution confirming: the assessments _for the Grace Lane Assessment
District for all parcels within Tract 2236 (Grace Lane Subdivision).
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact to the City.
DISCUSSION:
On June 9, 1992, Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 was created to
provide landscaping and lighting ,improvement and maintenance for Tract 1769. The
annual assessment was $100 per parcel located within Tract 1769 (a total of $3,000).
The Tract 1769 landscaping and lighting assessment must be confirmed each year.
On May 28; 1996, at the request of the homeowners within Tract 1158, the City agreed
to provide landscaping and related maintenance to a portion of the greenbelt and
appurtenances located on Oak Park Boulevard for the benefit of parcels located within
Tract 1158. The City Council and parcel owners agreed to an annual $40 per parcel
City charge (for a total of $2,800) for this service.
On November 8, 2005, at the request of Parkside Village LLC, the sole owner and
developer_of the Parkside Village ,Subdivision (Tract 2310), the City Council approved
the formation of the Parkside Village Assessment District. The annual assessment
varies from $578 per parcel to $909 per parcel for a total of $54,834 annually.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 2
On November 28, 2006, at the request.of Vista Roble LLC, the sole owner of the Grace
Lane Subdivision (Tract.2236), the City Council approved the formation of the Grace
Lane Assessment District. The ,annual assessment ranges from $460 to $609 per
parcel for a total annual assessment of $9,336.
All of the listed assessments must be, confirmed each year. The assessments will be
added to the tax roll of the affected property owners and collected by the San Luis
Obispo County Tax Collector.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for the City Council's consideration:
- Approve staff recommendation;
- Do not approve staff recommendation;
- Modify staff recommendation and approve;
- Provide direction to staff.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING A LANDSCAPING
ASSESSMENT FOR TRACT 1158
WHEREAS, on May 28, 1996; the Arroyo Grande City Council approved an
Amendment to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Tract 1158 (Oak Park Villas)
whereby the City of Arroyo Grande agreed to provide certain specified landscaping and
related maintenance on real property located along Oak Park Boulevard adjacent to
Tract 1158, Arroyo Grande, California, which maintenance was previously provided by
the homeowners in Tract 1158 and administered by the Oak Park Villas Homeowners
Association; and
WHEREAS, the owners of Lots 1 through 70, Tract 1158, agreed to pay an annual
assessment of $40 per parcel, in exchange for the City's agreement to provide said
maintenance services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE_ IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the assessment for the 2007-08 fiscal year shown on Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are confirmed as true and correct.
3. Immediately after adoption, a certified cojiy of this Resolution shall be filed with the
County Auditor.
4. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as
County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement
of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.
After collection by the County, the remaining amount of the assessments, after
deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City.
On motion by Council Member
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
seconded by Council Member
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
EXHIBIT "A"
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 1158 ASSESS MENTS
FOR TAX. RO LL YEAR 2007-08
Fund Assessment # Chase Fund Assessment # Charge
1764 007773001 40.00 1764 007773036 40.00
1764 007773002 40.00 1764 007773037 40.00
1764 007773003 40.00 1764 007773038 40.00
1764 007773004 40:00 1764 007773039 40.00
1764 007773005 40.00 1764 007773040 40.00
1764 .007773006 40.00 9764 .007774041 40.00
1764 007773007 40.00 1764 007774001 40.00
1764 007773008 40.00 ~ 1764 007774002 40.00
1764 007773009 40.00 1764 007774003 40.00
1764 007773010 40.00 1764 007774004 40.00
1764 007773011 40:00 1764 007774005 40.00
1764 007773012 40.00 1764 007774006 40.00
1764 007773013 40.OU 1764 007774007 40.00
1764 007773014 40.00 1764 007774008 40.00
1764 007773015 40.00 1764 007774009 40.00
1764 007773016 40.00 1764 007774011 40.00
1764 007773017 40.00 1764 007774012 40.00
1764 007773018 40.00 1764 007774013 40.00
1764 007773019 40.00 1764 007774014 40.00
1764 007773020 40.00 _
1764 _
007774015 40.00
1764 007773021 40.00 1764 007774016 40.00
1764 007773022 40.00 1764 007774017 40.00
1764 007773023 40.00. 1764 007774018 40.00
1764 007773024 40.00 1764 007774019 40.00
1764 007773025 40.00- 1764 007774020 40.00
1764 007773026 40.00 1764 007774021 40.00
1764 007773027 40.00 1764 007774022 40.00
1764 007773028 40.00 1764 007774023 40.00
1764 007773029 40.00 1764 007774024 40.00
1764 007773030 40.00 1764 007774025 40.00
1764 007773031 40100 1764 007774026 40.00
1764 007773032 40.00 1764 007774027 40.00
1764 007773033 40.00 1764 007774028 40.00
1764 007773034 40.00 1764 007774029 40.00
1764 007773035 40.00 1764 007774030 40.00
Total 2 8
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY,
OF ARROYO. GRANDE CONFIRMING A LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT FOR TRACT 1769
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1992, thee.. City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande ordered the
formation of Arroyo Grande Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1, within
Tract 1769, containing 30 single-family home sites located at Farroll Avenue and Oak
Park Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande to levy
assessments totaling $3,000 ($100 per assessable parcel) for Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District No. 1-for the Fiscal Year 2007-08.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by,the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the assessments shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, are confirmed as true and correct. .
3. Immediately after adoption, a certified copy of this Resolution shall be filed with the
County Auditor.
4. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and.in the same manner as
County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement
of County taxes shall apply to.the collection and enforcement of the assessments.
After collection by the County, the .remaining amount of the assessments, after
deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City.
On motion by Council Member
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
seconded by Council Member
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
EXHIBIT "A"
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 1769 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAX ROLL YEAR 2007-08 .
Fund Assessment # Charge
1765- 077253001 100.00
1765 077253002 100.00
1765 077253003 100.00
1765 077253004 100.00
1765 ' 077253005 100.00
1765 077253006 100.00
1765 077253007 100.00
1765 077253008 100.00
1765 077253009 100.00
1765 ' 077253010 100.00
1765 077253011 .100.00
1765 077253012 100.00
1765 077253013 100.00
1765 .077253014 100.00
1765 077253015 100.00
1765 077253016 100.00
1765 077253017 100.00
1765 077253018 100.00
1765 077253019 100.00
1765 077253020, 100.00
1765 077253021 100.00
1765 077253022'= 100.00
1765 077253023 100.80
1765 077253024 100.00
1765 077253025- 100.00
1765 077253026 100.00
1765 ' -077253027 100.00
1765 077253028 100.00
1765 077253029 100.00
1765 077253030 100:00
TOTAL ~QQ00
-.J
RESOLUTION. NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE .CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING THE
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE GRACE LANE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT (TRACT 2236)
WHEREAS, the owner (Vista Roble; LLC) of Lots 1 through 19, Tract 2236, petitioned
the City to form a maintenance assessment district, commonly referred to as the Grace
Lane Assessment District to provide means to finance the costs of maintenance,
operation, and service of certain specified improvements; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Arroyo Grande City Council adopted
Resolution No. 3976 ordering the formation of the Grace Lane Assessment District,
confirming assessments, assessment district diagram, and approving the levying of
assessments for Tract 2236 (Grace Lane Subdivision); and
WHEREAS, assessments for the Grace Lane Assessment District must be confirmed
by the City Council for each fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and -incorporated herein. .
2. That the assessment for the 2007-08 fiscal year shown on Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated hereiri'by this reference, are confirmed as:true and correct.
3. Immediately after adoption, a certified copy. of this Resolution shall be filed with the
County Auditor.
4. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as
County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement
of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.
After collection by the County, the remaining :amount. of the assessments, after
deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City.
On motion by 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
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT "A"
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 2236 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAX ROLL YEAR 2007-08
Fund ` Assessment # Charae
1895 007019002 460.00
1895 .007019003 460.00
1895 007019004 460.00
1.895 007019005 460.00
1895 007b19006 460.00
1895 007019007 460.00
1895 007019008 460.00
1895 007019009 460.00
1895 007019010 460.00
1895 007019011 460.00
1895 007019012 460.00
1895 007019014 460.00
1895 007019015 460.00
1895 0070,19016. 460.00
1895 007019017 460.00
1895 007019018 609.00
1895 007019019 609.00
1895 007019020 609.00
1895 007019021 609.00
TOTAL $9 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING THE
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PARKSIDE VILLAGE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (TRACT 2370)
WHEREAS, the owner (Parkside Village; LLC) of Lots 1 through 67, Tract 2310,
requested the City form a maintenance assessment district, commonly referred to as
the Parkside Village Assessment District to provide means to finance the costs of
maintenance, operation, and service of certain specified improvements; and
WHEREAS; on November 8, 2005, the Arroyo Grande City Council adopted Resolution
No. 3888 ordering the formation of the Parkside Village Assessment District, confirming
assessments, assessment district diagram, and approving the levying of assessments
for Tract 2310 (Parkside Village); and .
WHEREAS, assessments for the Parkside Village Assessment District must be
confirmed by the City Council for each fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
2. That the assessment for the 2007-08 fiscal year shown on Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are confirmed as true and correct.
3. Immediately after adoption, a certified copy of this Resolution shall be filed with the
County Auditor.
4. The assessment shall be collected at the same. time and in the same manner as
County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement
of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.
After collection by the County, the remaining amount of the assessments, after
deducting compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City.
On motion by Council Member
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
seconded by Council Member
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 2007.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT "A"
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM
TRACT 2310 ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAX ROLL YEAR 2007-08
Fund Assessment # Charge
1893 077255002 578.00
1893 077255003 578.00
1893 077255004 578.00
1893 077255005 578.00
1893 077255006 578.00
1893 077255007 578:00
1893 077255008 578.00
1893 077255009 578.00
1893 077255010 578.00
1893 077255011 578.00
1893 077255012 578.00
1893 077255013 578.00
1893 077255014 578.00
1893 .077255015 910.00
1893 077255016 910.00
1893 077255017 910.00
1893 077255018. 910.00
1893 077255019 910.00
1893 077255020 910.00
1..893 077255021 910.00
1893 .077255022 910.00
1893 077255023 910.00
1893 077255026 910.00
1893 077255027 910.00
1893 077255028. 910.00
1893 077255029 910.00
1893 077255030 910.00
1893 077255031 910.00
1893 077255032 910.00
1893 077255033 910.00
1893 077255034 910.00
1893 077255035 910.00
1893 077255036 910.00
1893 077255037 910.00
1893 077255038 910.00
1893 077255039 910.00
1893 - 077255040 910.00
1893 077255041 910.00
EXHIBIT "A"
1893 077255042 910.00
1893 077255043 910.00
1893 077255044 910.00
1893 077255045 910.00
1893 077255046 910.00
1893 077255047 910.00
'1893 077255048 910.00
1893 077255049 910.00
1893 077255050 910.00
1893 077255051 910.00
1893 077255052 910.00
1893 077255053 910.00
1893 077255054 910.00
1893 077255055 910.00
1893 077255056 910.00
1893. 077255057 910.00
1893 077255058 910.00
1893 077255059 910.00
1893 077255060 910.00
1893 077255061 910.00
1893 077255062 910.00
1893 077255063 910.00
1893 077255064 910.00
1893 077255065 910.00
1893 077255066 910.00
1893 077255067 910.00.
1893 077255068 910.00
TOTAL $54.834.00
8.d.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
FROM: ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT OF CONSULTANT SERVICES
FOR AUDIT SERVICES
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board authorize the
Mayor to enter into athree-year consultant services agreement with the audit firm of
Moss, Levy, & Hartzheim, Certified Public Accountants.
FUNDING:
The costs for audit services are $18,050 for FY 2006-07, $18,815 for FY 2007-08 and
$19,720 for FY 2008-09. The appropriation for audit services has been included in the
FY 2007-08 & FY 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget. No additional appropriation is needed.
DISCUSSION:
Municipalities and businesses hire auditors to produce annual financial statements and to
conduct evaluations of the entity's internal control. The auditor is responsible for
determining that the financial statements do not include material errors and do not
misrepresent the City's financial condition. In the evaluation of internal controls, the
auditor appraises procedures that could allow collusion, theft or fraud.
On March 22, 2007, the Financial Services Department issued a request for audit
proposals to five certified public accounting firms. Two proposals were received by the
April 30th due date. The firm of Moss, Levy & Hartheim was the lower bidder of the two
proposals.
The City has contracted with the firm of Moss, Levy, & Hartzheim for the last six years.
The City has been very satisfied with the firm's pertormance, responsiveness, and the
audit documents. Staff looked for a firm that had experience with City government, was
willing to assist throughout the year as an information resource, and could provide
guidance in implementing new Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
pronouncements.
AWARD OF AUDIT SERVICES CONTRACT
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 2
Therefore, their proposal met all of the criteria set forth by the City. As a result, staff is
recommending that the City contract with Moss,, Levy, & Hartheim for an additional three
year period (FY 2006-07, FY 2007-08, & FY 2008-09).
Alternatives:
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
- Approve staff recommendation;
- Do not approve staff recommendation;
- Modify staff recommendation and approve;
- Provide direction to staff.
Attachment(s):
A) Consultant Services Agreement
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of June 13, 2007, between MOSS, LEVY, &
HARTZHEIM LLP ("Consultant"), and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal
Corporation ("City"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on June 13, 2007 and shall remain and continue in
effect until May 12, 2010, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement.
2. SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and comply with all terms and provisions set
forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her ability,
experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a
minimum generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in
providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its
obligations under this Agreement.
4. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION
City's Financial Services Director shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the
administration of this Agreement. Moss, Levy, & Hartzheim's designated Project Manager
shall represent Consultant in all matters pertaining to the administration of this
Agreement.
5. PAYMENT
The City agrees to pay the Consultant in accordance with the payment rates and terms
set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE
(a) The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate
this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately
cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City
suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall
not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
Page 1
(b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay
to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the
Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City
pursuant to Section 5.
7. TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS
This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following
events:
(a) Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party;
(b) Sale of Consultant's business; or
(c) Assignment of this Agreement by Consultant without the consent of City.
(d) End of the Agreement term specified in Section 1.
8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
(a)The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this
Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the
Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes
beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall
not be considered a default.
(b)If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in
the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause
to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The Consultant shall
have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by
rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its
default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without
prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this
Agreement.
9. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. Consultant shall:
(a) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices which
may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the services to be
performed by Consultant under this Agreement;
(b) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and local laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or
Page 2
employed under this Agreement, any materials used in Consultant's performance under
this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this Agreement;
(c) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to observe and
comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned
above;
(d) Immediately report to the City's Contract Manager in writing any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees
mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or provisions of this
Agreement.
(e) The City, and its officers, agents and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs,
expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate
records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All
such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide
free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such
books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records;
shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary; and shall allow inspection
of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such
records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3)
years after receipt of final payment.
(b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all
original documents and computer files shall be returned to the City if requested, and the
Consultant shall make available to the City, at the Consultant's office and upon
reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware
for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files and any
other work files the Consultant developed internally as part of its performance of this
Agreement. The Consultant shall not share with any third parties, at any time during or
after the performance of services under this Agreement, any information obtained directly
or indirectly from the City during the course of the Agreement without advance written
approval by the City.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Indemnification for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a professional
standard of care for Consultant's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its
Page 3
officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all
losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs to
the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subcontractors (or any entity or
individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of
professional services under this agreement.
(b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of
professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify,
defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from
and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration
proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or
costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorneys fees and
costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same
arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part,
the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which
Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or
subcontractors of Consultant.
(c) General Indemnification Provisions. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity
agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and
every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of
Consultant in the performance of this agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain
such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully
responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance
with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act
as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set
forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Consultant and shall survive
the termination of this agreement or this section.
12. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement
insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein as
though set forth in full.
13. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
Consultant. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither
City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in
this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any
of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of
Page 4
the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or
liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with performance
of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement,
City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
14. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or is used
against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande in
connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any
method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer
or employee of the City of Arroyo Grande will receive compensation, directly or indirectly,
from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with
the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement.
Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to
any and all remedies at law or in equity.
15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public
official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the project during
his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any
agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in
connection with the project performed under this Agreement.
16. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be
considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, shall not
without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City
Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions,
response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under
this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to
a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives
City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(b) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees,
agents, or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of
deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other
discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this
Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property
located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent
Page 5
Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding.
Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any
response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review
any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite
said response.
17. NOTICES
Any notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement
must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a
reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States
Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address
of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate
by notice:
To City: City of Arroyo Grande
Angela Kraetsch
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
To Consultant: Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP
805 E. Main Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
18. ASSIGNMENT
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof,
without the prior written consent of the City.
19. GOVERNING LAW
The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California
shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement
and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this
Agreement shall take place in the superior or federal district court with jurisdiction over
the City of Arroyo Grande.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the
obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous
agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, or written, are merged into
this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this
Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's
own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
Page 6
21. TIME
City and Consultant agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement
22. CONTENTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL
Consultant is bound by the contents of the City's Request for Proposal, Exhibit "D",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the
proposal submitted by the Consultant, Exhibit "E", attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of conflict, the requirements of City's Request for
Proposals and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the
Consultant's proposals.
23. CONSTRUCTION
The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review this
Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement
or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for convenience
and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit the provisions
to which they relate.
24. AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be made only with the mutual
written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement.
25. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and
represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the
Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations
hereunder.
Page 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
By:
Tony Ferrara, Mayor
Attest:
Kelly Wetmore, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Timothy J. Carmel, City Attorney
Page 8
CONSULTANT
By:
Its:
(Title)
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
The selected audit firm will perform a financial and compliance audit to
determine whether the combined financial statements of the City fairly present the
financial position and the results of financial operations in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, and whether the City has complied with
laws and regulations that may have a material effect upon the financial statements.
The auditors will examine the City's internal accounting controls and
accounting procedures and render written reports of their findings and
recommendations to the Finance Director and/or the City Manager. The
examination shall be made and reports rendered in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
In the required reports on internal controls, the auditor shall communicate
any reportable conditions found during the audit. A reportable condition shall be
defined as a significant deficiency in the design or operation of the internal control
structure, which could adversely affect the organization's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management
in the financial statements.
Reportable conditions that are also material weaknesses shall be identified
as such in the report. Non-reportable conditions discovered by auditors shall be
reported in a separate letter to management, which shall be referred to in the
reports on internal controls.
The Finance Director or designee will be responsible for coordinating the
audit process internally. The auditors will meet with the Finance Director or
designee at the end of the fieldwork process to discuss preliminary audit findings
and management recommendations.
Prior to issuing their final reports, the auditors will meet with the Finance
Director and/or designee. All audit reports will be addressed to the City Council.
The auditors may be consulted occasionally throughout the year as an
information resource. The auditors may be asked to provide guidance on
implementation of Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements
and specifics of federal and state regulations as they may affect local government
accounting. They may also be asked to assist with the implementation of new
pronouncements.
Page 9
The auditors will audit and prepare the report on the compliance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended in 1996, and applicable laws and
regulations.
The auditors will perform a financial audit and prepare the Annual Financial
Report for the City of Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency.
The City receives funding under the Transportation Development Act (TDA)
through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). This agency
requires a financial and compliance audit of funds received and expended from
Section 99400, 99234, and 99260 of the Public Utilities code. The auditors will be
required to perform this audit and prepare the required report.
The auditor, subject to an amendment, will prepare any other special
purpose audits that may be required during the term of the agreement.
The City responsibilities will be to prepare the final closing of the books. The
City will provide balance sheets for all funds and groups, statement of revenues
and expenditures for all funds as well as detailed subsidiary ledgers.
The City will produce the confirmation letters that are mailed by the auditors.
The City staff will be available to assist the auditors in locating records or
preparing audit schedules.
The City will provide the auditor with reasonable workspace, desks, and
chairs. The auditors will also be furnished access to telephones, facsimile
machines, and photocopying machines.
Page 10
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Moss, Levy, & Hartzheim will perform professional auditing services for the following
costs:
Financial Statements:
Audit Basic Financial Statements
(Reports & Opinions & Assistance with CAFR)
Financial & Compliance Report & Report Preparation:
Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency
Transportation Development Act
Single Audit Act (if applicable)
Total:
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
$ 12,800 $ 13,385 $ 14,100
2,500 2,610 2,730
1,500 1,570 1,640
1,250 1,250 1,250
$ 18,050 $ 18,815 $ 19,720
Page 11
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use
existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not
meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or
endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance
coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of
coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to Cify.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy from CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be
paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event
to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this requirement
may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy
described above. If Consultant or Consultant's employees will use personal autos in any
way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage
for each such person.
Workers Compensation on astate-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit requirements,
shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages. Any
such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a drop down
provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-insured retention for
liability not covered by primary but covered by the umbrella. Coverage shall be provided
on a "pay on behalf' basis, with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. Policy
shall contain a provision obligating insurer at the time insured's liability is determined, not
requiring actual payment by the insured first. There shall be no cross liability exclusion
precluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another. Coverage shall be
applicable to City for injury to employees of Consultant, subcontractors or others involved
Page 12
in the Work. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of City following
receipt of proof of insurance as required herein.
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written
on a policy form coverage specifically designated to protect against acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the
policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit
shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on
behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to
defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this
agreement.
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are
admitted carriers in the state California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and a
minimum financial size Vll.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1.Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability coverage
required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials employees and agents,
using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992. Consultant
also agrees to require all Consultants, and subcontractors to do likewise.
2.No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall prohibit
Consultant, or Consultant's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation
prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of
the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all Consultants and
subcontractors to do likewise.
3.All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or applicable to
this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing contained in
this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its operations limits the
application of such insurance coverage.
4.None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if
they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City
and approved of in writing.
S.No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate
so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an
employee of the insured or of any Consultant or subcontractor.
6.All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make any
Page 13
reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of
discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior written consent.
7.Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of
insurance evidencing all of the coverage required and an additional insured endorsement
to Consultant's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or prior to the execution
of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required,
or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no replacement coverage is
provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary
to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any
premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted
from sums due Consultant, at City option.
8.Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of any
cancellation of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify such
certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to mail
written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any party will "endeavor" (as
opposed to being required) to comply with the requirements of the certificate.
9.It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage required
to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply first and on a
primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self insurance
available to City.
10.Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the
project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same
minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and
review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage
is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that
upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will
be submitted to City for review.
11.Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that it will
not allow any Consultant, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person in
any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this
agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Consultant's existing coverage includes
a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention must be
declared to the City. At the time the City shall review options with the Consultant, which
may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured retention,
substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
12.The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the
amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days
advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional
Page 14
cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the
increase benefit to City.
13.For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed to
have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be
deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14.Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of
City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirements in no way
imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this
or any other regard.
15.Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees
or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This
obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or terminated for any reason.
Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that
effect.
16.Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies
providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall
be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from Consultant's insurance
agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and/or additional insured
endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to the renewing or new
coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration of the coverage.
17.The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the obligations
of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not to use any statutory
immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials and
agents.
18.Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not
intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any
coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage
feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue, and is not
intended by any party or insured to be limiting orall-inclusive.
19.These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other
provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as
such.
20.The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of this
Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the
provisions of this Section.
Page 15
21.Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party
involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Consultant for the
cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions
are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third
party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse
against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.
22.Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no
obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the
handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
Page 16
EXHIBIT "D"
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR
AUDIT SERVICES
I. PROPOSAL INTENT
The City of Arroyo Grande is soliciting the services of qualified CPA firms to audit all funds of the
City of Arroyo Grande and the City of Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency for the Fiscal Years
2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. These audits are to be performed in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards, the standards set forth for financial audits in the U.S. Governmeht
Accountability Office's (GAO) Government Auditing Standards (GAS), the provisions of the Federal
Single Audit Act and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, and
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Pronouncements.
II. BACKGROUND _ „
The Citv of Arrovo Grande:
The City of Arroyo Grande is afull-service city, which currently comprises 5.45 square miles and
serves 16,582 residents. It is located on the Central Coast of California midway between Los
Angeles and San Francisco.
The City provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection; the construction
and maintenance of highways, streets, and other infrastructure; and recreational activities and
cultural events. Certain sanitation services are provided through the Water and Sewer Funds,
which function as a Public Works Department of the City.
The Finance Staff:
The Finance departrnent administers the City's operating activities for Treasury, Utility Billing,
Business Licenses and Purchasing. The department also administers the financial activities for
the General Ledger, Accounts Payable, and Payroll. It also leads the City's budget preparation
process and is responsible for the preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and
special reports as required by law. - ,
The City of Arroyo Grande uses Eden Inforum Gold software for general ledger, budget, accounts
payable, and payroll accounting.
III. SCOPE OF WORK
The selected audit firm will perform a financial and compliance audit to determine whether the
combined financial statements of the City fairly present the financial position and the results of
financial operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and whether the
City has complied with laws and regulations that may have a material effect upon the financial
statements.
The auditors will examine the City's internal accounting controls and accounting procedures and
render written reports of their findings and recommendations to.the Finance Director and/or the
City Manager. The examination shall be made and reports rendered in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
In the required reports on internal controls, the auditor shall communicate any reportable
conditions found during the audit. A reportable condition shall be defined as a sigriifiebnt
deficiency in the design or operation of the internal control structure, which could adversely affect
the organization's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with
the assertions of management in the financial statements.
Reportable conditions that are also material weaknesses shall be identified as such in the report.
Non-reportable conditions discovered by auditors shall be reported in a separate letter to
management, which shall be referred to in the reports on internal controls.
The Finance Director or designee will be responsible for coordinating the audit process internally.
The auditors will meet with the Finance Director or designee at the end of the fieldwork process
to discuss preliminary audit findings and management recommendations.
Prior to issuing their final reports, the auditors will meet with the Finance Director and/or
designee. All audit reports will be addressed to the City Council.
The auditors may be consulted occasionally throughout the year as an information resource. The
auditors may be asked to provide guidance on implementation of Government Aaounting
Standards Board (GASB) requirements and specifics of federal and state regulations as they may
affect local government accounting. They may also be asked to assist with the implementation of
new pronouncements.
The auditors will audit and prepare the report on the compliance with the Single Audit Act of
1984, as amended in 1996, and applicable laws and regulations.
The auditors will perform a financial audit and prepare the Annual Financial Report for the City of
Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency.
The City receives funding under the Transportation Development Act (TDA) through the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). This agency requires a financial and compliance audit
of funds received and expended from Section 99400, 99234, and 99260 of the Public Utilities
code. The auditors will be required to perform this audit and prepare the required report.
The auditor, subject to an amendment, will prepare any other special purpose audits that may be
required during the term of the agreement.
The City responsibilities will be to prepare the final closing of the books. The City will provide
balance sheets for all funds and groups, statement of revenues and expenditures for all funds as
well as detailed subsidiary ledgers.
The City will produce the confirmation letters that are mailed by the auditors.
The City staff will be available to assist the auditors in locating records or preparing audit
schedules.
The City will provide the auditor with reasonable workspace, desks, and chairs. The auditors will
also be furnished access to telephones, facsimile machines, and photocopying machines.
IV. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Independence
The firm should provide an affirmative statement that it is independent of the City of Arroyo
Grande as defined by generally accepted auditing standards. Moreover, the firm must have no
conFlict of interest with regard to any other work performed for the entity being audited. It is
understood that the services performed by the auditors are in the capacity of independent
contractors and not as an officer, agent, or employee of the City.
B. License to Practice in California
An affirmative statement should be included indicating that the firm and all assigned key
professional staff are properly licensed to practice in California.
C. Firm Qualifications and Experience
The proposal should state the size of the firm, the location of the office from which the work on
this engagement is to be performed, and the number of the staff that will be assigned to the
audit. Indicate the scope of work, date, engagement partners, total hours, and the name and
telephone number of the principal client contact.
The firm shall provide information on the results of any federal or state desk reviews or field
reviews of its audits during the past three (3) years. In addition, the firm shall provide
information on the circumstances and status of any disciplinary action taken or pending against
the firm during the past three (3) years with state regulatory bodies or professional organizations.
For the firm's office that will be assigned responsibility for the audit, list the most significant
engagements (maximum 5) performed in the last five years that are similar to the engagement
described in this request for proposals.
D. Partner, Supervisory and Staff Oualifications and Experience
The firm shall identify the principal supervisory and management staff, including engagement
partners, managers, other supervisors and specialists, who would be assigned to the engagement
and indicate whether each such person is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in
the State of California. The firm should also provide information on the staff's governmental
auditing experience.
The firm should provide as much information as possible, regarding the number, qualifications,
experience and training of the specific staff to be assigned to this engagement.
E. Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price
The bid should contain all pricing information relative to performing the audit engagement as
described in this request for proposals. The total all-inclusive maximum price to be bid is to
contain all direct and indirect costs.
The bid should include a schedule of professional fees and expenses, which support the total of
the all-inclusive maximum price.
F. Ownership of Ciri Related Documents
All property rights, including publication rights of all reports produced by the selected firm in
connection with services performed under this agreement shall be vested in the City of Arroyo
Grande. The selected firm shall not publish or release any of the results of its examinations
without express written permission from the City.
G. Acceptance of Proposal Contents
After auditors are selected by the City, the contents of the submitted proposal will become a
contractual obligation. The successful firm will be required to execute a standard consultant
agreement with the City.
H. Acceptance or Reieilion and Negotiation of Proposals
The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive non-material irregularities or
information in the request for proposal, and to accept or reject any item or combination of items.
By requesting proposals, the City is in no way obligated to award a contract or to pay expenses of
the proposing firms in connection with the preparation or submission of a proposal. Furthermore,
the City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals prior to the execution of the contrail(s),
with no penalty to the City of Arroyo Grande.
V. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT
Firms desiring to respond shall make their proposals brief and concise, yet with sufficient detail to
allow for a thorough evaluation. Each proposal shall include as a minimum the following
information in this format:
A. Introduction
Present an introduction to the proposal describing the firm's understanding of the desired
work. Include a detailed description of the methods by which the consultant intends to
perform the work set forth in the Scope of Services.
B. Qualifications
Include a brief description of the firm's background, experience with similar projects, and
resumes of key personnel proposed to work on the project.
C. Work Plan
Provide a tentative schedule by phase, key task, and proposed compensation for
completing the work. This schedule, as modified to be acceptable to the City, will be used
as an Exhibit to the Agreement between the City and the successful consultant.
D. Costs
Submit a cost proposal, which includes a performance and cost schedule for all services
necessary to complete this project. The proposal should include a separate all-inclusive
cost for each of the three years of the contract. The proposal should specify the major
components, the cost breakdown by major component or phase, and the expected time of
completion for each component based on the scope of services outlined in the proposal.
The proposal should include, a total proposed, "not to exceed" costs of the services,
including a fee and rate schedule describing all charges and hourly rates for services. Cost
will not be the deciding factor in making the selection.
E. References
List former clients for whom similar or comparable services have been performed. Include
the name, mailing address, and telephone'number of the appropriate contact person.
VI. SELECTION PROCESS
The proposals for the City's audit will be evaluated by the Finance Director and staff. Evaluation
considerations will include the following:
A. Responsiveness of the proposal in clearly stating the understanding of the work to be
performed and in demonstrating the intention and ability to perform the work.
B. Cost. Although a significant factor, cost and other factors will be considered.
C. Auditors' experience in conducting audits of cities of similar nature, size, and complexity,
and the auditors' commitment to maintaining technical expertise in the municipal
financial environment.
D. Technical experience and professional qualifications of the audit team.
E. The firms' commitment to keeping the same team assigned to this job for each
successive year the auditor is awarded the contract.
F. Ability of proposed approach to meet the needs of the City.
VII. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Proposals Due .........................................
Interviews (if requested) ..........................
Select Consultant .....................................
Finalize Contract ......................................
City Council Consideration ........................
Effective Date of Contract ........................
......................April 30, 2007
......................May 1 - 4, 2007
......................May 11, 2007
......................May 18, 2007
......................May 22, 2007
......................June 1, 2007
VIII. SUBMITTAL
A. Submit a total of 2 copies to:
Angela Kraetsch
Director of Financial Services
P.O. Box 550
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
B. Show the following information on the outside of the package:
• Firm's name and address
• Audit Services Proposal
C. The proposal must be received at the above address by the closing date and time. Firms
mailing or shipping their proposals must allow sufficient delivery time to ensure timely
receipt of their proposals by the time specified. Late proposals will not be accepted.
D. Closing Date: All proposals must be received by Mondav, Aoril 30, 2007 at 5:00
Vim.
G. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for any or no reason.
H. For more information, please contact Angela Kraetsch at 805-473-5432.
IX. LIABILITY INSURANCE
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Contractor will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Contractor will use existing
coverage to comp/y with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet the
requirements set forth here, Contractor agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing
5
rnverage to do so. Contractor acknowledges that the insurance roverage and policy limits set
forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds
available to City in excess of the limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is
applicable to a given loss, will be available to City.
Contractor shall provide the fol%wing types and amounts of insurance:
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office "Commercial
General Liability" policy from CG 00 Ol or the exact equivalent. Defense costs must be paid
in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one
insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $1,000,000
per occurrence.
B. Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage from CA 00 01 including symbol i
(Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event to be less
than $1,000,000 per accident. If Contractor owns no vehicles, this requirement may be
satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy described above.
If Contractor or Contractor's employees will use personal autos in any way on this project,
Contractor shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person.
C. Workers Compensation on astate-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer's liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
D. Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary), if used to meet limit requirements,
shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages. Any
such coverage provided under an umbrella liability policy shall include a drop down
provision providing primary coverage above a maximum $25,000 self-insured retention for
liability not covered by primary but wvered by the umbrella. Coverage shall be provided on
a "pay on behalf" basis, with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. Policy shall
contain a provision obligating insurer at the time insured's liability is determined, not
requiring actual payment by the insured first. There shall be no cross liability exclusion
precluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another. Coverage shall be
applicable to City for injury to employees of Contractor, subcontractors or others involved
in the Work. The scope of coverage provided is subject to approval of City following receipt
of proof of insurance as required herein.
E. Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a
policy form coverage specifically designated to protect against acts, errors or omissions of
the Contractor and "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must
specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit shall be no less
than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must "pay on behalf of the
insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. The policy
retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this agreement.
F. Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurer that are
admitted carriers in the state California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and a
minimum financial size VII.
G. General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Contractor. Contractor
and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by Contractor:
Contractor agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds, City, its officials
employees and agents, using standard I50 endorsement No. CG 2010 with an
edition prior to 1992. Contractor also agrees to require all Contractors, and
subcontractors to do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall
prohibit Contractor, or Contractor's employees, or agents, from waiving the right of
subrogation prior to a loss. Contractor agrees to waive subrogation rights against
City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all
Contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Contractor and available or applicable
to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing
contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to the City or its
operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not
been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called "third party action over" claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any Contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Contractor shall not make
any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or
reduction of discovery period) that may affect City's protection without City's prior
written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of
insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Contractor's general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time
and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to
obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any
other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be
charged to and promptly paid by Contractor or deducted from sums due
Contractor, at City option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of
any cancellation of coverage. Contractor agrees to require its insurer to modify
such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the
insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, or that any
party will "endeavor" (as opposed to being required) to comply with the
requirements of the certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Contractor or any subcontractors, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self insurance available to City.
10. Contractor agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with
the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Contractor, provide
the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contractor. Contractor agrees
to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring
that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section.
Contractor agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and
others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
11. Contractor agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees that
it will not allow any Contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity
or person in any way involved in the performance of work on the project
contemplated by this agreement to self-insure itr obligations to City. If Contractor's
existing coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or
self-insured retention must be declared to the City. At the time the City shall
review options with the Contractor, which may include reduction or elimination of
the deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other
solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change
the amountr and types of insurance required by giving the Contractor ninety (90)
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Contractor, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increase benefit to City.
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed
to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that
can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement.
14. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part
of City to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirements in
no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Contractor will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or itr
employees or agentr face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this
agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or
terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Contractor shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been
ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from
Contractor's insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance
and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five
days of the expiration of the coverages.
17. The provisions of any workers' compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Contractor under this agreement. Contractor expressly agrees not to
use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, itr
employees, officials and agentr.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to
a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-
inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of this
Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or
impairs the provisions of this Section.
21. Contractor agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Contractor for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not
the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these
requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or
other amounts with respect thereto.
22. Contractor agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against
Contractor arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes
no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to
monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
EXHIBIT "E"
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
AUDIT PROPOSAL
For Fiscal Years 2006-2007, 2007-08, and 2008-09
Submitted By:
Moss, Levy & Hart7heim LLP
802 E. Main Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
(805)925-2579
Submitted On:
April 30, 2007
Contact Person:
Ron A. Levy, CPA
I CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
AUDIT PROPOSAL -
~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
_i
Introduction:
j Letter of Transmittal ..............................................................................................................................
1 ......................................... I
Qualifications:
i
I License [o Practice in California ............................................................................................................
.........................................4
f ndependenc e .......................................................................................................................................... ......................................... 4
~I
Firm Qualifications and Experience .......................................................................................................
.........................................4
Partner, Supervisory, and Staff Qualifications and Experience .............................................................
1 .........................................4
Similar Engagements with Other Goverrunental Entities .................•..................................................... .........................................5
~ \\tork Plan:
Specific Audit Approach ....................................................................................................................... .........................................7
~', Schedule by Phase .................................................................................................................................. .........................................9
Costs:
I
Cost Proposal and Certification for Professional Auditing Services Proposal .......................................
....................................... I 1
~ Cost Proposal Submittal Supporting Detail ............................................................................................ .......................................12
References:
i
~ References ..........................................................................................:.................................................. ........................................14
Appendices:
APPendix A -Peer Quality Review Report ........................................................................................... ........................................15
APPendix B -Resumes ......................................................................................................................... ........................................ 17
Appendix C -Current and/or Recently Completed Governmental Audits ...........................................
i ........................................22
PARTNERS:
ROBERT M. MOSS. C.BA.
I RONALD A. LEVY, C.PA.
~ CRAIG A. NARRHEIM, C.P.A.
HADLEV Y HUI, C.BA.
Angela Krae[sch
Director of Fiscal Services
City of Arroyo Grande
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 9342
802 EAST MAIN
SANTA MARIA, CA 93454
PHONE. (805) 925-2579
FAX: (805) 925-2147
EMAIL. mlhsm@mlhcpas.com
We are pleased to respond to the City ofAtroyo Grande's Request for Proposal for independent auditing services. We have prepared
our proposal to address each specification included in the City of Arroyo Grande's Request for Proposal.
ARer 55 years in public accounting and more than 29 years of performing local governmental audits, it is extremely gratifying to witness
the continued growth of Moss, Lery & Hartzheim LLP. The fum has evolved from cone-person operation to a regional public
accounting firm with offices in Beverly Hills and Santa Maria with clients throughout the State of California, as well asthirty-one other
states. We and the entire staff are pleased with not only the continuing development of the firm, but also the progress and economic
health of our clients. We understand that governmental accounting is a specialized industry with its own accounting standards and
requirements and that is why we strive to constantly improve the quality of our professional services. This degree of dedication coupled
with our ability [o inform our clients of any new accounting and auditing issues is paramount to our success.
We feel [hat our size is such [hat we are large enough to provide a broad spectrnm of services and experience backed by an in-house
training program, professional development courses, and an extensive professional library, yet not so large as [o become impersonal and
rigid. Our informal style allows us to be flexible enough to complete our audits in a timely manner that is the most convenient for each
client. Also, this style allows us to be more accessible to our clients when our clients have questions or concerns.
It is our understanding that we will be responsible for expressing opinions on the City of Arroyo Grande's basic financial statements in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition to those procedures deemed
necessary to express our opinions on the basic financial statements, we understand that we will also be responsible for performing
certain limited procedures involving supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(Management's Discussion and Analysis, Statistical Section, and Supplementary Information).
Our audit would be made in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; Government
Audr(ing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133,
Audits ofStote, Loca! Governments, and Nonprofr(Organrm(lops; and Guidelines jar Compliance Audits ojCalrfornia Redevelopment
Agencies issued by the State Controller, Division of Local Government Fiscal Affairs. As part of performing our audits in accordance
with these standards, we understand that we will be required [o audit [ke Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
It is also our understanding that we will be responsible for issuing the following:
Reports on the fa'u presentation ofthe financial statements in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America as listed below:
a) Basic Financial Statements for the City of Arroyo Grande
b) Basic Financial Statements for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande
c) Audi[ Report for [he City of Arroyo Grande inaccordance with [he Single Audi[ Act
2. Financial and compliance audit of Transportation Development Act funds
3. A report based on the auditor's understanding of the internal control structure and assessment of control risk. In this report, we
will communicate any reportable conditions found during the audit and indicate whether they are also material weaknesses.
1
OFFICES: BEVERLY HILLS • SANTA MARIA
MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM LLP
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTiUiE OF CRAS • CALIFORNIA SOCIEN OF C.PAS • CALIFORNIA SOCIEN OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS • CALIFORNIA ASSOCIAiiON OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFlCIAIS
will communicate any reportable conditions found during the audit and indicate whether they are also material weaknesses.
~t
i
~ 4. A separate report on our analysis of the internal control stmcture used in the administration of federal financial assistance
programs.
5. A report on the City's compliance with laws and regulations, related [o "major" federal awards including an opinion on
compliance with specific requirements applicable to "major" federal awards programs. This report on compliance H~II include all
instances ofnon-compliance.
6. AManagement-Letter addressed to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande setting forth recommendations for
improvements in the City's accounting systems.
7. We will communicate in a letter to the Mayor, Treasurer, City Manager, and Director of Financial Services any reportable
conditions found during the audit. A reportable condition shall be defined as a significant deficiency in the design oroperation of
the internal control stmcture, which could adversely affect the organization's ability to record, process, summarize, and report
financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements. "Nomeportable conditions" discovered by
us will also be communicated in the "Management Letter".
8. We will make immediate, written notification to the City Manager, Director of Financial Services, and the City Attorney of all
irregularities and illegal acts or indications of illegal acts of which we become aware.
We will make all communications to the City as required by the audit standards under which the engagement is performed. Those
communications include, but are no[ limited to:
I. The auditor's responsibility under auditing standards generally accepted in the United Slates of America.
2. Significant accounting policies.
3. Management judgment and accounting estimates.
4. Significant audit adjustments.
5. Other information in documents containing audited financial statements.
6. Disagreements with management.
7. Management consultation with other accountants.
8. Major issues discussed with management prior to retention.
9. Difficulties encountered in performing the audit.
10. Errors, irregularities, and illegal acts.
We will be available to present our audit plan prior to beginning field work.
All work papers and reports will be retained, at our expense, for a minimum of seven years (or the retention timeframe established by the
professional standards, whichever is longer) unless the firm is notified in writing by the Ci[y of the need to extend the retention period.
The work papers are subject to review by federal and state agencies and other individuals designated by the City. Accordingly, the work
papers will be made available upon request.
In addition, we will respond to [he reasonable inquires of successor auditors and allow successor auditors [o review work papers.
All adjusting journal entries made by us will be discussed and explained to the designated Finance Department personnel prior to
recording. They will be in a format that shows the lowest level of posting detail needed for data entry in [he general ledger systems.
.~
This proposal is a firm and irrevocable offer until July 30, 2007.
.-I
Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact the authorized representative listed below with any questions,
problems, or concerns.
i Ron A. Levy, CPA
Partner
802 E. Main Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
(805)925-2579
__ _ __.
Since//re~~ly,
~I RotCAJL~, CPA
3
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WORK PLAN
--~
LICENSE TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA
~ Moss, Levy &Hartzheim LLP is a properly licensed certified pubic accounting firm in the State of Califomia, license # 5863. All
certified public accountants engaged in the audit of the City are licensed to practice in the State of California and have received at (east
the minimum numberofgovemmental continuing professional education hours required by the State Board ofAccountancyto perform a
governmental audit.
INDEPENDENCE
Moss, Levy &Hartzheim LLP is independent of the City of Arroyo Grande and its component units as defined by auditing standards
generally accepted in the States of America and the U.S. General Accounting Office's Govemmental Audrrrng Standards (1994).
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Moss, Levy &Hartzheim LLP is a minority owned regional fum that performs audits of governmental entities from the Oregon to the
Mexican border. The firm currently employs 33 professionals and has annual gross revenues between 3 and 3.5 million dollars. The
firm has two offices in Califomia: Beverly Hills and Santa Mazia.
The audit work will be completed by staff from our Santa Maria office:
The Santa Maria office is currently staffed by five certified public accountants (two partners, two managers, and a senior accountant). In
addition, [he office employs three senior accountants and five staff accountants.
The City of Arroyo Grande will have one partner and one alternate partner assigned to the audit at all times. In addition, one manager,
one senior accountant, and two or three staff accountants wil I be assigned on a full-time basis to the audit from the Santa Maria office.
The City of Arroyo Grande will also have a computer specialist assigned to the audit on a full-time basis. This individual assists the
audit team in documenting the computer system in[emal control structure.
Our firm has never been the object of any disciplinary action from any federal or state regulatory body or professional organization, nor
is there any disciplinary action pending.
Please see Appendix A -Peer Qua(iry Review Report for a copy of our firm's most recent quality review report, which includes a review
of local governmental engagements.
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
It is the firm's policy to have our partners and audit manager involved in the managing function of our governmental audits. Having
both the partner and audit manager involved in the engagement allows the City to receive immediate response to questions about
accounting and audit topics, concerns, and fmdings.
It is expected that Mr. Ron Lery would be the partner in charge of [he City's audit. Mr. Levy would have primary responsibility for the
audit. Mr. Lery would also be responsible for assisting in the preparation of the City's CAFR. Mr. Levy has assisted numerous cities
and has prepared award winning CAFRs. Mr. Levy will also be responsible for addressing any City questions or concerns [hat arise
during the year. It is the firm's policy to have a partner on site for a majority of the field work. This policy enables the partner to become
acquainted with the City's daily operations and key personnel.
Mr. Craig Hartzheim will be the alternate partner assigned to the audit. As altemate partner, it is his responsibility to be familiar with
J the City, its staff, the audit, and any special problem areas of the City'in the event that Mr. Levy is unavailable. Mr. Hartzheim has
assisted numerous cities and prepared award winning CAFRs. Mr. Hartzheim has also assisted cities in preparing the state controller's
reports.
4
[..,
~ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WORK PLAN
,~
i
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFFQUALIFICATIONSAND EXPERIENCE-eonr/rtned
Mr. Brad Silva will be the manager assigned to the audit. As manager, Mr; Silva will oversee the day to day operations of the audit and
' will review all audit areas. Mr. Silva will be at the City for 100% of the fieldwork. He performs in house [raining for governmental
auditing staff members and is in charge of keeping the firm updated on aspects of governmental accounting and auditing issues.
~ Mr. Ryan Cornell will be the senior accountant assigned to the audit. As senior accountant, i[ will be Mr. Cornell responsibility to
oversee the staff accountants, do preliminary reviews of audit sections, and to perform more difficult audit sections.
Mr. David Ortiz will be the Information Technology Director assigned to the audit. Mr. Ortiz has extensive knowledge in auditing EDP
functions. Mr. Ortiz will also perform the statistical sampling procedures for [he audit. Also, he will document and test the internal
control structure of the computer systems.
Please see Appendix B - Resumes for each individual's resume.
In addition to the supervisory staff listed above, two or three staff accountants will be assigned to the audit. All staff accountants have
degrees from accredited colleges or universities, have received in-house governmental audit training, and a[ present have at least one
year of governmental auditing experience. All staff accountants will be directly supervised by the senior accountant and/or manager
assigned to the audit at all times. All partners, managers, and staff members have worked on numerous governmental engagements
together. Consistently working together will provide the City with a knowledgeable and efficient audit team.
The firm will maintain staff continuity on the engagement throughout the term of the contract, barring any terminations, illnesses, or
other unforeseen circumstances. At the request of the City, any Moss, Levy and Hartzheim employee assigned to the audit can be
removed and replaced by another qualified employee. Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP has an advantage in that there is relatively low
turnover in employees as can be seen on individual resumes and therefore, the firm will not use the City as a training ground for its
employees.
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP has an extensive background in auditing cities with over twenty-nine years of experience in this
specialized field. We curently perform over thirty city audits and numerous other governmental audits.
Please see Appendix C -Curren[ and/or Recently Completed Governmental Audis.
Recent local auditing experiences include the following:
CSMFO and GFOA Award Programs
The firm currently audits the following eleven cities [hat participate in either or both of the CSMFO and GFOA Award
Programs. (Each city has received the awards it has participated in)
City of Bellflower
City of Campbell
City of Scotts Valley
City of Brawley
City of Capitola
City of Lompoc
City of Paso Robles
City of Sonoma
City of Lathrop
City Watsonville
City of Whittier
2. OMB Circular A-133
We have performed compliance audits in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133,
Audits ojStare, Local Governments and Nonprofrt Organizations, for each of our thirty municipal clients.
`- 3. Special Districts
Currently our firm audits sixty-two special districts including recreation districts, utility districts, cemetery districts,
community services districts, sanitary districts, water districts, fire districts, an ambulance services district, and an
airport district.
i $
`~
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
QUALIFICATIONS
i
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES-continued
~ 4. Redevelopment Agencies
We have performed audits of fifteen redevelopment agencies. Each redevelopment agency audit is conducted in
- accordance with Guidelines for Compliance Audits of California Redevelopment Agencies issued by the State
Controller, Division of Local Government Fiscal Affairs and Section 33080.1(a) ofthe Health and Safety Code and Title
2.5, Chapter 6 of [he California Administrative Code.
5. State Controller's Report and Street Report
We have prepared State Controller's reports and street reports for numerous cities, redevelopment agencies, and special
districts. We feel this experience allows us to help assist our clients in their preparation ofthe state controller's reports
or prepare the reports as a separate engagement for our clients.
6. Federal and State Grant Programs and the Single Audit
Each of our municipal clients, the majority of our special district clients, and all of our school district clients receive
federal and state grants which require compliance audits. Some of our most commonly audited federal programs are as
follows:
Municipal Major Programs:
Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG)
HOME Program
Airport Improvement Program
Federal Emergency Management Act Funds (FEMA)
Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Urban Mass Transportation Act Funds (UMTA)
Highway Planning and Construction
Other Common Municipal Programs:
COPS Fast grants
COPS More grants
Asset Seizure funds
Retired Senior Volunteer Program
Enterprise Community Grants
Economic Development Administration
Franchise Audits
The fum has assisted several cities in reviewing franchise fmancial statements as part of reviewing franchise requests for
rate increases. In addition, the firm has performed transient occupancy audits for five cities and has performed various
audits of operating lease charges (such as use of a sewage treatment plant based on percentage of use by our client and
actual expenses as recorded by the treatment plant operator).
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WORK PLAN
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH
r1
I The main extent of our work would be what is required to enable us to express an opinion on the financial statements in accordance
with:
1. AICPA Industry Audit Guide jor Slate and Local Governments! Units
~ 2. A/CPA Audit Smndards
3. National Committee on Governmental Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting (Amended) Publication
4. Laws of the State of California
5. Requirements of Office of Management and Budget's CircularA-133,Audi[sojS(ate,LocolCovernments,andNonprofit
Organfzations
6. GAO Standards jor Audit ojCovernmen[al Organizations, Programs, Activities, mrd Functions, the Guidelines jor
Financial and Compliance Audits ojFederally Assisted Programs
7. Our firm's own additional standards and procedures
The audit will be made in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America.
The primary purpose of the audit is to express an opinion on the basic financial statements, and such an audit is subject to the inherent
risk that material errors or fraud may exist and not be detected by us. If conditions are discovered which lead [o the belief that material
errors, defalcations, or fraud may exist or if any other circumstances are encountered that require extended services, we will promptly
advise the City.
Our audit would begin when it is convenient for City staff. We estimate this [o be around June to perform interim work. During Mayor
June each year, the partner or manager of the firm will contact the Finance Department personnel. The purpose ofthis contact will be to
discuss the scope and timing of the annual audit, to review any accounting issues known at that time, and to address any Ciry personnel's
concerns about the impending audit.
We will schedule approximately one to two weeks of interim work each fiscal year. During the first fiscal year, we will prepare
narrative flow charts and other documentation of [he internal control stmcture and of the major systems, such as revenue and cash
receipts, purchasing and cash disbursements, payroll and personnel, inventory, property and equipment, grant compliance, investment
activities, and the budget process. We will gain this information through discussions with appropriate City staff and the review of
available documented policies, organizational charts, manuals, programs, and procedures. Once we obtain this information, we will
evaluate the systems of internal controls and revise our standard governmental audit programs. During the interim work in subsequent
fiscal years, we will note changes in the system, if any.
For our first year of engagement, we will utilize the prior fiscal year's financial statements, the current fiscal year budget and our
knowledge of your systems to determine materiality for the different audit sections. Each fiscal year we will select a sample of
transactions to determine to what extent the systems are functioning as described to us. The extent of our sample size will depend upon
our assessment of the intemal control structure. The selection of transactions for testing will be made using a combination of random,
systematic, and haphazard sampling techniques. We will identify the strength of the systems upon which we can rely in planning our
substantive tests. Our intemal control review will meet all the requirements of AICPA Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 55,
~ Consideration ofthe Internal Control Structure in a Financial Statement Audit, as amended by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 78
and SAS 99 Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. We will also perform preliminary analytical review procedures
using prior fiscal years' audited statements and current budget.
It is estimated that the sampling size for transaction testing for compliance with systems as actually implemented would be as follows
I. 25/40/60 disbursement items, including automatic and manual checks
II. 25/40/60 payroll checks
fll. 25/40/60 receipt items, including but not limited [o utility billings, business licenses, recreation
programs, building fees, franchise fees and other miscellaneous receipts
~I
i
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WORK PLAN
SPECIFIC A(IDITAPPROACH-continued
We will also review the following documents in order to determine compliance with laws and regulations:
(a) Minutes of the governing body with special attention to: indications ofnew revenue sources, including federal and state
grants; expenditure authorizations and related appropriations, including any special or restrictive provisions; appropriation
transfers; authorization for bank or other deb[ incurred; awards to successful bidders; authorization for new leases entered
into; changes in licenses, fines or fees; authorization for fund balances designations or reservations; and authorization for
significant new employees hired
(b) New agreements and amendments to new agreements including but not limited to: grant agreements; debt and lease
agreements; labor agreements; join[ venture agreements; and other miscellaneous agreements
(c) Administrative Code
(d) Investment Policy
Before April 1 of'each fiscal year, we will contact you to provide our detailed audit plan for the fiscal year-end fieldwork. We will also
discuss with you any matters [ha[ may impact our audit procedures or your fmancial reporting. Also, we will discuss with you any
assistance the City may need with the fiscal year-end closing.
Our fiscal year-end fieldwork would begin.after [he Ciry has closed its books which we estimate to be the second week of September.
The fiscal year-end audit work will begin with an analytical review of all significant balance sheet and revenues and
expenditures/expense accounts for each fund group, which includes a comparison of prior fiscal year financial statements and curent
fiscal year budget to the fiscal year-end trial balance. The primary objective of the fiscal year-end audit work is to audit the final
numbers that will appeaz in the City's CAFR.
We will also perform procedures such as:
(a) Confirmations by positive and negative circularizations including but not limited to all cash and investment accounts;
selected receivable and revenue balances; all bonds, loans, notes payable, and capital leases; all notes receivable; all
insurance carriers; all legal firms employed on Ciry business; and other miscellaneous confirmations as deemed
necessary
(b) Physical verifications and observations
(c) Analysis and review of evidential material
(d) Interviews and investigative efforts
(e) Electronic data processing testing for computer and software reliability
(f) Numerous other procedures
During [he entire engagement, our audit team will be determining the risk assessment of federal programs to be audited in compliance
~ with OMB A-133. We will perform tests of: general requirements; specific requirements; claims for advances and reimbursements; and
amounts claimed or used for matching in compliance with the Single Audit Act. Also we will obtain an understanding of the internal
i control structure of each program tested. The compliance audit will be made in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America and the GAO Standards for Audits of Governments! Organizations, Programs, Activities, and
Functions, and the GAO Guidelines for Financaa! and Compliance Audits of Federally Assisted Programs.
The objective in testing transactions for compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements is to
express an opinion on whether the governmental unit has complied in all material respects, with applicable compliance requirements,
noncompliance with which could have a material effect on each major program. In drawing audit samples for purposes of tests of
compliance, we will plan our tests to support a low assessed level of control risk. We will select transactions from each program or area
which requires testing. The selection of transactions to test would be based on auditor's professional judgment. We use the PPCCuide
- !o Audits of Local Governments and the PPC Guide to Single Audits for guidance in determining the number of transactions to test.
j SAS No. 99 Considerations ojFraud in a Financial Statement Audit impacts both the planning and the performance of the audit. In
l planning, the audit team will discuss how and where the financial statements might be susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud.
To determine this we will inquire of management, consider results of analytical procedures, and consider other fraud risk factors. We
will review the results of our inquires and identification of potential fraud areas on a daily basis to achieve a high level of compliance
with SAS No. 99.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WORK PLAN
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH-continued
We have extensive knowledge in auditing computer systems. We have assisted numerous clients with the implementation ofaccounting
software and database business systems. This assistance has provided our firm with a thorough background in computer systems in both
the software applications aspect and also the insight into auditing such systems. It is our policy to have a computer specialist as part of
the audit team. This individual assists the audit team in documenting the computer system internal control stmcture and highlighting
I strengths and weaknesses relating to the computer structure of the City.
Moss, Lery & Hartzhiem has many networked desktop PCs and many notebook computers which are used on site. Some of the software
used includes Word, Excel, TASC Force, PPC, and AuditWare as our trial balance/financial statement preparation software.
As part of our audit engagements, we issue our clients management letters if we note certain observations or recommendations that we
feel need to be disclosed. Our firm's philosophy regazding the management letter is that the management letter is to help management
improve its intemal control and accounting procedures and not to criticize the management in charge. This is why we present our
management letters to management in draft form for open discussion prior to issuance.
The firm uses PPC audit programs, checklists, and questionnaires in conjunction with client specific audit program procedures. In
addition to our PPC checklists, the firm uses GFOA and CSMFO Award Program Reviewer's Checklists as an additional guide for
CAFRs. -
The GovernmentalAccoun[ing,AuditingandF(nancia(Reporting(GAAFR),issuedbytheGovernmenlFinance0fficersAssociation
(the "Blue Book") and other GFOA publications are often used as additional tools when preparing the financial statements of our
governmental clients. The firm has and uses its extensive library of current AICPA, GFOA, and GASB publications and
pronouncements.
We will retain working papers and reports at our expense for a period of seven years. In addition, we will make our working papers
available, upon request, to any oversight agency and successor auditors.
SCHEDULE BYPHASE
[f convenient for the City's staff, the approximate target dates for an audit would be as follows:
(l) Preliminary audit entrance conference with staff- June 1 l
(2) Detailed audit plan -June I 1
(3) Interim field work -Week of June 11
(4) Year-end field work -October 17-19
(5) Exit conference with staff'-October l9
(6) Draft of Management Letter -November 15
(7) Issue other audit reports and final managemenT letter -November 30 (or within three days of the City's final approval)
Minimal assistance of the City's stafFis required during the course ofthe audit, however, we do ask that the City provide the following:
cooperation in answering questions, requested confirmations, bank reconciliations, ageneral ledger, and other miscellaneous items.
Also, with City approval, our audit team can pull and file appropriate supporting documents, which includes invoices. We feel this
approach minimizes the disruption of the City routine.
The percentage of the audit work we expect to accomplish in each month is shown below:
June July September October November Total
20% 5% 10% 50% 15% 100%
The City will be billed monthly as [he percentage of total work is performed, based on total contract price.
:i
,..
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
WORK PLAN
Respectfully submitted,
MOSS, LEVV & HARTZHEIM LLP
~ R A. Levy CPA
~ Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP is an Equal Opportunity Employer
J
10
~. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COSTS
COST PROPOSAL AND CERTIFICATION FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES PROPOSA
SUBMITTAL SUMMARY:
COST PROPOSAL
Fiscal Fiscal
Year year
2007-08
20_ pJb~ ~----
Financial Statements:
$ 12,800 $ 13,385
Audit Basic F i
ions & Assistance with CAFR
n
Reports & Op
ort & Report Preparation:
cial & Compliance Rep 2,500 2,610
1,570
Finan
Grande Redevelopment Agency
Airoyo 1,500 1,250
~
Transportation Developmca~ a?t
Act (If apP
i ~50 ~.
815
18
t
Single Aud 1~ ~0
$ $
,
~-
Fiscal
Year
20~ 0~
$ 14,100
2,730
1,640
I'25~
$ 19,720
~-
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COSTS
COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL SUPPORTING DETAiL
(Detail Submitted for Fiscal Year 2006-07 Only)
Financial Statements:
Basic Financial Statements
Partners
Managers
Supervisory Staff
Clerical Staff
Information Technology Director
Subtotal
If Applicable:
Meals & Lodging
Transportation
Other
Total
Financial and Compliance Reports:
Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency
~ Partners
Managers
Supervisory Staf(
Clerical Staff
~ Information Technology Director
Subtotal
., If Applicable:
Meals & Lodging
Transportation
Other
Total
I
l
J
`i
.l
~1
Fiscal Year 2006-07
Hourly Total Total
Rate Hours Bid
$ 100 19 $ 1,900
80 50 4.000
50 100 5,000
35 20 700
60 20 1,200
- 209 12,800
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
$ - 209 $ 12,800
$ 100 7 $ 700
80 6 480
50 16 800
35 8 280
60 4 240
- 41 2,500
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
$ _ 41 $ 2,500
12
,~
i
I
1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
COSTS
COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL SUPPORTING DETAIL
(Detail Submitted for Fiscal Year 2006-07 Only)
Fiscal Year 2006-07
Hourly Total Total
Rate Hours Bid
I
i
I
i
. l
-
I
i
~l
Financial and Compliance Reports:
Single Audit Act
Partners
Managers
Supervisory Staff
Clerical Staff
Information Technology Director
Subtotal
If Applicable:
Meals & Lodging
Transportation
Other
Total
Financial and Compliance Reports:
Transportation Development Act
Partners
Managers
Supervisory Staff
Clerical Staff
Information Technology Director
Subtotal
If Applicable:
Meals & Lodging
Transportation
O[her
Total
$ 100 3 $ 300
80 5 400
35 4 140-
60 1 60
- 20 1,250
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
$ - 20 $ 1,250
$ 100 4 $ 400
80 4 320
50 9 450
35 6 210
60 2 120
- 25 1,500
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
$ - 25 $ 1,500
13
,-,
_I
_i
_J
,_t
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTA MARIA
Contact: Lynda Snodgrass (805) 925-0951
Administrative Services Director
10 E. Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
2005 -Present
CAFR, Single Audit, and Redevelopment Agency Audit
650 audit hours
Contact: William P. Hays, CPA, (831) 728-6148
Assistant Finance Director
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95077
1999 -Present
CAFR, Single Audit, and Redevelopment Agency Audit
650 Audit Hours
Contact: Jack Dilles (408) 779-7271
Finance Director
17555 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
2004 -Present
CAFR, and Redevelopment Agency Audit
em a,.,t~r h„~.~<
CITY OF PASO ROBLES
Contact: Mike Compton, (805) 237-3999
Administrative Services Director
EI Paso de Robles, CA 95066
1997 -Present
CAFR, Single Audit, and Redevelopment Agency Audit
400 audit hours
14
~,,
APPENDICES
...~
._~
I
~~
.-I
~l
,
pOWEIL & SPAPt`C'f~['. I_LC Patricf D..Spnf(ord, CPA
CLIJTIf ILD PUL' LIC ACCGUNT.-~rTS t,, :,,.a Ey a:: c .i;i,,,.,: r, ,,~ „i a,, ,~,,,~ ,,,
J~SSie C. f>a,.ell, Cf?A
__ To the Partners
~ Moss, Levy & Hartzheim
I
Certified Public Accountants
We have reviewed the system ofquality control for the auditing practice ofMoss, Levy & Hartzheim (the lion)
in effect for the year ended December 31, 2005. The firm has represented to us that no services under the
" ! Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services or Statement on Standards for Attestation
~ Engagements were performed during the year under review. A system of quality control encompasses the
firm's organizational structure, the policies adopted and procedures established to provide it with reasonable
assurance of conforming with professional standards. The elements of quality control are described in the
Statements on Quality Control Standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA). The firm is responsible for designing a system ofquality control and complying with it to provide
the firm reasonable assurance of conforming with professional standards in all material respects. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the design ofthe system ofquality control and the firm's compliance
with its system ofquality control based on our review.
Our review was conducted in accordance with standards established by the Peer Review Board ofthe AICPA.
During our review, we read required representations from the 5rm, interviewed firm personnel, and obtained
an understanding of the nature of the firm's auditing practice, and the design of the firm's system ofquality
control sufficient to assess the risks implicit in its practice. Based on our assessments, we selected
engagements and administrative files to test for conformity with professional standards and compliance with
the firm's system ofquality control. The engagements selected represented a reasonable cross-section of the
firm's accounting and auditing practice with emphasis onhigher-risk engagements. The engagements selected
included among others, engagements performed under Governmental Auditing Standards. Prior to concluding
the review, we reassessed the adequacy of the scope of the peer review procedures and met with firm
management to discuss the results of our review. We believe that the procedures we performed provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In performing our review, we obtained an understanding ofthe system ofquality control for the firm's auditing
practice. In addition, we tested compliance with the firm's quality control policies and procedures to the extent
we considered appropriate. These tests covered the application of the firm's policies and procedures on
j selected engagements. Our review was based on selected tests therefore it would not necessarily detect all
} weaknesses in the system of quality control or all instances bf noncompliance with it. There are inherent
limitations in the effectiveness of any system of quality control and therefore noncompliance with the system of
quality control may occur and not be detected. Projection of any evaluation of a system ofquality control to
future periods is subject to the risk that the system of quality control may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions, or because ofthe degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
,_i
I
,.J
r ~ ~i64 W Virch Court • San LJernar~ino, C;~ 97410 • RO. Qox 8847 • ~ve~~an~s, CA 9.7375
, Teleplicne 909-885-TT71 • Fax 909-885-7541
i.J
,-,
i
~~
M1
to our opinion, the system of quality control for the auditing practice of Moss, Levy & Hartzheim, in effect for
the year ended December 3l, 2005, has been designed to meet the requirements of the quality control standads
for an auditing practice established by the AICPA and was complied with during the year then ended to
provide the firm with reasonable assurance of complying with professional standards.
As is customary in a system review, we have issued a letter under this date that sets forth comments that were
not considered to be of sufficient significance to affect the opinion expressed in this report.
August 8, 2006
~~~ ~X~
'1
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPENDIX B -RESUMES
RONA. LEI~Y, CPA -PARTNER
• California licensed CPA with 29 years of audit experience with govemmental entities.
• Partner in charge of all govemmental audits, currently including 30 municipal audits, 28 school district audits,
and 62 special district audits.
• Has assisted governmental clients with year end closings, key position interviews, preparation of award winning
CAFR's, and preparation of State Controller's Reports.
• lias met or exceeded all continuing education requirements, including recent courses in:
2006 Governmental Accounting Conference
2005 Governmental Accounting Conference
2004 Governmental Accounting Conference
GASB Statement Na.34 Training Conference ,
Compliance Auditing, Audit Sampling and Concluding the Audit
Audits of State and Local Governments
Governmental Accounting Update
The Single Audit Act
The 2006, 2005, and 2004 School District Conferences
Auditor's Reports on Audits ojLocal Governments
Planning a Governmental Audit Engagement
• Member of the following:
i Califomia Society of Municipal Finance Officers
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
California Society oCCertified Public Accountants
Califomia Association of School Business Officials
Kiwanis Club
• A Bachelor of Science degree from Oregon State University conferred in 1977.
• Taught accounting courses at a branch of LaVeme College and Chapman College.
• Knowledgeable about all areas of tax law.
• Awarded "CPA of the Year Award 2006" by the Santa Barbara County Special Districts Association.
.J
17
iJ
r
i CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPENDIX B -RESUMES
l ~ CRAIG HARTZHEIM, CPA -PARTNER (ALTERNATE)
~ • California licensed CPA with 21 years of audit experience with governmental entities.
I
• Alternate partner (manager) for all governmental audits, currently including 28 school district audits, l0 municipal
audits, and 62 special districts.
• Has assisted governmental clients with year end closings, key position interviews, preparation of award winning
CAFRs, and preparation of State Controller's Reports.
• Has met or exceeded all continuing education requirements, including recent courses in the following:
- ~ 2006, 2005, and 2004 School District Conferences
' 2006, 2005, and 2004 Governmental Accounting Conferences
~ A-/33 Compliance Supplement Reriew
Preparing Governmental Financial Statements
I The New Yellow Book ,
Planning, Sampling, Internal Control, Compliance &
Program Specific Audits
Concluding the Audit, Reporting, Follow-up, & Indirect Cost
Considerations During Single Audits
' Cost Allocations and Indirect Costs
GASB Statement No. 34 Training Conference
1003 Audi(Planning: A Practical Guide
• A Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from Marquette University conferred in 1982.
• Member of the following:
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
California Society of Certified Public Accountants
• Knowledgeable about all areas of tax law.
,.i
18
,~
~r
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPENDIX B -RESUMES
BRAD SIL VA, CPA -MANAGER
• Califomia licensed CPA.
• Manager Cor govemmental audits, currently including 12 school district audits, 10 municipal audits, l4 special
districts, and Snon-profits.
• Has assisted govemmental clients with year end closings, preparation oC Award winning CAFRs, and preparation of
State Controller's Reports.
• Has met or exceeded all continuing education requirements, including recent courses in the following:
2006 and 2005 Schoo! District Conferences
2006 and 2005 Governmental Accounting Conferences
• A Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Economics with an emphasis in accounting from University of
Califomia Santa Barbara.
19
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPENDIX B -RESUMES
._.I
~h
,.1
i
--~
_l
<<
RYAN CORNELL -SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
• A Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with a concentration in public accounting
from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
• Senior Auditor for I S school district audits, 14 special districts, and 4non-profits.
• Expects [o receive CPA license in June 2007.
20
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPENDIX B -RESUMES
DAVID OR TIZ -INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR
• Eleven years of audit and computer experience with governmental entities.
• Extensive knowledge of:
Network design and implementation
Network maintenance and troubleshooting
Network security
Microsoft, Mac, and Linux operating systems
Database systems
Various accounting programs
• A Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Accounting from California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
• Expects to receive CCNA (Cisco Certified Network Associate) in June 2007.
21
~I
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPGNDIX C -CURRENT AND/OR RECENTLY COMPLETED GOVERNMENTAL AUDITS
_I~
1
-1
CITIES
Adelanto Lemon Grove
Arroyo Grande Lompoc
Atascadero Mammoth Lakes
Beaumont Morgan Hill
Bellflower Paradise
Bishop Paso Robles
Brawley Rocklin
Calimesa Scotts Valley
Campbell Seaside
Capitols Soledad
Fillmore Sonoma
Gonzales South Lake Tahoe
Greenfield Turlock
Holrville Waterford
Lakeport Watsom~ille
Lathro Whittier
(TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT
FINANCIAL AUDITS
Arroyo Grande
Atascadero
Calaveras Council of Govemments
Mariposa County, CA
Paso Robles
Santa Cru2 County Regional Transportation
Commission
San Luis Obispo Council of Govemments
Local Transportation Fund
Stale Transit Assistance Fund
Soledad
South County Area Transit
South County /San Luis Obispo Transit
Transportation Agency for Monterey Count
lifomia Valley CSD
yams CSD
stern Sierra CSD
Dorado Hills CSD
oveland CSD
ritage Ranch CSD
ke Don Pedro CSD
ssion Hills CSD
:e CSD
ssmoor CSD
gain Harte CSD
ndenberg Village CSD
Paso Robles
Soledad
Scotts Valley
Watsonville
Whittier
Beach
Hill
epresented the following cities in the audit
of hotel "bed tax" records:
Arroyo Grande
Pismo Beach
Bellflower
Santa Maria
South Lake Tahoe
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
Bellflower Waterford
Gonzales Santa Maria
IRECREAT[ON DISTRICTS I
'n Park Recreation District
jo Valley Recreation and Park District
ama Recreation District
Oaks Recreation and Park District
~n El-Camino Recreation and Park District
intains Recreation and Conservation
Authority
~rangevale Recreation and Park District
?leasant Valley Recreation and Park District
tancho Simi Park and Recreation District
ian Andreas Recreation and Park District
iouthgate Recreation and Park District
AIRPORT DISTRICTS
Santa Maria Public Ai ort District
l 22
._1
r-.
i
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
APPENDIX C -CURRENT AND/OR RECENTLY COMPLETED GOVERNMENTAL AUDITS
DISTRICTS
i
I
~i
I
~~
...;
~J
'I
~~
'~
lJ
and School District
flower Unified School District
;hman Union School District
Jley Elementary School District
11[on Union School District
~interia Unified School District
ucos Elementary School District
st Unified School District
J Spring School District
.age Elementary School District
:ta Union School District
er Elementary School District
;City Union School District
Alamos Elementary School District
nox Elementary School District
;nolia Union School District
thattan Beach Unified School District
lion Elementary School District
ttecito Union School District
berry Elementary School District
~tt Union School District
fic Elementary School District
,burg Unified School District
san[ Valley School District
Ardo Elementary School District
Lucas Elementary School District
Miguel School District
a Maria High School District
a Maria-Bonita School District
tdon Unified School District
~ang Elementary School District
iple City School District
GRANTS AND AID PROGRAMS
Allan Hancock Community College Student
Financial Aid Programs
.villa - Melones Fire Protection District
ucos Fire Protection District
peropolis Fire Protection District
iy Lind Fire Protection District
:alumna Fire Protection District
phy Fire Protection District
at[ Fire Protection District
Andreas Fire Protection District
,t Point Fire Protection District
villa Cemetery District
ryo Grande Cemetery District
~cadero Cemetery District
per Lake Cemetery District
dleton Cemetery District
road Flat Cemetery District
Andreas Cemetery District
Miguel Cemetery District
ndon Cemetery District
.t Point Cemetery District
AMBULANCE SERVICES DISTRICT
Cambria Community Healthcare District
A
Cayucos Sanitary District
Murphy Sanitary District
Ojai Valley Sanitary District
San Andreas Sanitary District
Montecito Sanitary District
Carpinteria Sanitary District
DISTRICTS
Calaveras County Water District
Callayomi County Water District
Carmichael Water District
Coming Water District
Florin County Water District
Mammoth Community Water District
Mount ICnocti Water District
Santa Barbara Water Purveyors
San Juan Water District
Thomas Creek Water District
Westside Water District
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
San Benito Council of Governments
Transportation Agency of Monterey County
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
23
8.e.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER '
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF
INTERIM CHIEF OF POLICE
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council confirm the appointment of Steve Andrews as the
:Interim Chief of Police.
FUNDING:
The position is fully funded in the FY 2006-07 Annual Budget.
DISCUSSION:
According to Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 2.34.010, the Chief of Police shall
be appointed or removed by the City Manager with the concurrence and confirmation of
the City Council. While it is not clear whether this applies to interim appointments, staff
felt it would be appropriate to seek City Council's confirmation in order to ensure
appropriate procedures are followed.
The Chief of Police position became vacant on June 7, 2007 with the retirement of Tony
Aeilts. The City Manager's selection for appointment of the Interim Chief of Police is
Commander Steve Andrews. Commander Andrews will serve in that position until the
appointment of the new Chief, which should occur by the end of July 2007. The
recruitment process is under way and the selection is expected within the next few
weeks.
Andrews has served with the Arroyo Grande Police Department since 1976, first as
a reserve officer and then as a full-time officer in 1979. During the ensuing time, he has
risen in the ranks and has served in Juvenile Services, as a Field Training Officer,
Patrol Sergeant and Watch Commander, Traffic Officer, SWAT member and the
Operations Division Commander. As a Commander for over six years, he has been
responsible for patrol, detectives, property/evidence and a wide variety of
responsibilities. The appointment has been positively received by the Police
Department staff and I am confident Interim Chief Andrews will be effective in continuing
effective operation of the Department through this period.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION OF INTERIM POLICE CHIEF APPOINTMENT
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 2
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
Approve confirmation of Commander Andrews as the Interim Police Chief;
Do not approve confirmation of Commander Andrews as the Interim Police Chief
and direct the City Manager to make a different appointment;
Provide staff direction.
8.f.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DOUG PERRIN, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND
FACILITIES ~~~I.,/~
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR SAFETY
NETTING AT PORTER BASEBALL FIELD
DATE: APRIL 24, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council appropriate Parkside Assessment District funds for
installation of concrete, poles and safety netting between Porter Baseball Field and
Parkside Park.
FUNDING:
The estimated cost for poles, concrete, rebar, netting, cables and hardware is $11,000.
At total of $4,000 is available in the 350-5515-7001 Park Improvement account. Staff is
requesting the balance of $7,000 be appropriated from the 219 Parkside Assessment
District account, which has a current fund balance of $28,000.
DISCUSSION:
S&S Construction has recently developed new homes and Parkside Park just beyond
the left field fence of Porter Baseball Field. Batted balls from Porter Field, which carry
over the outfield fence, can land in the park or in the backyard of the nearest home. In
order to protect persons using the park and the homeowners and guests, staff
recommends installation of 280' of netting to a height of twenty-eight (28) feet. Staff has
contacted volunteers, who are willing to provide labor to auger the holes, pour concrete
and help with installation of the netting. However, funds are required to pay for supplies
such as poles, concrete, rebar, netting, cables and other necessary hardware. Staff
believes it is appropriate to utilize partial funding from the Assessment District since the
need for the improvements is related to the new development.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Approve staffs recommendation;
- Modify staffs recommendation;
- Do not approve staffs recommendation;
- Provide Direction to staff
8.9•
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER /~~Jj
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS AND EASEMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
00-019 AND PARCEL MAP AG 00-301, LOCATED AT THE SOUTH
EAST CORNER OF SOUTH COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND
AVENUE, CONSTRUCTED BY E.F. MOORE AND COMPANY
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the public
improvements and easements for Conditional Use Permit 00-019 and Parcel Map AG
00-301, located at the southeast corner of South Courtland Street and East Grand
Avenue, constructed by E.F. Moore and Company.
FUNDING:
There is no fiscal impact at this time. Maintenance of these facilities will be funded
from Public Works operating budget in future years.
DISCUSSION:
On June 11, 2002, the City Council approved the final map for Parcel Map AG 00-301
located at the south east corner of South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue.
The offer of dedication was rejected without prejudice as to future acceptance, for
public right of way for Courtland Street and the easements for street tree, public sewer,
public storm drain, and public pedestrian access. Easements and other offers of
dedications are generally accepted when the associated improvements have been
completed. The Council accepted the offer of dedication for Courtland Street on April
26, 2005, with the acceptance of the improvements for Berry Gardens (see Attachment
2 ).
The project was conditioned to perform the following improvements:
1. Extend a storm drain line from East Grand Avenue to Poplar Basin,
2. Install a fire hydrant near the project entrance on South Courtland Street,
3. Extend a public sewer main into the site,
4. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk on the South Courtland Street frontage,
5. Under ground the overhead utilities in the East Grand Avenue frontage,
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
EASEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP AG 00-301, LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST
CORNER OF SOUTH COURTLAND STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE,
CONSTRUCTED BY E.F. MOORE AND COMPANY
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 2
The improvements have been inspected and it is recommended the City Council accept
the improvements and the easements for street tree, public sewer, public storm drain,
and public pedestrian access.
The applicant has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the Municipal
Code. The warranty security will be released after one year provided the improvements
are still in satisfactory condition.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendation;
Do not approve staff's recommendation;
• Modify staff's recommendation as appropriate and approve; or
Provide direction to staff.
Attachment: Attachment 1 -Parcel Map AG 00-301
Attachment 2 -Document No. 2007013204
S'.\Public Works\Engineering\Development ProjectslConditional Use Permits\VEAR 2000\CUP 00-019 1400 E.F MOORE CO
(Longs)\COUNCILb4CCEPTANCE\Council Memo -Acceptance of Improvements -CUP 00-019 doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING EASEMENTS AND
IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-
019 AND PARCEL MAP AG 00-301, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTH EAST CORNER OF SOUTH COURTLAND
STREET AND EAST GRAND AVENUE, CONSTRUCTED
BY E.F. MOORE AND COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Parcel Map AG 00-301 located at the
south east corner of South Courtland Street and East Grand Avenue on June 11, 2002
and rejected, without prejudice as to future acceptance, the offer of dedication for public
right of way for Courtland Street and the easements for street tree, public sewer, public
storm drain, and public pedestrian access; and
WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the offer of dedication for public right of way for
Courtland Street on April 26, 2005 in conjunction with the acceptance of the
improvements for Tract 2260, Berry Gardens; and
WHEREAS, the project was conditioned to construct certain public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the
conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 00-019 and Parcel Map AG 00-301;
and
WHEREAS, staff has inspected the improvements and finds they are constructed in
accordance with the approved plans for the project; and
WHEREAS, the developer has provided the 10% warranty security as required by the
conditions of approval, to be released at the conclusion of the one-year warranty period,
provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby accept the following improvements constructed pursuant to the
conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 00-019 and Parcel Map AG 00-301:
1. Public storm drainage easements and associated improvements,
2. Public sewer easements and associated improvements,
3. Fire hydrant on South Courtland Street,
4. Curb, gutter and sidewalk on South Courtland Street,
5. Street tree easements,
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
On motion of Council Member
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
seconded by Council Member
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2007.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
TONY FERRARA, MA
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
h~
a~'^,~ F~
b~h~
~ ~ ~
~~ ~~~~
~~t~~;
~~~~~
"~ Yh~e~` 'fig ~
~~ ~~
~' 3~3
~~~~~~
- i0# ~ 1Y
a
~s ~,
~ >_
L ~~ ~ ~.~ ~rva~n .s
`~ ~~~
~~ ~ ~;~~
6~pp~~e`k~~ ~~~~
p~C~h~Y~~3€ +4
~$ ~ ~s., ~I~.
~ ~~~~~ ~~
~aoe ~ s
4' 3 ~ 9~
p °o ~ °~ W
57. M
g~J Y 4T
y~All~} ~y~
R~
h
~ ~ ~~
~~~
~a~~~~~
ATTACHMENT 1
_~ ~ ~
~,' z
_'~~ ~ ~~ x
4
h 6
_ $ ~~ _~@
p a
Q$ v,4~hk ~~~ x
~ ~~b= ~~
~'~ ~~~ ~ ~
a
2~~~° t o.
~ ro
~~ R
u~
~~~ ~~
~~~ ~~
~~~
h~~
~~ ~~
i.
~I
' a ' oY
o
a o m
e i 2~` i
i~
~ o° < ~ A ~b~~
° n#
0 +,
o
o
a
i
< ~
\Y
o
om
c° o ° ~ ~e
~ ~C "+,
$
~ i
~;~~ COURTLAND STREET
m~ ~°~,.
Mco~
~~'
0~4
~.
d~
_~~
R
a~ ~ ~~gp~g
C ~ ~$Y
'^ ~e
~ ~ ~~~~ ~
~~~~~
,~~ ~~~~~
.~ $$ ~~R~~`ss
~~e=~R~~~a ~
a ti ~ ~ $~
R Fi RRR 7
E u ~ ~~ ~
i
_ . g$ ~~
~~= €s o
~~~~ [~
B ~c ~~
` ~` ~~
~Y
~ '
~~~ ~~
gg j g
~ C~ R~ 5 ~ iq ~ ~ h i
,. ~
,.
_ L_______________
J '--- '--"--L
-----
a nve~ um' ~
p y sr~amr am__y
~~ R -------------------- T~ v
a Cca e~
a
<~ fir i
s
u ~
~~~~b~. a~Ob
~~~,~~ ,~
k `' ~ O~~Y~ ~O r
_ t~ n e
,, ~ r
~ i
4~tie~ 2 ~,
nn I
Yp Y ~
b
k
~_
~~ k ~ o~. ~
a
~~ i
a
a
C
I
ma+
1
i
1I~
P.m. o'b ~.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
City of Arroyo Grande
City Clerk
214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Fee Exempt per GC Sections 6103 and 27383
JULIE RODEWh_J
San Luis Obispo County-Clerk/Recor ATTACHMENT 2
Recorded at the regeesl of
Public
~~IaI~MMM~~GRI
Titles: 1 Pages: 4
Fees 0.00
Taxes 0.00
otnerS o.oo
PAID 50.00
RESOLUTION NO. 3834
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING
CERTAIN EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY
AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS OFF-SITE
OF TRACT 2260
The off-site offer of dedication for Courtland Street per Parcel Map AG 00-301 were
accepted per attached City Council Resolution No. 3834 on April 26, 2005.
RESOLUTION N0.3834
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE ACCEPTING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS, RIGHT8 OF WAY AND RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS OFF-SITE OF TRACT 2260
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Final Tract Map 2260 as follows:
I October 10, 2000
I I December 11,2001
III June 25, 2002
WHEREAS, an offer of dedication for Courtland Street was made on Parcel Map AG
00-301; and,
WHEREAS, Parcel Map AG 00-301 recopied June 25, 2002, at Page 54 of Book 58 of
Parcel Maps; and,
WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the improvements required by the Tract
2260 conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, the developer has provided the 10°h warranty security as required by the
Tract 2260 conditions of approval, to be released at the conclusion of the wananty
period, provided the improvements are still in satisfactory condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande does hereby accept the following offers of dedicatbns and public easements
and associated public improvements oonstruded off-site for Trail 2280, and authorize
the Mayor to execute a certificate of acceptance:
Offer of Dedication for Courtland Street per Parrei Map AG 00-301, recorded June 25,
2002, at Page 54 of Book 58 of Parcel Maps.
On motion of Council Member Costello, seconded by Council Member Amokt, and by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Costello, Arnold, Dickens, Guthrie and Mayor Ferraro
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 28~' day of April 2005.
RESOLUTION NO. 3g34
PAGE 2
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMS6AE. CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
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 the attached
Resolution No. 3834 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 26'"
day of April 2005.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 13~' day of
February 2007.
u (fC-- PRROYp~
KELLY WETI RE, CITY CLERK o`` 6,
~ e~COR~~ AFL
h ~IJLY tp. l9r
~qC Of~i
8.h.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
BY:
CITY COUNCIL
v
TERESA MCCLISH;~ ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
JIM BERGMAN, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 16.60 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING SIGNS
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Municipal Code
Chapter 16.60 regarding Signs.
FUNDING:
No fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance was introduced at a public hearing on May 22, 2007. The
Ordinance provides for internal consistency with other Code sections and with recently
established zoning district designations. Additionally, the proposed Ordinance modifies
sign regulations including reductions in the maximum size of accessory, incidental and
supplemental signs; reductions in the maximum height of signs within 300 feet of
Highway 101, and within the Highway Mixed Use (HMU), Regional Commercial (RC),
and Mixed Use (MU) Districts, unless considered through the conditional use permit
process. Additionally, the proposed Ordinance clarifies provisions for certain exempt
and prohibited signs, and adds a provision prohibiting commercial signs held or
supported by a person within the public right-of-way. Modifications by the City Council to
Sections 16.60.020.D "Murals' and 16.60.060.V "Prohibited Signs" at the introduction of
the Ordinance are included and shown in the attached Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Adopt the Ordinance;
- Continue consideration of the Ordinance;
- Do not adopt the Ordinance;
- Provide direction to staff.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.60 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") regulates signs pursuant to Municipal Code
Chapter 16.60; and
WHEREAS, signs have an obvious impact on the character, quality of life and economic
health of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide for consistent formatting of the Municipal Code and
to provide clarification and revision of the existing Code sections; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 17, 2007 to
consider staff recommended changes to Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 and adopted a
Resolution recommending the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal
Code Chapter 16.60 -Signs; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all evidence, the City Council has
determined that the following findings can be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The proposed revisions to the Municipal Code are consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan, especially LU12-12 which
seeks to establish design guidelines, which includes signs.
B. The proposed revisions to the Municipal Code will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern since the
proposed changes allow the City to better implement the sign provisions of the
Municipal Code.
C. The proposed revisions to the Municipal Code are consistent with the purpose and
intent of Municipal Code chapter 16.60, which seeks to regulate signs in a manner
that will benefit the public and maintain a high quality of development throughoutthe
City.
D. The potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed revision to the
Municipal Code are less than significant since they aid in the City's abilityto regulate
signs in a manner that will benefit the public and maintain a high quality of
development throughout the City.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
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 and correct.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 is hereby repealed and
replaced in its entirety as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this
Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: A summary of this Ordinance has been 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 this Ordinance has been adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Directorof 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 againstthe Ordinance shall be published again,
and the Directorof Administrative Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full
text of such adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
On motion by Councilmember ,seconded by Council Member
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
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
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT "A"
CHAPTER 16.60 -SIGNS
16.60.010 Purpose and intent.
Signs have an obvious impact on the character, quality of life and economic health of the city.
As a prominent aspect of the scenery, they either attract or repel the viewing public, and may
affect the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Their suitability and appropriateness helps
define the character of a neighborhood and the larger community. The purpose of this chapter is
to regulate signs in a manner that will benefit the public and maintain a high quality of
development throughout the city. The regulations contained in this chapter are intended to:
A. Direct persons to various activities and enterprises in order to provide for the
maximum public convenience;
B. Provide a reasonable system of regulations for signs in order to ensure the
development of a high quality visual environment;
C. Encourage signs that are well designed and pleasing in appearance, recognizing that
a well-designed sign enhances a business's image and economic vitality;
D. Provide incentive and latitude for variety, good design relationships, and spacing of
signs;
E. Encourage a desirable urban character that has a minimum of overhead clutter;
F. Enhance the economic value of the community and each area thereof through the
regulation of such things as size, number, location, design and illumination of signs;
G. Encourage signs that are compatible with adjacent land uses and that provide
pedestrian-scale atmosphere;
H. Reduce possible traffic and safety hazards through good signage;
I. Ensure the maintenance of signs; and
J. Implement the community design goals, objectives, policies and programs of the
general plan, design guidelines for historic districts, and other applicable city guidelines and
ordinances.
This chapter establishes the legal framework for a comprehensive system for the regulation of
signs. It presents a set of reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory standards and
controls that are designed to optimize communication between the citizens and their
environment, to facilitate the protection not only of the public, but the aesthetic character of the
city, and to ensure the availability to the community of adequate, high quality signs.
16.60.020 Administration.
Unless expressly exempted in this chapter, no sign may be erected, displayed, reconstructed or
altered until a permit is approved as set forth in Sections 16.16.170, 16.16.180, 16.16.190 and
16.16.200 of this title and a building permit has been issued or building department clearance
has been received.
The four separate methods of planning review are established for the following reasons:
1. To provide a means of review appropriate to the magnitude of the proposed signage;
2. To recognize the planned character of large or multitenant centers;
3. To provide a means of flexible application of the sign regulations so as to encourage
maximum incentive and latitude in the design and display of signs in order to achieve, not
circumvent, the intent of this chapter.
A. Planned Sign Program. Planned sign programs shall be processed in accordance
with Section 16.16.190 of this title. A planned sign program shall be required for the following:
1. Multitenant developments of nine or more separate, permitted uses, that share
either the same legal parcel or building and use common access and parking facilities;
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 5
2. Projects or developments with a total aggregate sign area exceeding one
hundred fifty (150) square feet;
3. Ground signs between twenty (20) and fifty (50) feet high.
4. Two or more contiguous legal parcels may be combined for purposes of
calculating sign area and number, with the permission of the property and business
owners and at the written request of the sign applicants.
The purpose of a planned sign program shall be to integrate signs with building and
landscape design into a unified architectural unit, and to ensure the magnitude of the proposed
signs is consistent with existing and proposed buildings and the character of the area within
which the signs are proposed. This shall be achieved by:
1. Requiring that sign colors be generally compatible with building color;
2. Using the same type of cabinet supports or method of mounting for signs of
the same type; by using the same type of construction material for components, such as
sign copy, cabinets and supports; or by using dissimilar signing that is determined by the
approval authority to be compatible;
3. Using the same form of illumination for all signs, or by using varied forms of
illumination that have been determined by the approval authority to be compatible; and
4. Requiring that signs not overpower buildings, and be of appropriate scale and
character with existing signs in the general area.
B. Administrative Sign Program. Administrative sign programs shall be processed in
accordance with Section 16.16.180 of this title. An administrative sign program shall be required
for the following:
1. Multitenant developments of two to eight separate, permitted uses that share
either the same legal parcel or building and use common access and parking facilities;
2. Projects or developments with a total aggregate sign area exceeding one
hundred (100) square feet but less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet;
3. Ground signs between eight and twenty (20) feet high;
4. Minor tenant signs in older multitenant developments (regardless of the
number of tenants) without an established planned sign program.
C. Administrative Sign Permit. All signs not required to have a planned sign program or
administrative sign program must receive approval of an administrative sign permit if not exempt
by Section 16.60.050. Administrative sign permits shall be processed in accordance with
Section 16.16.170 of this title.
D. Mural Permit. No murals shall be painted without the approval of a °1a;:
mural permit in accordance with Section 16.16.200 of this title. Murals are
not considered signs and shall not include the name, logo, or other representation that
advertises a business, product, service or other commercial activity. Murals are considered a
means to enhance the architecture or aesthetics of a building or wall and not a form of
advertisement. If a mural is proposed that contains advertising materials, it shall be treated as a
sign and reviewed pursuant to subsections A, B or C of this section and shall comply with Table
16.60.040-A. The mural permit process allows city review of murals to ensure that size, location
and placement is consistent with the character of the district within which it is located; the
character of the building or wall upon which it is placed; and that the mural is not detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare.
16.60.030 General provisions.
Unless exempt by Section 16.60.050, off-site signs shall not be allowed. Signs may be erected,
altered and maintained only for those uses permitted in the zone in which they are located.
Signs shall be located on the same legal parcel as the permitted use and shall be clearly
incidental, customary and commonly associated with the operation of the permitted use. For the
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 6
purposes of this chapter, a shopping center shall be considered a single parcel regardless of
whether the center is comprised of more than one legal parcel.
A. Determining the Number of Signs.
1. For the purpose of determining the number of signs, a sign shall be considered
to be a single display surface or display device containing sign faces physically
connected and having a coterminous boundary, with the following exception:
combination canopy and under-canopy signs shall be considered as one sign.
2. A two-sided or multisided sign shall be regarded as one sign subject to the
following:
a. A "V-type" sign shall be regarded as a single sign only if the two sides
are separated by no more than three feet at any point.
b. Double-faced (back-to-back) signs shall be regarded as a single sign
only if the distance between the backs of each face of the sign does not exceed
two feet.
B. Computation of Sign Surface Area and Height.
1. All Signs Except Awning Signs.
a. The surface area of a sign shall be the total number of square feet
calculated by enclosing the extreme limits of the writing, logo, representation,
emblem, or other display, together with any frame, background area, structural
trim, or other material or color forming an integral part of the background of the
display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or surface against
which it is placed, within a single continuous perimeter composed of circles,
squares or rectangles. The surface area of spherical signs shall be the actual
sign surface area calculated by the following formula: Area = 12.56 x ~; where r
= radius of the sphere. See Figure 16.60.030-A for an illustration of how surface
area is calculated. Notwithstanding Figure 16.60.030-A, the community
development director may allow an increase in sign area in rough proportion to
the open area in a sign not comprised of squares or rectangles.
b. Supporting framework or bracing that is clearly incidental to the display
itself shall not be included as sign surface area.
c. If the sign consists of more than one section or module, all of the area,
including the area between the sections of modules, shall be included in the
computation of sign surface area. Sections or modules must touch one another
to count as one sign.
d. For multisided signs, the sign surface area shall be computed by
including the total area of all sides designed to attract attention or communicate
information.
e. For two-sided signs, the sign surface area shall be computed by
including the total area of only one side; provided, that double-faced (back to
back) signs have a distance of two feet or less between the backs of each face;
or provided, that faces of "V-type" signs are separated by no more than three feet
at any point.
2. Awning or Canopy Signs.
a. The sign surface area of a canopy or awning sign shall be calculated
by enclosing the extreme limits of the writing, logo, representation, emblem, or
other display within a single continuous perimeter composed of circles, squares
or rectangles.
b. If more than one surface of the awning or canopy is utilized for signage
or if an under-canopy sign is attached to the main canopy, the aggregate sign
area shall be calculated by totaling the surface area of each surface.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 7
3. Height of Signs. The height of a sign shall be determined by measuring the
distance from the average adjacent ground level within five feet of the base of the sign to
the top of the sign.
Figure 1li.1i0.030-A
Computation of Sign Area
.,~..
~~
~..~~ .~~
~~
_- .~ ~ ~
WGUA(t€1..4rt trrH.tiE~ CySf^
C. Illumination of Signs.
1. All sign illumination shall be from the interior or by indirect lighting that shall be
turned off after business hours, or at ten p.m., whichever is later.
2. Neon tubing as a sign material shall be permitted to the extent that it
composes twenty (20) percent or less of the total allowable sign surface area for the use
as set forth in Table 16.60.040-A. Neon tubing used as an architectural detail is
prohibited in the Village Core and Village Mixed Use districts. Neon tubing as an
architectural detail may be used in limited quantities in the other mixed-use districts
subject to approval as part of a sign application or architectural review. All neon tubing
used as an architectural detail shall be integrated into the design of the building. Visible
neon tubing outlining the interior of a window shall be considered a sign.
D. Projecting Signs and Sign Clearances.
1. All projecting signs, except awning or canopy signs, must be double-faced.
2. An encroachment permit from the city engineer is required for signs that
project more than two inches over the public right-of-way.
3. Projection Allowed.
a. No awning or canopy sign may project more than six feet over a public
right-of-way.
b. No projecting sign may project more than six feet over a public right-of-
way; however, the sign itself may not occupy more than four feet of the
projection. The remaining two or more feet may be a gap between the building
wall and the sign or the distance between the edge of the sign and the sign
support.
c. The outside face of a wall sign may extend no more than twelve (12)
inches from the surface of a building or wall.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 8
4. All signs that project more than two inches over a public right-of-way shall
have a minimum height clearance of seven feet.
5. No permit for any sign shall be issued and no sign shall be constructed or
maintained that has less horizontal or vertical clearance from communication lines and
energized electrical power lines than that prescribed by the laws of the state of California
or rules and regulations duly promulgated by agencies thereof.
E. Accessory Signs. Signs that advertise products sold or services provided on the
premises, such as beer signs or an automated teller machine (ATM) signs, shall be considered
accessory signs and do not count towards the permitted signage listed in Table 16.60.040-A if
they are restricted to ten (10) percent or less of the window or wall area on which it is placed.
Accessory signs between 10 and 20 percent of the window or wall area can be allowed with a
recommendation from the architectural review committee, however areas greater than ten (10)
percent shall be considered toward total permitted sign area. The design, number, location and
size of accessory signs shall be reviewed and approved as part of an administrative sign permit,
administrative sign program, or planned sign program by the architectural review committee if
the following findings are made:
1. The proposed general design, arrangement, texture, colors, and lighting
placement are consistent with the purposes and regulations of this chapter and any
applicable design guidelines; and
2. The appropriateness of the proposed accessory signs are compatible with
other signs and other structures on the premises and contiguous area and do not
exceed twenty (20) percent of the window or wall area on which they are placed.
F. Incidental and Supplemental Signs. Signs that are incidental or supplemental to the
use of the property, such as drive through menu boards or vending machine signs do not count
towards the permitted signage listed in Table 16.60.040-A if they are no larger than sixteen
square feet. Incidental and supplemental signs between 16 and 32 square feet can be allowed
with a recommendation from the architectural review committee, however areas greater than 16
square feet shall be considered toward total permitted sign area. Incidental or supplemental
signs shall not be legible to a person of average eyesight standing on any property line. The
design, number, location and size of incidental or supplemental signs shall be reviewed and
approved as part of an administrative sign permit, administrative sign program, or planned sign
program with the recommendation from the architectural review committee if the following
findings are made:
1. The proposed general design, arrangement, texture, colors, and lighting
placement are consistent with the purposes and regulations of this chapter and any
applicable design guidelines; and
2. The appropriateness of the proposed signs are compatible with other signs
and other structures on the premises and contiguous area.
16.60.040 Permitted signs.
Table 16.60.040-A lists the sign regulations for different uses and specifies if planned sign
program or administrative sign program review is required. In addition to the following
regulations, the requirements of any applicable design guidelines shall be incorporated into the
size, design and placement of signs.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 9
Table 16.60.040-A
Standards for Signs Requiring Planning Permits
_. _.
~.
Sign Type --- ~
hand Number Maximum Maximum Sin
Location/Min.
.. j.
Primary Uses 'Permitted Height (Area Spacing ' Special Regulations
A. Residential Uses
C
__....
----- ---- -
1.Single-Family - ----
+2 wall; or --------
i6' 1 -
;20 s.f. for each ' ------;
At major . ---
Limited to name and
Neighborhood ~ ~ sign entrances ' logo of neighborhood.
Identification i1 ground per major 1~4' ' Maintenance
ientrance ; responsibility shall be
that of an appropriate 1
i
maintenance district or i
homeowners'
__.~ .. ~.. _
__.._. _._
w . .. - .
- association.
_ _ ':
--
-
. 2. Multiple-Family 2 of the following: i -~20~s f for each At major -
-
Minimum of 11 units ,
Complex wall; or '~6' sign entrances to qualify as M.F.
Identification ~ ~ neighborhood.
ground .!i4' i Limited to name, logo '~
~ Ij ' and address.
3. Apartment Below roof Total area not to
Rental or Leasing ~ 1 wall; or line or top of ;exceed 12 s.f.
Office iwall structure I~ !~
~ ' 1 ground 'i4' I
14. Temporary j 2 of the following: Below roofline ;Total area not to At public street ~. Sign shall not be
model or Leasing ~ ;or top of wall exceed 12 s.f. frontage with . illuminated. Sign must
',Office wall; or 'istructure ! ' direct access to be removed after all
~ j , model : homes are sold or
~ ' ground ',~4' )
~ , when the Temporary
~ ; ;I ' Use Permit expires.
~5. Mobilehome 2 of the following: i6' i 20 s.f. for each - ~At major ' Limited to name, logo
-1Park Identification '. wall; or sign ;' entrances - and address of
'~,~ -: neighborhood.
j :
I ground
_. j4'
_.
-
~B. Commercal Uses
-
--
II1. Commercial 1 ground; or ~ 8' tal area for all Wall signs to be Administrative Sign
~IBusinesses not ~ signs, except separated by 6' Program required rf
within commercial 1 projecting ! Below roof ortable signs, minimum ! total sign area
_~complex within the I i line or top of shall not exceed I I permitted according to :
-Regional '~ i wall structure ~2 s.f. of sign . Portable signs - formula exceed 100 s.f.
(Commercial and ~ ' T clearance urea per linear ; shall be located Planned Sign Program
'all Mixed use ~ I required. 'foot of building ~ on private i required if total sign
~', zoning districts and.
~ ;frontage forthe ; property and: area permitted
more than 300 feet and one of the '(first 25 feet of shall be ; according to formula j
from HWY 101 following per public ~.ibuilding frontage., prohibited m the : exceeds 150 s f. ;
right-of-way
street frontage:
ithan 1-1/2 s.f. of ~.
public right of ' ,'
Maximum of 4 signs
'~.~ '. combination canopy c Below roof ,sign area for ! ways. : per site, and maximum !j
i and under-canopy : line or top of jeach linear foot of one ground or j
(see illustration in - wall structure (of building -. projecting sign per site.
' Definitions chapter); T clearance frontage for the ~'.
',! ; or i required next 75' of - Ground signs shall be
~ ~ building i located in a
~i) - wall Below roof ~ frontage, then ~ landscaped area equal ~'
~ line ortop of 1/2 s.f. of sign ; to a minimum of 2
I wall structure area for each ( ; times the area of the
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 10
ESign Type ~ :..
and Number EMaximum Maximum Sign 'Location/Min.
Primary Uses Permitted (Height ;Area 'Spacing.,
2 of the following
public street
~lcombination canopy
land under-canopy
,.;(see illustration in
'.Definitions chapter);
1 portable sign
Commercial
Identification for
Complexes with 9
or more tenants
within Regional
Commercial and
all Mixed Use
zoning districts and
more than 300 feet
from HWY 101
I ground per public '~8'
street frontage listing
he complex name _~
>nly. ~
'i
3. Commercial ' 1 ground per public I~
Complex with 2 to street frontage that I
8 tenants within 'lists the complex
Regional name and/or tenants ~
Commercial and 'and street address
all Mixed Use
~
zoning districts and '.
more than 300 feet I.
from HWY 101 '..
~.y.~ -~,-„ oy
;low roof
e or top of
311 structure
clearance
;w roof
or top of
structure
to include
=supporting
r foot of
ing frontage ~:
;after. Each
not to
ed 70 s.f.
~rtable signs'
;rface area
;all not exceed
s.f. per side
nth a maximum'..
2 sides per
s.f.
s.f.
area or
it to
drive to
area
area or
d to
drive to
area
4. Commercial ;1 ground; or '8' Below roof 'j Total area for all :Wall signs to be
Business not within ' dine or top of ( signs, except separated by 6'
commercial 1 projecting '.-wall structure Ij portable signs, ~ minimum
complex within 1,T clearance .' shall not exceed !Portable signs
Regional ;and one of the ;required. i 2 s.f. of sign shall be located
Commercial or all ;following per public ', l area per linear ! on private
Mixed Use zoning streetfrontage: '.. '( foot of building '.. property and
:district and within iBelow roof : frontage for the ' they shall be
300 feet from HWY 'combination canopy jline or top of first 25 feet of .(prohibited in the
'.,101 right-of-way _~and under-canopy (wall structures-.. building frontage ljpublic right-of-
i(see illustration in ;T clearance ' then 1-1 /2 s.f. of liways.
I ;Definitions chapter); (required. jsign area for
;or i ? each linear foot ~
~Relow roof 'of building 1
Regulations
~rtable signs shall no
erfere with building
Iress or egress or
:h traffic sight
stance at
ersections, shall not
struct onsite parking
pedestrian
culation, shall be
noved after daily
sines hours, shall
t be internally
iminated, and shall
ve no electrical
d/or other
nnections to any
anned Sign Program
tuired. Ground signs
all be located in a
;dscaped area equal
a minimum of 2
;es the area of the
Iministrative Sign
ogram required.
ound signs shall be
sated in a
;dscaped area equal
a minimum of 2
ies the area of the
ninistrative Sign
gram required if
I sign area
miffed according to
nula exceeds 100
Planned Sign
gram required if
J sign area
miffed according to
signs shall be
in a
oed area equal
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 11
(Sign Type I ^
and Number (Maximum ' Maximum Sin
g Location/Mm
' j
Primary Uses
jPermitted
(Height
Area
Spacing )
SpeaalRegulations '
~ wall dine or top of frontage for the to a minimum of 2
wall structure f next 75' of times the area of the
( building ; sign.
Below roof ' frontage, then
' OR 2 of the following ijline or top of 1 1/2 s.f. of sign ' Portable signs shall not;
per public street !wall structure ! area for each : interfere with budding
frontage: ~~T clearance ; linear foot of ingress or egress or j
required. building frontage : with traffic sight ,
thereafter. Each distance at
!Below roof '. sign not to intersections, shall not
..combination canopy !line or top of exceed 70 s.f. obstruct onsight
!and under-canopy .;wall structure i : parking or pedestrian
(see illustration in Portable signs ~ circulation, shall be
Definitions chapter); " surface area removed after daily
'!or ~5' to include ~ shall not exceed i ; business hours, shall '-
Isthe supporting j 6 s.f. per side ; not be internally
' wall ',jstructure ! with a maximum i illuminated, and shall ':
I ~ of 2 sides per : have no electrical
j 'land 1 portable sign '. ~. sign. ~ and/or other
! I connections to any
', building.
15. Commercial ~1 ground per public 20' ' 120 s.f. Parking area or ! Planned Sign Program
Complex 'street frontage listing ! adjacent to ; required. Ground signs:
Identification for the complex name ! ! access drive to : shall be located in a
Commercial only. ~ parking area ; landscaped area equal "
Complexes with 9 i I to a minimum of 2
~or more tenants ! times the area of the
within Regional ; sign.
Commercial and all
Mixed Use zoning
l
district OR within !
within 300 feet of 1
HWY 101 right-of- j ',~
waY
6. Commercial 1 ground per public (20' ~ 50 s f. j Parking area or ' Administrative Sign
Complex with 2 to street frontage that ~ ; adjacent to ! Program required.
8 tenants within -lists the complex ~ ! access drive to ' Ground signs shall be
Regional .name and/or tenants j +. parking area ! located in a
Commercial and all and street address ) ~ '. landscaped area equal `.
Mixed Use zoning ; ',; ' to a minimum of 2
districts within 300 '' ' I I times the area of the
feetfrom HWY 101 'j ',j 1 I ' sign.
right-of-way I
_
__ i
17. Commercial 1 ground per public 6' 36 s.f. Street frontage Planned Sign Program '
Complex street frontage or adjacent to ~ requred. Signs in D
Identification within access drive to : overlay districts shall
the Village Core parking area ~ comply with applicable
and Mixed Use , : Design Guidelines.
Districts
8 Business .1 wall; or ,Below roof Total area for At bulding To be considered with
~
Identification within I line or top of each tenants frontage. Administrative Sign
Commercial or i iwall structure _ sign shall not Location of Program or Planned
.!Mixed Use Centers ! ~ ' exceed 1-1/2 s.f.. signs for Sign Program, rf any.
1 combination Below roof of sign area for : businesses ', Signs in D overlay
canopy and under- line or top of ' each linear foot - without building '; districts shall wmply
i _...
~canoov lsee
wall '.
of building '
frontage to be '.
with the apnlicable `
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 12
Sign Type
- ___..
~ and Number + Maximum Maximum Sign Location/Min.
Primary Uses Permitted Height : Area Spacing ', ISpeaal Regulations
illustration in structures T
( frontage for the - determined ' Design Guidelines.
Definitions chapter) clearance
business for the
durmg Sign i
;or ..required. - first 100' of Program review. ; ~a
j :
',1 projecting (Below roof frontage, then
1/2 s.f. of sign ' '
j line or top of : area for each
;per public street wall structure. linear foot of '~
'frontage T clearance : building frontage; ~
I required. ~
~ thereafter.
~ Individual sign
i not to exceed 70' ~
~ ' s.f. )
9. Major Tenant j1 ground and 8' Total area fore At building To be consistent with
(20,000 square feet. ~ each tenant's . frontage : Administrative Sign
or larger) 1 wall; or 'Below roof ! sign shall not Program or Planned
~
Identification within ( line or top of ; exceed 1-1/2 s.f.'. j Sign Program, if any.
!.
Commercial or ~ '(wall structure i
Mi
C
t
d U
. of sign area for
h li
f ' Signs in D overlay
xe
se
en
ers i eac
near
oot districts shall comply
j '.i1 combination (Below roof ~ of building with the applicable
I 'canopy and under- dine or top of % frontage for the ' ' Design Guidelines.
:canopy (see iwall structure. ; business for the
.';Illustration in IT clearance '. first 100' of : Ground signs shall be
Definitions chapter); 'jrequired. ; frontage, then ; located in a
or 1 1/2 s.f. of sign ' landscaped area equal d
; area for each to a minimum of 2
~ 1 projecting ?Below roof ' linear foot of ~ : times the area of the
=line or top of ~ building frontage! ; sign.
!i 'per building frontage wall structure. ; thereafter.
~ .for each business T clearance ; Individual sign
;required. ' not to exceed 70 ~
s s.f. ;
''10. Business iMajor tenant; 2 ;Below roof ; Major tenant To Planned Sign Program
I Identification within 'exterior wall and 1 'jline or top of ! be determined '; ' required.
' Shopping Centers jinteriorwall per ',wwall structure ~ during Planned
!interior store i , Sign Program
;entrance Minor '~ . review Minor
tenant: 1 infector wall i ; tenant: 1 s.f. per j
~ ~ each linear foot
j of building :
~ frontage in I
I
--..._. __..__.. _~ . ___.~_ ...._~.~. _! _. _. l interiorofwall
11. Business 1 ground per public 'S' ' 32 s.f. ! In pedestnan
~
Directory Signs (for street frontage j ~
~ access area
~
~
';multi-tenant sites) ! ~ ':
X12. Automotive ~1 of the following: ~ i Total area for all Walls signs to , Planned Sign Program '
'Service Stations ~ ! signs shall not i be separated by Ij required. Price sign
Signs iground, !8' (20' in j exceed 300 6' minimum can be combined with '.
~ I~ ;Highway ; square feet. other signs as long as
(Mixed Use ' Each sign notto i ! no single sign exceeds'
'izone). exceed 70 s.f. ! 70 s.f. Signs
',j ! ' advertising such
,.Signs accessory uses as
(,projecting; and .(between 20 ' food markets, car ~'I
land 50 feet . washes and !I
i can be .., automotive repairs are '~
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 13
Sign Type _. _ .
and Number Maximum Maximum Sign Location/Min.
Primary Uses Permitted Height Area Spacing Special Regulations
~ , considered ( ~ iincluded in permitted
; through the i i ; sign area and number.i
' I ' Conditional
' Use Permit '; ' Ground signs shall be
; process. ' located in a
;' Below roof ~ . landscaped area equal
a line or top of ~ to a minimum of 2
'
~ wall structure '.
T
l
~ '1
~ ' times the area of the
~. c
earance .( sign.
required.
': Below roof
~4 wall i line or top of '
E , wall structure '. _
____ ^
_ V ~_ __
_...__ _ _ _.~
d 1 round, and
g ~ ~ g all
LL
st
e
o Wall signs to be Planned Sign Program
Restaurants, between 20 ns,
xce
t
g p separated by 6' . required
Restaurants, and 50 feet portable signs, minimum
' Motels, and Mini- ~ can be ' shall not exceed ! Portable signs . Ground signs shall be '
! Marts within the €~ considered 1 1/2 s.f. of sign ! shall be located located in a
Regional a hrough the ! area for each ' on private ' landscaped area equal
Commercial and : Conditional ' linear foot of ; property and to a minimum of 2
'all Mixed Use !~ ; Use Permit ' street frontage, ; they shall be ' times the area of the
:zones and within j process. ! ten 1/2 s.f. of ; prohibited m the sign.
300' of HWY 101 I jj , sign area for public right of ;
~, right-of-way ~ 1 ground; :! 8' ' each linear foot ! ways. ' Portable signs shall not;)
j ' of street l interfere with building
i j or '. frontage . ingress or egress or
i i thereafter. Each ( with traffic sight
I j 2 wall per street . Below roof sign not to ! distance at 1
( frontage ;( line or top of exceed 70 s.f. ( intersections, shall not
wall structure ' ' l obstmct onsite parking
s and 1 portable sign ; 5' to include - Portable signs I or pedestrian i
!! ; the supporting',. surface area ' circulation, shall be
'~
~ ; structure ' shall not exceed ' removed after daily
;j I ' 6 s.f. per side '..
' business hours, shall
~ j
H with a maximum , not be internally
j i of 2 sides per ! illuminated, and shall
' ' sign. have no electrical
~
~ ) ( and/or other ;
')
connections to any
L ,) ( building.
14. Bed and 1 of any type, as ( As approved As approved ~ .S AS approved As approved through
,Breakfast Inns approved through through the .( through the through the i the conditional use
the conditional use ,( conditional I~
' conditional use . conditional use .; permit process Signs ':
. permit process 'l use permit
. permit process permit process 'i may not be internally
;( process illuminated and shall
' not contain the words
'. "hotel," "motel" or "bed
~
''. -
and breakfast' ;,
C ~~ _
Office Use ~-
s j
._ _ ..
----
'
------ -, ~
I I
____....
-
..:
-_'- _- _:._.--
____.
-
1. Site Identifcation 1 ground per public ~6' 50 s f iAt street (Planned Sign Program
within Mixed Use street frontage with ifrontage with required. '.
commercial/ access j access „_ I
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 14
l (Sign Type
Primary Uses and Number
-Permitted
complexes ~
~2. Office Building __~.
j1 wall
Identification
__
3. Business --'=- -
1 wall; or
Identification within
Mixed-Use or ~
combination '
anopy and under-
anopy (see
ustration in ,
efinitions chapter); ,
Sign 'Location/Min.
_~
~wroof 12s.f.
or top of ,
:ing _~Special Regulations '.
_......
,~..
glow roof ;Total area for At building
e or top of leach tenant's 'frontage
dl structure ',sign shall not ;Location of
'eexceed 1-1/2 s.f. 'JSigns for
glow roof '"of sign area for !ibusinesses
e or top of 'each linear foot 'without building
ill structure. ' of building 'frontage to be
clearance !frontage for the 'determined
auired. business for the 'during Sign
first 100' of 'Program review
frontage, then
Limited to name,
symbol or address
only.
To be consistent with
Administrative Sign
~I Program or Planned
Sign Program, if any.
'Signs in D overlay
districts shall comply
with the applicable
Design Guidelines.
1 projecting ~
'
per public street ;
frontage I
',; ~
~
--
l ~
.4. Business ~1 ground per public
(Directory Sign sstreet frontage
------ Below roof 1/2 s.f. of sign
line or top of area for each
wall structure.: linear foot of
T clearance 'building frontage)
required. whereafter.
'llndividual sign
not to exceed 701
ls.f.
-..._ ~.......... ' ---_
5 32 s f ~
I i
i!
_
In pedestrian
access area
..
'
!~D. Industrial Uses
__
1. Business
1 ground; or
8' (
Total area for all
Wall si` gns to be __
Planned Sign Program
i Identification I
Single-Tenant Sites ~ i
') signs shall not
exceed 2 s f. of separated by 6
minimum requred if total sign
area permitted
(
' 1 projecting Below roof
( sign area per according to formula
' ~ line or top of linear foot of exceeds a total sign i
~ ! ; wall structure
( building frontage'. area of 150 s f Limted
;~
is
and one of the a T clearance ,
required. i for the first 25
feet of building
_ to maximum of 4 signs
per site, and a
i, i following per public 1 frontage then 1-. maximum of 1 ground
street frontage: !, 1/2 s.f. of sign or projecting sign per
! area for each ~ site. ~
i
combination canopy Below roof
line or top of linear foot of
building frontage
: ;
Ground signs shall be
-.l and under-canopy ,
wall structure ; for the neM 75' I located in a
i i (see illustration in ,1 T clearance 'j of building ~ landscaped area equal I.
I+ ' Definitions chapter); ; required. (: frontage, then ] to a minimum of 2
' or X 1/2 s.f. of sign '~ times the area of the
'~ ' J area for each ~ ! sign.
! . wall Below roof : linear foot of
', line or top of ' building frontage;
',i wall structure ~ thereafter. Each !.
~~ ; sign not to
" ~ OR 2 of the following I,i .! exceed 70 s.f.
' per public street
_~
'. frontage:
! ~
Below roof ~ .I
~ I
'(
-
1
i line or top of I
'
)
(
bi
ti
wall structure ~
T
l
'
~ I
'
_._. _.. com
na
on canoov i c
earance
;I ;
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 15
__._~~_-'iSign Type --
'jand Number
Primary Uses jPermitted
and under canopy
~~ (see illustretion in
{Definitions chapter);
Maximum Sign
Area
_ ---- --_
'„(Special Regulations
_..._.
I
:(,Below roof ( i
wall (line or to of I
P
, iwall structure ' L '~
_ _.
- i _ -
j2. Complex 1 ground per public ; 8' 36 s.f. Parking area or jPlanned Sign Program
Identification: street frontage adjacent to jrequired.
,;Multiple-Tenant ; access drive to '
Sites i ''
parking area ~
---- -
~3. Business ~1 wall; or ;Below roof .Total area for At building ;To be consistent with
..!Identification: i line or top of :each tenant's frontage IAdmmistrative Sign
-(Multiple-Tenant j jwall structure :sign shall not Location of jProgram or Planned
Sites exceed 1-1/2 s.f.: signs for ;Sign Program or
~ 1 combination Below roof of sign area for :businesses .(Planned Sign Program,
.canopy and under- `(line or top of :each linear foot 'without bwldmg i'if any. Signs in D
'i jcanopy (see :wall structure. of building frontage to be !!overlay districts shall 'I
''illustration in 'jT clearance 'frontage for the 'determined 'comply with the j
'Definitions chapter); ',required. 'business for the 'during Sign applicable Design
' or ;first 100' of Program review .Guidelines for Historic '
frontage, then Districts.
1 projecting 'Below roof ~ 1/2 s.f. of sign .I
iline or top of ~ area for each I
'per public street 'wwall structure. ;linear foot of
'frontage T clearance ;building frontage!
l~required. ~ thereafter.
Individual sign
4 not to exceed 70'
s.f.
i4. Business 1 ground per public 5' ; 32s.f. In pedestrian ~
Directory Signs street frontage ~ access area
Multiple Tenant
Sites
IE. Other Uses '
1. Public and ~1 ground, or j6' 1 s.f. of sign At street ,Ground signs shall be
Quasi-Public uses I ! i area for each ;frontage ;located in a
1 wall; or ',iBelow roof linear foot of ;landscaped area equal
',_I (!line or top of ;building frontage; to a minimum of 2
;wall structure i not to exceed 70 itimes the area of the
' s.f. ,,.,,(sign.
11 combination Below roof !
~~{ .(canopy and under- ~•. line or top of 'I
'~~ {canopy (see wall structure ! 'i ~-I
: !illustration in 'T clearance I :j
,Definitions chapter); :{required. ',l ,
'or ',.I '
I j
',, 1 projecting ( ! ;j
i
I per public street ~ ,
f
I frontage ~, ~ )
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 16
16.60.050 Exempt signs.
The following signs shall be exempt from the administrative sign permit, administrative sign
program, and planned sign program requirements, and shall be permitted subject to the
limitations contained in this section. A greater number of signs or signs of larger size than
specified below shalt be prohibited, unless elsewhere specifically permitted by, and an
appropriate permit obtained consistent with, the provisions of this chapter.
A. Temporary advertising signs or special event displays painted on a window or
constructed of paper, cloth, or similar material, including banners, flags, pennants and balloons;
provided, that all of the following conditions are met:
1. Window Signs, Banners, Flags and Pennants.
a. The total area of window signs does not exceed twenty (20) percent of
the window area.
b. The sign is no greater than twenty-four (24) square feet.
c. The sign is displayed for no more than thirty (30) days prior to an event;
and for no more than sixty (60) calendar days each calendar year, to promote
events or sales of products or merchandise.
d. No more than one such sign is allowed per street frontage.
e. Roof signs are not permitted.
2. Searchlights (single light not moving rapidly).
a. Use of a beacon/searchlight may not exceed a consecutive three-day
period for a maximum of twelve (12) such periods in each calendar year.
b. Beacons must be directed into the atmosphere and not at any point on
land.
B. Permanent window signs limited to hours of operation, address and
emergency information; provided, that all of the following are met:
1. The total area of such signs does not exceed twenty (20) percent of the
window area.
2. The sign is no greater than four square feet.
C. Real estate signs for sales, rental or lease subject to the following regulations:
1. Residential dwellings offered for sale, rent or lease on an individual basis not
in association with a subdivision or apartment complex, one sign per separate street
frontage not exceeding six square feet each and six feet in height. Such signs shall be
removed within ten (10) calendar days after the sale has been closed or the property has
been rented or leased. Signs shall not create sight distance hazards.
2. One sign per street frontage to advertise the sale, lease or rent of commercial
or industrial property, provided all of the following are met:
a. Such signs shall have a maximum area of thirty-two (32) square feet
each, and be no greater than eight feet in height.
b. Signs shall not create sight distance hazards for pedestrians or
vehicles.
c. Such signs shall be removed within ten (10) calendar days of the close
of the sale or termination of the lease or rental agreement.
d. Where a project has in excess of six hundred (600) lineal feet of street
frontage, one additional sign shall be permitted for each full six hundred (600)
lineal feet of street frontage.
D. Subdivision signs subject to the following regulations:
1. Off-site unlighted signs advertising subdivisions within the city, containing only
the name of the subdivision, the name of the developer and/or agent, an identification
emblem and a directional arrow shall be permitted, provided:
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 17
a. There shall be no more than three such signs located within the city
limits for each subdivision. Signs must be located on private property.
b. The total area of each sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet.
c. The total height of each sign shall not exceed eight feet.
d. Directional subdivision signs may be displayed during the two years
following the date of recordation of the final map or until ninety (90) percent of the
lots have been sold, whichever is earlier.
2. One on-site subdivision sign per subdivision entrance shall be permitted
provided the total area per sign is not greater than thirty-two (32) square feet and sign
height does not exceed eight feet. Such on-site signs shall be permitted to remain only
as long as a sales office is maintained in the subdivision or until 90 percent of the lots
have been sold and provided that such signs are maintained in good condition as
determined by the building official.
E. Architect, contractor or construction signs, providing the name of architect(s) and/or
contractor(s) working on the site, subject to the following:
1. For residential projects greater than four dwelling units, up to iwo signs may be
placed on the construction site; provided, that the total area of each sign shall not
exceed twelve (12) square feet, maximum height shall be six feet, and the sign is located
no closer than ten (10) feet to any property line.
2. For commercial and industrial projects, up to two signs may be placed on the
construction site; provided, that the total area of each sign shall not exceed thirty-two
(32) square feet, maximum height shall be six feet, and the sign is located no closer than
ten (10) feet to any property line.
3. For all other projects, a total of two signs may be placed on the construction
site, provided that the total area of each sign shall not exceed eight square feet,
maximum height six feet, and the sign is located no closer than five feet to any property
line.
F. Future tenant identification sign to advertise the future use of an approved project on
the property may be placed on vacant or developing property to give the location where
information may be obtained, subject to the following:
1. Only one future tenant identification sign per parcel may be permitted.
2. Future tenant identification signs shall be limited to a maximum of thirty-two
(32) square feet and four feet in height.
3. The sign shall be placed no closer than ten (10) feet to any property line.
4. Such signs shall not be erected until a building permit is issued for the
development and shall be removed within one year from the date of the building permit.
5. Where a project has in excess of six hundred (600) lineal feet of street
frontage, one additional future tenant identification sign shall be permitted for each full
six hundred (600) lineal feet of street frontage.
G. Residential Signs.
1. Multiple-family residential building identification signs limited to address and
building number or letter. One wall sign per building frontage located below the roof line,
limited to a maximum area of two square feet and a maximum letter height of four
inches.
2. Residential name plate: one name plate per parcel for single-family residential
or agricultural uses, limited to a maximum area of two square feet and a maximum letter
height of four inches.
H. Agricultural signs identifying agricultural products grown or raised on the premises
subject to the following:
1. The number of such signs shall be limited to one per street frontage.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 18
2. If wall mounted, the sign shall be located below the roof line.
3. Freestanding signs shall be no higher than six feet.
4. Each sign shall have an area no greater than sixteen (16) square feet and
shall be erected only during the growing and harvest season.
I. Exempt Signs. Political and religious signs which are no larger than sixteen (16)
square feet, placed on private property with the express consent of the property owner and
which comply with all other applicable provisions of this chapter. If the political sign pertains to
an upcoming election, the sign cannot be posted sooner than sixty (60) days prior to the election
and must be removed no later than seven days after the election.
J. Government and noncommercial flags: An official flag, except when displayed in
connection with commercial promotion; provided, that such flags are no greater in size than ten
(10) feet by fifteen (15) feet or as approved with a recommendation from the architectural review
committee.
K. Miscellaneous Signs.
1. Interior signs completely within a building when not visible or readable or
intended to be read from off-site or outside of the building or structure;
2. Memorial tablets, plaques, or directional signs for community historical and
cultural resources installed by the city or by acity-recognized historical society or civic
organization;
3. Official and legal notices issued by any court, public body or officer, or in
furtherance of any nonjudicial process by federal, state or local laws;
4. Public utility signs indicating danger or that serve as an aid to public safety, or
that show locations of underground facilities or public telephones;
5. Safety signs on construction sites;
6. Public transportation vehicle signs, including, but not limited to, buses and taxi
cabs;
7. Signs on licensed commercial vehicles that are not used or intended for use as
portable signs and that are not specifically prohibited by the provisions of this chapter;
8. Change of copy within an approved planned sign program or administrative
sign program that conforms to the provisions of the approved sign program;
9. Holiday decorations to celebrate nationally recognized holidays and local
celebrations;
10. Vehicle-oriented convenience and directional signs solely for the purpose of
guiding traffic and parking on private property, and not bearing advertising material,
limited to a maximum area of two square feet and a maximum letter height of four
inches;
11. Directional, warning or informational signs as required or authorized by law or
by any federal, state, county special district or city authority and "No Trespassing," "No
Parking," "Neighborhood Watch" and similar warning signs, limited to a maximum area of
two square feet and a maximum letter height of four inches;
12. Incidental signs for auto-related uses, motels and hotels that show notices of
services provided or required by law, trade affiliations, and credit cards accepted,
provided such signs are attached to an otherwise approved ground sign, structure or
building and limited to a maximum area of eight square feet and a maximum letter height
of four inches;
13. "Open" and "Closed" signs: one sign per entrance no larger than one square
foot in area;
14. Automobile service stations are permitted to have the following additional
signs, provided they conform to the height and setback requirements of the district in
which they are located.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 19
a. State-authorized testing centers. Four square feet per sign, wall
mounted only,
b. Price signs: One single- or double-faced sign per street frontage,
twenty (20) square feet maximum per face. This exception is intended to allow for
full compliance with state law for posting of gasoline prices. Portable price signs
are not permitted,
c. Pump signs: One sign for each gas pump unit not to exceed two
square feet per pump face or one sign per bank of pumps, not to exceed eight
square feet per face, identifying the gasoline brand and rating only;
15. City-sponsored civic signs for community entrance, identification, direction or
information.
L. Any sign as determined by the community development director to be similar in use
and size to the signs listed above.
16.60.060 Prohibited signs. A. Any sign not in compliance with the provisions of this
code. Potential violations shall be processed pursuant to development code Section 16.08.100;
B. Roof signs extending above the eave or parapet line, except when, in the opinion of
the architectural review committee, the sign is a complementary architectural feature of the
building. This provision does not apply to integral roof signs;
C. Flashing signs, except time and temperature signs specifically permitted pursuant to a
site development approval, such as but not limited to architectural review, plot plan review,
conditional use permit review; or sign approval;
D. Animated signs conveying the illusion of or actual motion;
E. Revolving or rotating signs;
F. Signs emitting audible sounds, odors or visible matter;
G. Vehicle-mounted commercial signs when parked or stored on property or within the
public right-of-way to identify a business or advertise a product;
H. Portable signs not specifically permitted by the provisions of this chapter;
I. Off-site signs not specifically permitted by the provisions of this chapter;
J. Signs within the public right-of-way except those required by a governmental agency;
K. Signs within the public right-of-way (including planted strips, tree wells, fences, and
street medians), on public property or in any location which interferes with vehicular, bicycle, or
pedestrian circulation or safety;
L. Signs in proximity to utility lines that have less horizontal-or vertical clearance from
authorized communication or energized electrical power lines than that prescribed by the laws
of the state of California, or rules and regulations duly promulgated by agencies thereof;
M. Signs blocking door or window openings or fire escapes;
N. Outdoor signs containing light bulb strings outside of the building, except for
temporary uses such as, but not limited to, Christmas tree lots, carnivals, and other similar uses
subject to prior approval of a temporary use permit;
O. Banners, flags, pennants, balloons, and sail or wing signs, unless approved through
the temporary use permit process upon the recommendation of the architectural review
committee;
P. Inflatable advertising devices, including hot air balloons unless approved through the
temporary use permit process upon the recommendation of the architectural review committee;
O. Statuary (statues or sculptures) advertising products or logos of the business that are
located outside of the structure that houses the business;
R. Electric reader board signs that are not exempt by virtue of being interior signs, and
that are not otherwise specifically permitted by the provisions of this chapter;
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 20
S. Signs that purport to be or are an imitation of or resemble official traffic warning
devices or signs that, by color, location or lighting, may confuse or disorient vehicular or
pedestrian traffic. This prohibition shall not include traffic or directional signs installed on private
property to control on-site traffic;
T. Signs in connection with a home occupation;
U. Strobe or revolving lights used as an attention-getting device;
V. Off site commercial sions, includino those within the public rioht of wav held or
supported by a person.
16.60.070 Revisions.
Revisions to existing signs shall be processed as follows:
A. Revisions to Planned Sign Programs.
1. If the project consists of nine or more tenants or has a total aggregate sign
area of more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet and revisions are proposed that
increase the total number of signs by more than ten (10) percent or increase the sign
area for a tenant by more than ten (10) percent, the revision shall be proposed pursuant
to the provisions of a planned sign program.
2. If the project consists of nine or more tenants or has a total aggregate sign
area of more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet and revisions are proposed that
increase the total number of signs by less than ten (10) percent and increase the sign
area for a tenant by less than ten (10) percent, the revision shall be processed pursuant
to the provisions of an administrative sign program.
3. If the project consists of eight or fewer tenants with a total aggregate sign area
of less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet, the revision shall be processed pursuant
to the provisions of an administrative sign permit.
B. Revisions to Administrative Sign Programs.
1. If revisions are proposed that increase the total number of signs by more than
ten (10) percent or increase the sign area for a tenant by more than ten (10) percent, the
revision shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of an administrative sign program.
2. If revisions are proposed that increase the total number of signs by less than
ten (10) percent and increase the sign area for a tenant by less than ten (10) percent,
the revision shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of an administrative sign
permit.
C. Administrative Sign Permit. Revisions to administrative sign permits require a new
administrative sign permit and shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of Section
16.60.020.
D. Nonconforming Signs. Signs existing prior to February 13, 1987 that do not comply
with the provisions of this chapter shall be regarded as nonconforming signs and the following
provisions apply:
1. Historical Signs. Upon written request by a sign owner, the city council may
determine that a sign is historical based on the following findings:
a. The sign is more than forty (40) years old or represents an important
period in the city's history;
b. The design of the sign is unique because its shape, colors, materials,
or other aspects of sign design are indicative of the historical period within which
it was constructed; or
c. The design of the sign is unique because it is integrated into the design
of an historical building and removal of the sign would jeopardize the historical
integrity of the building.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 21
Historical signs may be maintained, reconstructed, modified or expanded consistent with
the historical nature of the sign through the administrative sign permit process. New signs
proposed on the property shall comply with this title and shall be complementary to the historical
sign.
2. Signs not qualifying for historical status shall be permitted to remain until such
time as:
a. There is a change in the use of the property on which the sign is
located and discretionary approval for the change of use is required;
b. There are alterations or enlargements to the site or building on the
property in excess of twenty-five (25) percent or more of the existing site or
building. The amount of alterations shall be cumulative over time; or
c. Expansion, movement or modification of the sign. A change of copy or
normal maintenance and repair does not constitute grounds for modification of a
nonconforming sign.
3. Any business with a nonconforming sign shall not be entitled to any additional
signs unless the nonconforming sign is made to comply with the provisions of this
chapter. This subdivision shall not apply if the existing nonconforming sign is located
within the same commercial complex but at a different business location, or if the
existing nonconforming sign is not owned or controlled by the sign permit applicant, or if
the applicant is not the agent of the business that owns or controls the existing
nonconforming sign.
16.60.080 Abandoned signs.
A. Any sign that pertains to a business or occupation, which is no longer using the
particular property or which relates to a time or event that no longer applies, constitutes false
advertising/identification. In such case the sign copy shall be removed within thirty (30) days
and the sign structure within ninety (90) days after the associated business or occupation has
vacated the property or the associated event has ended. An abandoned sign is prohibited and
the sign removal shall be the joint responsibility of the owner of the sign and the owner of the
property.
B. Any sign copy that no longer identifies the subject matter for which it was intended
shall be removed or changed by the owner of the sign or the owner of the property upon which it
is located within thirty (30) days of the event causing the improper identification. The structure
shall be removed or replaced subject to the appropriate approvals required by this chapter.
16.60.090 Signs required to be removed.
Signs that are not removed in the specified time periods pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter shall constitute a nuisance, and shall be subject to removal under the provisions of this
title.
16.60.100 Construction specifications and safety.
A. Compliance with Building Code. All signs shall comply with all applicable provisions of
this code, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Sign Code
relative to design and construction, structural integrity, connections and safety. Signs shall also
comply with the provisions of all applicable electric codes and the additional construction
standards set forth in this section.
B. Construction of Signs.
1. All signs shall be structurally safe; shall be made of rust inhibitive materials;
and shall be fabricated, constructed, erected or installed and maintained in such a
manner as will comply with the provisions of this code.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 22
2. Each sign hereafter erected or remodeled shall bear, in a permanent position,
clearly legible identification decals stating the firm or corporation responsible for its
construction and erection. Electric signs shall be marked with input amperages at the full
load input.
3. No sign shall be attached in any form, shape or manner that will interfere with
an opening required for ventilation, except in circumstances when not in violation of the
building or fire codes.
4. Signs shall be located in such a way that they maintain horizontal and vertical
clearance of all overhead electrical conductors in accordance with the electrical code
and the regulations of the affected entity and the public utilities commission.
5. Certain signs may be required to be properly guttered and connected with
down spouts to storm drains so that water will not drip or flow into public sidewalks or
streets.
6. All permanent free-standing signs or poles shall be self-supporting structures
erected on and permanently attached to concrete foundations. Such structures or poles
shall be fabricated only from steel or other such materials as approved by the building
official.
7. All signs shall be constructed to withstand wind loads, acceptable to the
building official.
8. No sign shall be suspended by chains or other devices that will allow the sign
to swing due to wind action. Signs shall be anchored to prevent any lateral movement
that would cause wear on supporting members or connections.
C. Maintenance of Signs.
1. Every sign and all parts, portions, components and materials thereof shall be
maintained and kept in good condition and proper repair. The display surface of all signs
shall be kept clean, neatly painted, and free from rust and corrosion. Any cracked or
broken surfaces and malfunctioning or damaged portions of a sign shall be repaired or
replaced within thirty (30) calendar days following notification by the city. Noncompliance
with such a request shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated in accordance with
the provisions of this code.
2. Any maintenance, except a change of copy not specifically exempted, shall be
permitted.
9.a.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, June 12, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public
hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to
consider the following item:
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004; APPLICANT: CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE; LOCATION -13 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION
(SUB AREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN).
The City Council will consider a proposal to amend the Zoning map to designate the
subject property as Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General Plan.
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community
Development Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt per
Section 15282(t) of the CEQA guidelines.
The City 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 about this project is available by contacting the Community Development
Department at 473-5420. The City Council meeting will be televised live on Charter
Cable Channel 20.
Kelly et re, City Clerk
(Publish 1T, The Tribune, Friday, June 1, 2007)
U:\DATA\No[icesVune 12.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KELLY HEFFERNON
'ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO.
06-004 TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF); APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE; LOCATION 12.77 ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY
AVENUE EXTENSION (SUBAREA 2 OF THE EAST VILLAGE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN)
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends this item be continued to the July 10, 2007 City Council meeting.
LOCATION:
CITY COUNCIL
DCA 06-004
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 2
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission considered this item on January 16, 2007 and adopted
Resolution No. 07-2024 recommending that the City Council approve Development
Code Amendment (DCA) No. 06-004 (see Attachment 1 for Meeting Minutes). The
Public Hearing was noticed prior to contacting residents in Subarea 2. Some residents
directly impacted by the recommendations have indicated they cannot be present and
would like to provide input. Therefore, staff recommends that consideration of DCA No.
06-004 be continued to July 10, 2007.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2007
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\NP\Cherry Creek\DCA\CC 06-12-OTCC DCA rpt.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 16, 2007
ATTACHMENT1
Vice Chair Brown again stated that to ask anything less than what Sub area 1 required
would be wrong; a MND should be prepared for Commission review for this project.
Commissioner Parker made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Brown, to continue
consideration of the project to a date uncertain, and request that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, a drainage plan, and a Ag buffer plan, prepared by a design landscape
architect, be brought forward to the Commission.
Discussion:
Commissioner Ray stated that she was having difficulty with requiring a MND, as that
would be adding time to a process that the Commission had already dealt with on this
project. The reason she requested a MND was to maintain clarity on the City's position,
the process itself regarding the Ag buffer and why Janowicz was allowed to build within
the buffer, so there would be no ambiguity with sub-area 2.
Vice Chair Brown stated environmental impacts are determined by CEQA and
governing bodies; any decision made on this project would be precedent setting for
Sub-area 2.
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Brown, and Ray
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tait
8:40 p.m.
The Commission took a 10-minute break.
B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE
NO. 06-004; APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE; LOCATION - 13
ACRES NORTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE EXTENSION (SUB-AREA 2 OF
THE EAST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN)
Associate Planner, Kelly Heffernon, presented the staff report for continued
consideration of a proposal to amend the Zoning Map to designate the subject property
from Residential Rural to Single-Family Residential (SF) consistent with the General
Plan. Ms. Heffernon explained that the Planning Commission continued this item to
allow time for further analysis on whether a low density residential zoning could be'
implemented and adequate findings made given state law regarding regional housing
needs and affordable housing requirements.
In conclusion, Ms. Heffernon stated that staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council introduce an
ordinance amending the Development Code to change the zoning designation of the
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 16, 2007
PAGE 8
subject property from Rural Residential to Single-Family or one of the other alternatives
suggested in the staff report.
Staff answered Commission questions on the staff report.
Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing for public comment.
Mr. Vasquez, agent for the Sub-area 2 property owners, described the proposal and the
project constraints. He explained that the conceptual design was based on input from
the neighborhood meetings, a 100-foot Ag buffer, and would have a rural feel to it. He
stated that all the owners had seen the conceptual plan and were in approval of it.
Ruel Estes, East Cherry, stated his concern at the requirement for an Ag buffer; he
would like to use his property as he pleases and does not want to see it downgraded;
hopes the Commission does not have apre-conceived idea of what is going to happen
here.
Colleen Martin stated the plan is really nice and she likes it; why not zone as proposed
and what is appropriate instead of zoning for 4.5 units per acre, which could cause an
additional 57 units in this area in the future.
Nora Looney, Lierly Lane, urged the Commission to designate Sub-area 2 to Single-
Family zoning consistent with the General Plan and requested the Commission to not
downzone the area. Speaking for all the property owners in Sub-area 2, she stated Mr.
Vasquez had designed a good neighborhood plan and all owners of Sub-area 2 have
seen the conceptual plan and the consensus has been positive. She understands the
concern about PUD's, but they are just asking for a change in the zoning.
Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing for public comment.
Commission comments:
Ray:
• "No net loss" is not possible here, but we do have the best-case scenario. If we
can't downzone we end up functionally downzoning anyway and end up with the
paper density. We will actually protect rural communities by changing it to SF to
meet the General Plan and protect the personal property rights of those people
who would be losing opportunity if we downgrade; this is going to be a
transitional area because of the environmental constraints.
Parker:
• The property dictates the zoning; considering the map it almost fits into the City's
RS zoning and maybe there could be an overlay allowing for 3.2 units.
Brown:
• Does not agree with staff's analysis that the density cannot be made up
elsewhere; when the General Plan was adopted this area went from a Specific
Plan to a Neighborhood Plan and many hours were spent on sub area 1, and in
effect they ended up with a Specific Plan; Sub-area 2 has no less of a burden to
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 16, 2007
PAGE 9
climb than Cherry Creek, but the process could be speeded up if issues could be
resolved upfront.
• He proposed that a solution for all parties would be to keep the densities the
same, call it a Specific Plan area and it would then be equitable to all owners; he
could support zoning for 4.5 units per acre and recommend to City Council that
Sub-area 2 have a specific plan/general plan amendment.
Commissioner Parker stated that some owners may not want to have a specific plan at
this time and may not be prepared to do this.
Commissioner Ray asked how a specific plan would protect 11 different owners.
In reply to Commissioner Parker's questions Ms. Heffernon explained that a specific
plan would be regulated by State law and could be a long process; an overlay already
exists as a neighborhood plan.
Mr. Vasquez stated that RRM Design Group had done a layout for Sub-area 2 in their
neighborhood plan and this could be amended and recommended to City Council to be
incorporated into the neighborhood plan.
Commissioner Ray made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to recommend
that City Council amend the zoning map to change the zoning from Residential Rural
(RR) to Single Family (SF) consistent with the General Plan, and adopt:
RESOLUTION 07-2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL RURAL (RR) TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF) CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
(DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 06-004)
The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ray and Parker
NOES: Vice Chair Brown
ABSENT: Commissioner Tait
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of January 2007.
III. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS:
9.b.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On TUESDAY, June 12, 2007, the Arroyo Grande City Council will conduct a public
hearing at 7:00 P.M. in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET to
consider the following item:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001 -PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN CONSERVATION ELEMENT TO ESTABLISH POLICIES AND
MEASURES TO PROTECT CREEK RESOURCES AND REDUCE DEVELOPMENT
RELATED IMPACTS TO CREEKS AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 07-003
- PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 16 (DEVELOMENT CODE) CHAPTERS
16.04 AND 16.44 TO ESTABLISH CREEK SETBACK STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT
The City Council will consider proposals and alternatives to amend the. General Plan
and Development Code to establish and implement creek protection policies and
development setbacks applicable to properties adjacent to creeks in the City of Arroyo
Grande. Proposed creek setbacks range from 50 feet applicable to Meadow Creek and
the East Fork of Meadow Creek; 35 feet applicable to Arroyo Grande Creek and Tally
Ho Creek and 25 feet applicable to all other creeks in the City.
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community
Development Department has determined that the proposals will not have a significant
impact on the environment and a draft negative declaration has been prepared.
The City 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. Comments may be either: (1) mailed to the Community Development
Department, P.O. Box 550, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421; (2) delivered in person to the
Community Development Department at 214 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA or
(3) provided in person at 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.
The reports are available for review in
Please call 473-5420 for more information
live on Ch rter Cable Channel 20.
/~-~-
Kelly Wetmor City Clerk
the Community Development Department.
The City Council meeting will be televised
(Publish 1T, The Tribune, 1/8 page ad, Friday, June 1, 2007)
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM TERESA MCCLISH~ ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO
AMEND THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND OPEN SPACE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR CREEK PROTECTION
RELATED POLICIES (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001) AND
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE ARROYO
GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 16.04 AND 16.44 OF TITLE 16
TO ESTABLISH CREEK SETBACK STANDARDS (DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 07-003)
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended by the Planning Commission that the City Council:
1. adopt a resolution to amend and add policies to the Agriculture, Conservation and
Open Space Element of the General Plan regarding creek protection; and
2. introduce an ordinance to amend Title 16, implementing creek setback standards
for all creeks in the City of Arroyo Grande: and
3. provide staff direction on other recommendations in the draft Creek Resources
Protection Study.
FUNDING:
The proposed FY 2007-2008/FY 2008-2009 Bi Annual Budget includes $75,000 in each
year to be used as matching funds for grants pursued for creek restoration projects in
conjunction with the San Luis Resource Conservation District and Salmon Enhancement.
Additional funds are budgeted for drainage related projects. However, these are costs
associated with recommendations of the draft Creek Resources Protection Study (draft
creek study) and do not involve the proposed General Plan Amendment and
Development Code Amendment.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On September 27, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande adopted Ordinance 572 entitled
"An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
Suspending Acceptance and Processing of Applications for Development of any Portion
of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow
Creek or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande". Pursuant to Government
Code Section 65858(a), the initial Interim Urgency Ordinance was effective fora 45-day
CITY COUNCIL
GPA 07-001 AND DCA 07-003: CREEK PROTECTION
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 2
period ending November 11, 2005, and was extended for ten (10) months and fifteen (15)
days, by adoption of Ordinance 574 on November 8, 2005. On August 26, 2006, the
ordinance was extended for one year by adoption of Ordinance 580.
Discussion
After many informal meetings and workshops with stakeholders, other affected agencies
and property owners, staff released the Draft Creek Resources Protection Study on May
25, 2007 (draft creek study). The draft study includes results of research and analysis of
potential impacts from allowing development to encroach into riparian areas over time,
methods employed by other agencies to minimize these impacts and alternatives for the
City to consider for amending policies, regulations and programs that balance goals of the
City, including those related to housing, economic development, and agriculture
(Attachment 1). Protection of creek resources includes considerations for flood control,
protection of fish and wildlife habitat and migration corridors, water quality, storm water
conveyance, recreational opportunities, greenways and open space, and increased
property values. The creek study includes recommendations for policies, regulations and
programs needed for creek protection given documentation of past problems, indications of
emerging trends affecting creeks and impacts expected from development and
redevelopment inside and outside the City limits. Generally, research and historic
examples indicate that the cost of restoring creek areas to address flood control or water
quality impacts is high, and that the best method of cost savings is the implementation of
practices that prevent future impairment to the creek system. Areas of focus include
watershed management, buffers and habitat degradation, storm water and drainage
systems, and the connection of water quality and water resources.
The study concludes with the following eight recommendations. (Please refer to the draft
creek study for detailed information. The creek study may be accessed at
www.arroyogrande.org; the Community Development Department; and the public library.)
1. Amend the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element to manage the
natural flow of creeks, refine protection of the riparian ecosystem, and protect the
public health and safety of structures in regards to creek bank stability.
2. Amend the Development Code to establish creek setback standards. It is
recommended (in the creek study) that Alternative A-1 (chapter 5) be implemented
prior to expiration of the City's creekside development moratorium. Subsequent
consideration may include revision and/or an alternative such as A-2 (chapter 5).
3. Establish a work program for two necessary ordinances 1) the implementation of
Conservation/Open Space zoning as required consistent with the General Plan land
use designation; and 2) the development of a landscape conservation ordinance as
required by the state.
4. Approve creekside planting and stewardship Guidelines as an information source
for property owners and as guidance to City staff and the Architectural Review
Committee for review of discretionary projects near creeks.
5. Develop citywide site design guidelines including considerations for both stormwater
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\GPA\07-001 COS creek protection\CC mtg 06-12-07\CCsr061207.doc
CITY COUNCIL
GPA 07-001 AND DCA 07-003: CREEK PROTECTION
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 3
and water conservation.
6. Amend the Drainage Master Plan in accordance with creek study recommendations
for preferred methods of culvert design and creek rehabilitation.
7. Pursue implementation of the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Memorandum of
Understanding that provides for a watershed steering committee comprised of
regulators and stakeholders to communicate issues in the Watershed, prioritize and
coordinate projects, and pursue grant funding.
8. Implement the priority projects identified in the creek study (chapter 2) in conjunction
with on-going grant proposal efforts.
Staff is recommending that the City Council consider the first two recommendations of the
draft creek study at this time: the General Plan amendment and the Development Code
amendment for creek setbacks. These legislative amendments would put regulations in
place providing for creek protection through the establishment of specific creek setbacks
while public review continues on the draft creek study, additional evidence and data is
collected and evaluated, and the Council provides direction to staff for implementation of
other creek study recommendations. Currently, the City has no creek development
setback regulations in the Development Code and setbacks are implemented only for
projects subject to discretionary review, by application of the following existing provisions:
S:\Community DevelopmentlPROJECTS\GPA\07-001 COS creek protection\CC mtg 06-12-07\CCsr061207.doc
CITY COUNCIL
GPA 07-001 AND DCA 07-003: CREEK PROTECTION
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 4
Proposed General Plan Amendment (see attached Resolution -Exhibit "A")
Staff is proposing amendments to the General Plan policies and implementation measures
in order to address deficiencies identified in the draft creek study. Specifically, research
indicates that the 25-foot setback distance does not adequately protect most creeks in the
City. Setbacks are critical because creeks continue to move over time, especially during
storm events and where development has influenced flow and creek bank structure. Wider
setbacks are needed for creeks with steep banks that are deeply incised, have evident
areas of erosion, and/or include areas of historic flooding. The attached Resolution
(Exhibit "A") includes policy language for minimum setbacks of 25 - 50 feet. The draft
creek study summarizes the general consensus for creek setbacks in chapter 4.
Additionally, it should be noted that the setbacks should be applied for all properties
adjacent to creeks, including those where creeks are partially culverted and in areas that
are adjacent to development. This is to provide for access for ongoing maintenance,
emergency repairs, and for potential future restoration opportunities. Provisions are
included to allow for variance application for those projects that cannot accommodate the
creek development setback in order to provide for reasonable economic use of property.
Recommendation number three above would implement C/OS 2-1 through the
development of a new zoning district and/or zoning overlay district for Conservation/Open
Space C/OS. Although there is a land use designation in the General Plan, there is
currently no C/OS zoning district. Additionally, there are several other C/OS designated
areas in the General Plan (hillsides, open space parcels that have been dedicated to the
City or have a perpetual open space easement) that would need to be included in the new
zoning district.
Proposed Ordinance (see attached Ordinance -Exhibit "A")
The proposed ordinance is consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment policies
for creek setbacks. According to the creek study, the appropriate method of measurement
remains to be from the top of bank or edge of riparian habitat for the types of creeks in the
City. Two important definitions include Development and Top of Bank. The proposed
amended definitions are as follows:
Development: The construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration,
relocation, or enlargement of any buildings structure; any use, change in use or
extension of use of anv buildings or land; any mining, excavation, landfill or land
disturbance including any clearing or grading, or other movement of land. For
purposes of environmental and discretionary permit review, the term development
shall include the division or adjustment of parcels of land.
Top of bank shall mean the highest elevation of land which confines the flow of
water to the channel.
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\GPA\07-001 COS creek protection\CC mlg 06-12-07\CCsr061207.doc
CITY COUNCIL
GPA 07-001 AND DCA 07-003: CREEK PROTECTION
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 5
Option: [ADD ] For.areas where the3o[i of bank is notdistinouishable, th'e edge of-
floodway shall be used as the top of banK:'' ' '
A summary of the proposed creek ordinance (attached) is provided below. Development
as defined above would be prohibited in the setback area.
• Minimum Development Setback range: 50 feet for Meadow Creek and East Fork
of Meadow Creek; 35 feet for Tally Ho and Arroyo Grande Creeks; and 25 for all
other creeks identified on the Conservation Element Creeks Map
• Within the Village zoning districts, through the use of conditional use permit,
setbacks can provide for an average of 35 feet, where no portion of the setback is
less than 25 feet within a proposed project area. Any area beyond 35 feet used
for averaging must be used as setback area where development is prohibited.
• Existing agricultural operations are exempt from creek setback standards.
• In comparison to alternatives in the draft creek study, the proposed regulations are
simple to implement and more restrictive since development is prohibited (except
for certain fences) in the setback area.
• It should be noted that there may be enforcement issues associated with the new
setback regulations because many activities that are prohibited within the setback
(grading, pavement, small storage areas, etc.) do not require formal City permitting
and will be discovered only through careful observation or citizen complaint.
• In comparison with other alternatives in the draft creek study, the proposal does
not include an additional overlay district; the regulation would be implemented in
conjunction with existing floodplain management regulations.
• The only process for setback deviation is through a variance which requires strict
statutory findings that are considered much more difficult to make in comparison to
a process which allows deviation through a conditional use permit. Setback
averaging within the Village area would require review by conditional use permit
and based upon considerations from a Phase I archeological report, a
hydrogeomorphology report and a biology report and any mitigation for restoration.
• There is no "buffer management" criteria to regulate use within the riparian
corridor, within the setback area and for adjacent areas outside the setback.
Alternatives for these criteria that would allow certain development (driveways,
decks, etc.) to occur in the setback area for example, are included in the Chapter
five of the draft creek study. However, such provisions require careful
consideration to enable the appropriate balance of development design flexibility
and creek protection.
There are specific reasons for proposing alternate criteria for creek setback distances in
the Village area. There are smaller lots abutting creeks within the Village area averaging
approximately 8,500 sq. ft. Some lots extend into the creek. First, much of the Village is
already built out utilizing development of buildings, parking, trails and other improvements
adjacent to the Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho Creeks. Second, the City may desire to
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\GPA\07-001 COS creek protection\CC mtg 06-12-07\CCsr061207.doc
CITY COUNCIL
GPA 07-001 AND DCA 07-003: CREEK PROTECTION
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 6
further expand such uses to maximize utilization of the creek as a recreation and aesthetic
amenity to enhance the character of the Village. Staff believes the flexibility provided in the
recommended regulations will allow development to accomplish this, while at the same
time, designing improvements to not only preserve, but also protect and restore creek
amenities.
Creek Study Recommendations -work plan
Staff is seeking direction on other recommendations in the draft creek study, specifically
above noted items 3 through 6. Staff is currently working on items 7 and 8 in accordance
with prior Council direction and grant funding opportunities. Additionally, direction is
needed regarding preferences or concerns for creek setback alternatives for future code
refinement.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At the conclusion of their public hearing on June 5, 2007, after consideration of all the
evidence, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the
proposed General Plan Amendment and the proposed Development Code Amendment,
with modifications.
For the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Commission considered potentially
duplicative language for several policies but recommended to keep the language as
proposed with three modifications as shown below:
C/OS2-1.2 Preserve stream and riparian corridors in their natural state, except t#at
where necessary for flood control, periodic maintenance, creekbank protection, and creek
restoration consistent with State and Federal permits Concrete
channels and underground piping of creeks and drainages shall be minimized and
allowed if it is determined by the City Council to be necessary for public health, safety
and welfare. Bridges and ^~^"~.,~-ea:v~ ~ are preferred over arched o piped culverts.
C/OS [new] Creeks and riparian vegetation and the natural hydrological system and the
existing or potential ecological function of creeks shall "^,~-P;•~ oed and evaluated in
accordance with CEQA within 100 feet of the Top of Bank or upland edge of riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater, within which various setbacks and other measures may
be designed and implemented in accordance with City codes with the objective of
protecting the environmentally sensitive creek habitats.
C/OS [new] Coordinate with through a MOU agreement with other watershed
Lurisdictions groups and stakeholders and other interested parties to develop and
implement public education programs and water quality enhancement activities and
provide technical assistance to minimize storm water pollution. ~FWk~=re-#e~asibl~ Use
watershed planning approaches to resolve water quality problems.
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\GPA\07-001 COS creek protection\CC mtg 06-12-07\CCsr061207.doc
CITY COUNCIL
GPA 07-001 AND DCA 07-003: CREEK PROTECTION
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 7
For the proposed Development Code Amendment, the Commission recommended
introduction with the following modifications:
16.44.050.C.1.a.i. Arroyo Grande Creek and Tally Ho Creek: a minimum setback of 35
feet. For Properties located within the Village Core Downtown (VCD) or Village Mixed
Use (VMU) districts, through application of a conditional use permit and based upon
consideration of recommendations from a Phase I Archeological Study: a biology report;
and a hydrogeomorphologv report, the setback may provide for an average of 35 feet
averaged within a proposed proiect area but under no circumstance shall any portion be
less than 25 28 feet.
16.44.050.0.2. Fences and other structures such as culverts. walls and bridges which
must be constructed within the floodwav shall be designed in accordance with all
applicable best management practices so as to prevent an obstruction or diversion of
flood and drainage flow and to minimize adverse effects to natural riparian habitat.
Fences may be permitted in the Development setback if desi gned to allow for wildlife
passage and the unimpeded flow of water.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A public notice was sent to all property owners with properties adjacent to creeks and a 1/8
page public notice was placed in the Tribune. Staff held public workshops on May 31, 2006
and May 30, 2007. The May 30, 2007 workshop for the project was attended by twenty-five
people and included a presentation by staff from the County Planning Department on their
update to the County's General Plan Conservation Element (including creek protection
related policies). Comments included questions about what should be allowed within
setbacks (i.e. fences, patios, storage), and appropriate setback distances (are the proposed
setbacks big enough?). Additional questions on other aspects of the creek study included
historical problems related to grading for development projects, non-stormwater discharges
related to irrigation of lawns, location and details for identified creek restoration priorities,
specifically for Tally Ho Creek, concern about recent spills into the creek (coagulant in the
County in Arroyo Grande Creek and sewage within the City in Arroyo Grande Creek), fire
hazard in dry creek beds; and creek maintenance specifically by goats and in relation to
obstructions such as cars in Arroyo Grande Creek (upstream).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
and has found that there is no anticipated impacts on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared (Attachment 2).
ALTERNATIVES:
S:\Communiry DevelopmendPROJECTS\GPA\07-001 COS creek protection\CC mtg 06-12-07\CCsr061207.doc
CITY COUNCIL
GPA 07-001 AND DCA 07-003: CREEK PROTECTION
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 8
The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration:
1) Adopt the proposed resolution for the proposed General Plan
Amendment and introduce the proposed ordinance for the
Development Code Amendment
2) Revise (some options are included in shaded text) the
proposed General Plan Amendment and/or Development Code
Amendment and recommend adoption/introduction;
3) Recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment
and/or Development Code Amendment and provide direction to
staff.
Attachments:
1. Draft Creek Resources Protection Study (previously distributed).
2. Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
3. Public Comment Letters
• Letter dated June 4, 2007 from Steven Puglisi
• Letter dated June 5, 2007 from Roger Briggs of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board
• Letter from Bill Kapp submitted to the Planning Commission during the June
5, 2007 public hearing
S:\Community Development\PROJECTS\GPA\07-001 COS creek protection\CC mtg 06-12-07\CCsr061207.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CASE NO. 07-001, TO AMEND THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN
CONSERVATION ELEMENT FOR CREEK PROTECTION
RELATED POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan which became
effective November 10, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary
revisions to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and Zoning Map for consistency, in
accordance with Government Code Section 65860; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan include a Agricultural, Conservation and Open
Space Element which include the following principals:
Resources that are irretrievable and/or irreplaceable need to be protected and
preserved.
Individuals and the community have a responsibility to future generations as well as
to wildlife to preserve and protect finite natural resources.
Resource lands contribute to overall public health, safety and welfare beyond
provision of basic necessities such as food, fiber and livelihood.
Land Use and urban development shall be managed and limited to that which can
be sustained by the available resources and serviced by the circulation and other
infrastructure systems; and
WHEREAS, Conservation and Open Space objective "C/OS2" of the Agricultural,
Conservation and Open Space Element in the 2001 General Plan, is to "Safeguard
important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy,
functioning ecosystem"; and
WHEREAS, On July 12, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande, by consensus, directed
staff to evaluate the City's regulations, practices and procedures related to creek setback
requirements and the implementation of related 2001 General Plan policies in the
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element; and
WHEREAS, On September 27, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande, adopted
Ordinance 572 entitled "An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Arroyo Grande Suspending Acceptance and Processing of Applications for
Development of any Portion of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek,
Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande"
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "suspension of creek property development"),
which Ordinance expired forty-five days from the date of its adoption pursuant to
Government Code Section 65858(a); and
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, On November 8, 2005, the City Council of Arroyo Grande, adopted
Ordinance 574 entitled "An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of Arroyo
Grande to extend the suspension of acceptance and processing of New Applications
for Development of any Portion of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande
Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo
Grande' which ordinance expired 10 months and 15 days from the date of its adoption
pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a); and
WHEREAS, On August 22, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
and adopted Ordinance No. 580 extending the suspension of creek property
development for a period of one year, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a).
WHEREAS, On May 25, 2007, the City released a draft Creek Resources Protection
Study that includes research and recommendations concerning the necessity for creek
buffers that contribute to streambank stabilization, allow for vegetative cover and
reduction of water temperature, offer a setback distance for intensive uses, provide a
source of food, nesting cover, and shelter for wildlife, intercept pollutants and manage
other environmental concerns, and increase environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS, On June 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution for
General Plan Amendment 07-001 that amends the Conservation Element of the
General Plan for creek protection policies; and
WHEREAS, On June 12, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the proposed resolution for General Plan Amendment 07-001 that amends the
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan for creek
protection policies; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the City
Council has determined that the following General Plan Amendment findings can be
made in an affirmative manner:
1. The proposed amendment to the 2001 General Plan agriculture, conservation
and open space element provides consistency with the goals, objectives, policies
and programs of the general plan:
2. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and
welfare; and
3. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment are considered
and analyzed reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and
Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and the proposed project is described
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
and included in a Negative Declaration and initial study and will have no potential
environmental impacts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby adopts General Plan Amendment 07-001 to amend the Agriculture,
Conservation and Open Space Element as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference. This Resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days
after its adoption.
On motion by Council member ,seconded by Council member ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 12th day of June, 2007.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
TONY M. FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT "A"
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001 -
AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
1) Add Map C/OS -1 Creeks Within the City of Arroyo Grande
2) Amend the following policies:
C/OS2-1.1 `$treatxs-Creeks' and `riparian corridors' shall include buffer azea
corresponding at least to natural ed e of riparian habitat ~egetatietx and/or/creek bank.
C/OS2-1.2 Preserve stream and riparian comdors in their natural state, except that
where necessary for flood control, periodic maintenance, creekbank protection, and creek
restoration consistent with State and Federal permits °''°"~. Concrete channels
and under ogr and pipine of creeks and drainages shall be minimized and allowed if it is
C/OS2-1.3 Where feasible, maintain a ^Y°a~~° °~a ''°~'a~~° development setback of
25 - 50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat dependin og n slope,
habitat and floodplain characteristics. Locate w..:'a:~°° °°a ~`«~°'~°°° development
outside the setback. Except in urban areas where existing development exists to the
contrary, prevent removal of riparian vegetation within 25 feet of the top of stream bank.
C/OS2-1.4 Creekside trails may be designed to integrate within stream and riparian
corridors protection and implement mitigation measures including those for erosion
control, drainage and vegetation mans eg ment and allowed within building setback if it is
not feasible to place the trail outside of the setback area.
°t°«t Arl. Ct.,t° «A L'°A° ..1 ....., a„ «A ..a..° r.. ,.t.. «,.1 °i.,ti..« «A
3) Add the following policies:
C/OSZ-1.5 Creeks and riparian vegetation and the natural hvdrolo ical system and the
existing or potential ecological function of creeks shall be r~retec-ted -and evaluated in
accordance with CEQA within 100 feet of the Top of Bank or upland edge of riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater, within which various setbacks and other measures may
be designed and implemented in accordance with Citv codes with the objective of
protecting the environmentally sensitive creek habitats.
C/OS2-1.6 Plan, design, and develop sites to: Protect scenic resources, water quality
and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and
movement. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat especially where a
continuous riparian habitat comdor can be established.
• Allow for natural chanties that may occur within the creek corridor.
• Maintain predevelopment site hvdrology by using site design techniques that
store, infiltrate, evaporate, or detain runoff according to the Citv Drainatie Master
Plan or any applicable Site Design Guidelines for Storm water Oualitv and Water
Conservation as amended•
• Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits or are particularly
susceptible to erosion and sediment loss;
• Limit impervious area by desitin and the use of best management practices;
• Limit land disturbance activities, such as clearinti and rg adinQ and cut and fill, to
reduce erosion, sediment loss, and soil compaction; and
• Preserve natural drainage features and vegetation to the extent possible.
C/OS2-1.7 Incentive programs and creek management resources shall be developed to
assist property owners in protecting creek corridors.
C/OS2-1.8 Property in the vicinity of creeks are considered Archaeologically Sensitive
due to the likelihood of previous settlement patterns and known cultural sensitivity of
creek areas. Reauire cultural Resource Surveys for al] discretionazy projects in the
vicinity of creeks.
C/OS2-1.9 Culverting or channelization for existing open creeks should not occur unless
there is strong evidence that there is no other means to prevent erosion of foundations of
other existinti structures.
C/OS2-1.10 Coordinate with through a MOU agreement with other watershed
jurisdictions croups and stakeholders and other interested parties to develop and
implement public education programs and water quality enhancement activities and
provide technical assistance to minimize stone water pollution. "'a~l~ Use
watershed planning approaches to resolve water quality problems.
C/OS2-1.11 Design construct, and maintain City facilities, roads, bridges, drainage and
other facilities to minimize sediment and other pollutants in storm water flows. Develop
and implement "best management practices" for ongoing maintenance and operation.
C/OS 2-1.1.2 Continue to require grading plans to include measures to avoid soil erosion
and consider up¢rading requirements as needed to minimize sedimentation in stone
water.
C/OS2-1.13 Require that discretionar~proiects, to the maximum extent practicable,
maintain or increase the site's pre-development absorption of runoff to recharge
groundwater. Implementation would include standards to regulate impervious surfaces,
vazy by proiect type, land use, soils and azea chazacteristics, and provide for water
impoundments, protecting and planting vegetation, cisterns and other measures to
increase runoff retention and groundwater recharge.
A/C/OS22 IMPLEMENTATION_ Coordinate with volunteer organizations that provide
services or programs that implement City Conservation Element policies includin cg reek
clean-up events, creek restoration activities, and creekside trial maintenance.
A/C/OS23 IMPLEMENTATION. In order to reduce impacts to natural habitats from
ni hg t lighting, require all sustained/constant exterior li ting to be low intensity and
shielded to reduce its visibility from surrounding areas and to minimize impacts to
wildlife.
A/C/OS24 IMPLEMENTATION. Disseminate information re ag rding the potential
harmful effects of invasive plant species on native plant communities and harmful effects
of toxic chemical substances and safe alternatives to toxics for home and garden use. City
emplovees and contractors shall use Best Management Practices in construction and
manintenance of City -used or owned properties, facilities, trails and rights of way.
t~, ~~TY 6F
y .. ~
'~
~..
tG i ~~3
d~
i CALIFORNIA ,
Creeks
. ®® Drainageways
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 07-003 AMENDING PORTIONS OF ARROYO
GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 16.04 AND 16.44 OF
TITLE 16 TO ESTABLISH CREEK SETBACK STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan which became
effective November 10, 2001 and requires a comprehensive review and necessary
revisions to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and Zoning Map for consistency, in
accordance with Government Code Section 65860; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 General Plan include a Agricultural, Conservation and Open
Space Element which include the following principals:
Resources that are irretrievable and/or irreplaceable need to be protected and
preserved.
Individuals and the community have a responsibility to future generations as well as
to wildlife to preserve and protect finite natural resources.
Resource lands contribute to overall public health, safety and welfare beyond
provision of basic necessities such as food, fiber and livelihood.
Land Use and urban development shall be managed and limited to that which can
be sustained by the available resources and serviced by the circulation and other
infrastructure systems; and
WHEREAS, Conservation and Open Space objective "C/OS2" of the Agricultural,
Conservation and Open Space Element in the 2001 General Plan, is to "Safeguard
important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy,
functioning ecosystem"; and
WHEREAS, On July 12, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande, by consensus, directed
staff to evaluate the City's regulations, practices and procedures related to creek setback
requirements and the implementation of related 2001 General Plan policies in the
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element; and
WHEREAS, On September 27, 2005 the City Council of Arroyo Grande, adopted
Ordinance 572 entitled "An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Arroyo Grande Suspending Acceptance and Processing of Applications for
Development of any Portion of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek,
Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo Grande"
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "suspension of creek property development"),
which Ordinance expired forty-five days from the date of its adoption pursuant to
Government Code Section 65858(a); and
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, On November 8, 2005, the City Council of Arroyo Grande, adopted
Ordinance 574 entitled "An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of Arroyo
Grande to extend the suspension of acceptance and processing of New Applications
for Development of any Portion of Property Immediately Adjacent to Arroyo Grande
Creek, Tally Ho Creek, Meadow Creek or Creek Tributaries within the City of Arroyo
Grande" which ordinance expired 10 months and 15 days from the date of its adoption
pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a); and
WHEREAS, On August 22, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
and adopted Ordinance No. 580 extending the suspension of creek property
development for a period of one year, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a).
WHEREAS, On May 25, 2007, the City released a draft Creek Resources Protection
Study that includes research and recommendations concerning the necessity for creek
buffers that contribute to streambank stabilization, allow for vegetative cover and
reduction of water temperature, offer a setback distance for intensive uses, provide a
source of food, nesting cover, and shelter for wildlife, intercept pollutants and manage
other environmental concerns, and increase environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS, On June 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution for General Plan
Amendment 07-001 that amends the Conservation Element of the General Plan for
creek protection policies and an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code Chapters
16.04 and 16.44 to establish creek setback standards; and
WHEREAS, On June 12, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the proposed resolution for General Plan Amendment 07-001 that amends the
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan for creek
protection policies and an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code Chapters 16.04 and
16.44 to establish creek setback standards; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the City
Council has determined that the following Development Code Amendment findings can
be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The proposed revision to the Municipal Code is consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies and programs of the general plan land use and agriculture,
conservation and open space elements, and is necessary and desirable to
implement to provisions of the General Plan.
B. The proposed revision to the Municipal Code will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern since the
proposed changes allows the city to provide safety from flooding and protect the
city's creek resources.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
C. The proposed revision to the Municipal Code is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the flood protection management overlay district.
D. The City has conducted an environmental review and has found that it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance will
have an effect on the environment and therefore has prepared a Negative
Declaration.
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 and correct.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.04.070.C is hereby amended in
part and Section 16.44.050 is hereby amended in its entirety as shown in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3~ If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full
text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Director of
Administrative Services/City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the
Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council Members voting for and
against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
On motion by Councilmember ,seconded by Council Member ,
and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was introduced this 12~' day of June 2007.
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 4
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
EXHIBIT "A"
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 07-003
16.04 070.C [Note to codifier: amend the definition for "Development" and add the
definition for "Riparian habitat"}
"Development" means the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration,
relocation, or enlargement of any balldia~s structure; any use, change in use or extension
of use of anv buildings or land; any mining, excavation, landfill or land disturbance
including anv clearing or grading, or other movement of land. For purposes of
environmental and discretionary permit review, the term development shall include the
division or a adjustment of parcels of land.
"Riparian habitat" means vegetation growing close to a watercourse or spring that is
generally critical for wildlife cover, fish food organisms, stream nutrients and large organic
debris, and for streambank stability.
NOTE:. Amendmehts to existing language are shovun as underlined. =Shaded areas are:
added as regwred;by'FEMA. `" ' ~ ": '
16.44.050 Floodplain management and Creek Protection (FM~District (unmapped)
A. Statement of Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this section to promote the public
health, safety, and general welfare, to safeguard important environmental and
sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystem and to
minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by
provisions designed to:
1. Protect human life and health;
2. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;
3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and
generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;
4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains,
electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in areas of
special flood hazard;
6. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of
areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by
flood damages;
7. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood
hazard;
8. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume
responsibility for their actions;
9. Implement general plan policies to enhance natural creek functions and values by
providing erosion control, sedimentation prevention, enhancement of riparian
habitat corridors, water quality protection and aesthetic and recreational
opportunities.
B. Methods of Reducing Flood Losses and providing creek protection. In order to
accomplish its purposes, this section includes the following methods and provisions:
1. Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to
water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood
heights or velocities;
2. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses,
be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
3. Control the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, riparian habitat, and
natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters:
4. Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood
damage or degrade riparian habitat;
5. Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers, or incremental floodplain
constriction which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood
hazards in other areas.
6. Creeks shall remain in their natural state and shall not be altered unless approved
by the City Council in conjunction with an application for a conditional use permit
and permitted by other responsible agencies.
C. General Provisions for Creek Protection.
1. Applicability. The section shall apply to all creeks and drainage wavs, that are
identified on the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Creek Map.
a) Minimum Development Setbacks for Creek yards and Drainage Wavs:
Development, as defined in this Title, including fences and walls, shall be
setback from the top of bank or edge of riparian habitat, whichever is farther
from the creek flow line. Top of bank shall mean the highest elevation of land
For Properties located within the Village Core Downtown (VCD) or Village
Mixed Use (VMU) districts, through application of a conditional use permit
and based upon consideration of recommendations from a Phase I
Archeological Study: a biology report; and a hydrogeomorphology report, the
setback may provide for an average of 35 feet within a proposed project
area but under no circumstance shall any portion be less than 25 feet.
ii) Meadow Creek and East Fork of Meadow Creek: a minimum setback of 50
feet.
iii) All other Creeks and Drainage Wavs: a minimum setback of 25 feet.
2. Fences and other structures such as culverts, walls and bridges which must be
constructed within the floodway shall be designed in accordance with all applicable
best management practices so as to prevent an obstruction or diversion of flood
and drainage flow and to minimize adverse effects to natural riparian habitat.
Fences may be permitted in the Development setback if designed to allow for
wildlife passage and the unimpeded flow of water.
3. Clearing of significant vegetation canopy cover or herbaceous ground cover;
Setback area. A tree permit may be requested for trees potentially affecting public
safety
4.
5. Exceptions to the requirements established in this section can be made only upon
a finding that its application would violate federal and state law.
D. General Provisions for Floodplain Management:
1. This section shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction
of the city. Methods of Reducing Flood Losses. In order to accomplish its
purposes, this section includes the following methods and provisions:
2. Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard. The areas of special
flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) dated
March 19, 1984 and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and Flood
Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), dated September 19, 1984, and all
subsequent amendments and/or revisions, are adopted by reference and declared
to be a part of this section. These areas are the minimum area of applicability of
this section and may be supplemented by studies for other areas which allow
implementation of this section and which are recommended to the city by the
floodplain administrator. The study, FIRMs and FBFMs are on file at the
Department of Public Works, 214 East Branch Street, City of Arroyo Grande,
California 93421.
3. Compliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended,
converted or altered without full compliance with the term of this section and other
applicable regulations. Violation of the requirements (including violations of
conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions) shall
constitute a misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall prevent the city from taking such
lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
4. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. This section is not intended to repeal,
abrogate or impair any existing easements, covenants or deed restrictions.
However, where this section and another ordinance, easement, covenant or deed
restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions
shall prevail.
5. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this section, all provisions
shall be:
a) Considered as minimum requirements;
b) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
c) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state
statutes.
6. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. The degree of flood protection required by this
section is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific
and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare
occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This
section does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses
permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This
section shall not create liability on the part of city, any officer or employee thereof,
the state of California, or the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this
section or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
E. Administration.
1. Establishment of Development Permit. A development permit shall be obtained
before any construction or other development begins within any area of special
flood hazard established in subsection C of this section. Application for a
development within an area of special hazard shall be made on forms furnished by
the floodplain administrator and may include, but not be limited to: plans in
duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions and elevation of
the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials,
drainage facilities; and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following
information is required:
a) Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including
basement) of all structures in Zone AO, elevation of highest adjacent grade and
proposed elevation of lowest floor of all structures; or proposed elevation in
relation to mean sea level to which any nonresidential structure will be
floodproofed, if required in subsection (E)(1)(c)(iii) of this section.
b) All appropriate certifications listed in subsection (D)(3)(d) of this section;
c) Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated
as a result of proposed development.
2. Designation of the Floodplain Administrator. The director of public works appointed
to administer, implement and enforce this section.
3. Duties and Responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator. The duties and
responsibilities of the floodplain administrator shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
a) Permit Review. Review all development permits within the special hazard areas
to determine that:
i) Permit requirements of this section have been satisfied,
ii) The site is reasonably safe from flooding, and
iii) The proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity
of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway
has not been designated. For purposes of this section, "adversely affects"
means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development will increase
the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any
point.
.. ... as.a v .. _.,.h - ..m....
iv) Alhother reauired"State and Federal permits have;been obtained:
b) Review and Use of Any Other Base Flood Data. When base flood elevation
data has not been provided in accordance with subsection (C)(2) of this section,
the floodplain administrator shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base
flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal or state agency, or
other source, in order to administer subsection E of this section.
c) Notification of Other Agencies. Whenever there is an alteration or relocation of
a watercourse:
i) Notify adjacent communities and the California Department of Water
Resources prior to alteration or relocation;
ii) Submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency;
iii) Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion
the watercourse is maintained.
d) Documentation of Floodplain Development. Obtain and maintain for public
inspection and make available as needed the following:
i) Certification required by subsection (E)(1)(c)(i) of this section (lowest floor
elevations);
ii) Certification required by subsection (E)(1)(c)(ii) of this section (elevation or
floodproofing of nonresidential structures);
iii) Certification required by subsection (E)(1)(c)(iii) of this section (wet
floodproofing standard);
iv) Certification of elevation required by subsection (E)(3)(b) of this section
(subdivision standards);
v) Certification required by subsection (E)(6)(a) of this section (floodway
encroachments).
e) Map Determinations. Make interpreta-tions where needed, as to the exact
location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard, for example,
where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual
field conditions. The person contesting the location of the boundary shall be
given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in
subsection F of this section.
f) Take action to remedy violations of this section as specified in subsection (C)(3)
of this section.
F. Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction. In addition to the development standards of
the district with which the FRCP district has been combined and the standards
contained in Chapters 16.48 and 16.52, the standards contained in this section shall
apply. In the event of a conflict in the applicable regulations, the provisions of this
section shall govern.
1. No fill shall be aermitted within the 100-year floodplain of Creeks or Drainage ways
unless appropriate mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines and
the following standards:
a) The fill is for the minimum area to accommodate a structure and allow for a five
L) foot border area which shall have a side slope of 4:1 or flatter when no
nativ_eriparian landscaping or erosion control can be provided;
b) All trees shall be protected or mitigated;
2. Standards of Construction. In all areas of special flood hazards the following
standards are required:
a) Anchoring.
i) All new construction and substantial improvements within special flood
hazard areas shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or
lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and
hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy.
ii) All manufactured homes shall meet the anchoring standards of subsection
(E)(4) of this section.
b) Construction Materials and Methods. All new construction and substantial
improvement with special flood hazard areas shall be constructed;
i) With materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage;
ii) Using methods and practices that minimize flood damage;
iii) With electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment
and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent
water from entering or accumulating within the components during
conditions of flooding; and if
iv) Within Zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths around
structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed
structures.
c) Elevation and Floodproofing. See Section 16.04.070 for definitions for
"basement," "new construction," "substantial damage' and "substantial
improvement."
i) Residential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall have the
lowest floor, including basement:
(A) In an AO zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height
exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM by at least
one foot, or elevated at least three feet. above the highest adjacent
grade if no depth number is specified;
(B) In an A zone, elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation,
as determined by the community;
(C)In all other zones, elevated at least one foot above the base flood
elevation.
(D)Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor
including basement shall be certified by a registered professional
engineer or surveyor, and verified by the community building inspector to
be properly elevated. Such certification or verification shall be provided
to the floodplain administrator.
(E) For floodplain management purposes the term "lowest floor' means the
lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basement definition.
An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure below the lowest floor that is
usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an
area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest
floor provided it conforms to applicable non-elevation design
requirements, including, but not limited to:
(1) The floodproofing standard, in subsection (E)(1)(c)(iii) of this section;
(2) The anchoring standards in subsection (E)(1) of this section;
(3) The construction materials and methods standards in subsection
(E)(1)(b) of this section;
(4) The standards for utilities in subsection (E)(2) of this section.
ii) Nonresidential construction, new or substantial improvement, shall either be
elevated to conform with subsection (E)(1)(c) of this section or together with
attendant utility and sanitary facilities;
(A) Be floodproofed, below the elevation recommended under subsection
(E)(1)(C)(i) of this section so that the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
(B) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and
(C)Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the
standards of this subsection are satisfied. Such certification shall be
provided to the floodplain administrator.
iii) All new construction and substantial improvement with fully enclosed areas
below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for
parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to
flooding, shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces
on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for
meeting this requirement must exceed the following minimum criteria:
(A) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect; or
(B) Have a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than
one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to
flooding. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot
above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves
or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic
entry and exit of floodwater.
iv) Manufactured homes shall also meet the standards in subsection (E)(4) of
this section.
3. Standards for Utilities.
a) All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be
designed to minimize or eliminate:
i) Infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and
ii) Discharge from the systems into flood waters.
b) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them, or
contamination from them during flooding.
4. Standards for Subdivisions.
a) All preliminary subdivision proposals shall identify the flood hazard area and the
elevation of the base flood.
b) All subdivision plans within special flood hazard areas will provide the elevation
of proposed structure(s) and pad(s). If the site is filled above the base flood
elevation, the lowest first floor and pad elevations shall be certified by a
registered professional engineer or surveyor and provided to the floodplain
administrator.
c) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood
damage.
d) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer,
gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood
damage.
e) All subdivisions shall provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood
hazards.
5. Standards for Manufactured Homes.
a) All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved within Zones
Al-30, AH, AE, and AR on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map, on sites
located:
i) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivisions;
ii) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision;
iii) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision; or
iv) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on a site upon which
a manufactured home has incurred substantial damage as the result of a
flood, shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor
of the manufactured home is elevated at least one foot above the base flood
elevation, and shall be securely fastened to an adequately anchored
foundation system to resist flotation collapse and lateral movement.
b) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an
existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones Al-30, AH, AE,
AR on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map that are not subject to the
provisions of subsection (E)(4)(a) of this section will be securely fastened to an
adequately anchored foundation system to resist foundation collapse and lateral
movement, and will be elevated so that either the:
i) Lowest floor of the manufactured home is at least one foot above the base
flood elevation; or
ii) Manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other
foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than
thirty-six (36) inches in height above grade.
6. Standards For Recreational Vehicles.
a) All recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones Al-30, AH, AE: and AR
on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map will either:
i) Be on the site for fewer than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days,
and be fully licensed and ready for highway use. A recreational vehicle is
ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to
the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has
no permanently attached additions; or
ii) Meet the permit requirements of subsection D of this section and the
elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes in
subsection (E)(4)(a) of this section. 6. Floodways. Located within areas of
special flood hazard established in subsection (C)(2) of this section are
areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely
hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris,
potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply:
b) Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvement, and other new development unless certification by a registered
professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that
encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood elevation
during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
c) If subsection (E)(6)(a) of this section is satisfied, all new construction,
substantial improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply
with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of subsection E of
this section.
G. Variances and Appeals.
1. The planning commission of the city shall hear and decide appeals and requests
for variances from the requirements of this section.
2. The planning commission shall hear and decide appeals regarding any decision or
determination made by the floodplain administrator in the enforcement or
administration of this section may be appealed to the city council.
3. The variance criteria set forth in this section are based on the general principle that
variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature. A variance
may be granted for a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual
that complying with the requirements of this section would create an exceptional
hardship to the applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics
must be unique to the property and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique
characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not to the structure, its inhabitants, or
the property owners.
4. Review of Variance Requests. In passing upon requests for creek setback or flood
management- related variances, the planning commission shall consider all
technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other subsections
of this section, and t#~e:
a) Potential impacts to cultural, biological, and hydrological resources have been
biology report and a hydrogeomorphologist report.
b) Danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
c) Danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
d) Susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the existing individual owner and future owners of the
property;
e) Importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;
f) Necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
g) Availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to
flooding or erosion damage;
h) Compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
i) Relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for that area;
j) Safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
k) Expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the,
flood waters expected at the site; and
I) Costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions,
including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer,
gas, electrical, and water system, and streets and bridges.
5. Conditions for Variances.
a) Generally, variances may be issued for new construction, substantial
improvement, and other proposed new development to be erected on a lot of
one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing
structures constructed below the base flood level, providing that the procedures
of subsection D and E of this section have been fully considered. As the lot size
increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing
the variance increases.
b) Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures
upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude
the structure's continued designation as an historic structure and the variance is
the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the
structure.
c) Variances shall not be issued within any mapped regulatory floodway if any
increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
d) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the
minimum necessary considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. "Minimum
necessary" means to afford relief with a minimum of deviation from the
requirements of this section. For example, in the case of variances to elevation
requirement, this means the city need not grant permission for the applicant to
build at grade, or even to whatever elevation the applicant proposes, but only to
that elevation which the city believes will both provide relief and preserve the
integrity of the local ordinance.
e) Variances shall only be issued upon a:
i) Showing of good and sufficient cause;
ii) Determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship to the applicant; and
iii) Determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public
expense, create a nuisance cause fraud or victimization of the public, or
conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
"Hardship," as used in this subsection, means the exceptional hardship that
would result from a failure to grant the requested variance. The hardship
must be exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved.
Economic or financial hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience,
aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the
disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as an
exceptional hardship.
"Public safety and nuisance," as used in this subsection, means that the
granting of a variance must not result in anything which is injurious to safety
6.
7
or health of an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable
number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the
customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal or
basin.
"Fraud and victimization," as used in this subsection, means that the
variance granted must not cause fraud on or victimization of the public. In
examining this requirement, the city will consider the fact that every newly
constructed building adds to government responsibilities and remains a part
of the community for fifty (50) to one hundred (100) years. Buildings that are
permitted to be constructed below the base flood elevation are subject
during all those years to increased risk of damage from floods, while future
owners of the property and the community as a whole are subject to all the
costs, inconvenience, danger and suffering that those increased flood
damages bring. In addition, future owners may purchase the property,
unaware that it is subject to potential flood damage, and can be insured only
at very high flood insurance rates.
f) Variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and
other proposed new development necessary for the conduct of a functionally
dependent use provided that the provisions of subsection (F)(5)(a) through (e)
of this section are satisfied and that the structure or other development is
protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and
does not result in additional threats to public safety and does not create a public
nuisance.
g) Upon consideration of the factors of subsection (F)(4) of this section and the
purposes of this section, the planning commission may attach such conditions
to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of
this section.
Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that:
a) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level
can result in substantially increased premium rates for flood insurance, as
determined by their insurance carrier,
b) Such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and
property.
The floodplain administrator will maintain a record of all variance actions, including
justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its biennial
report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ATTACHMENT1
(Previously distributed)
DRAFT- Public Review May, 2007
t;i'1'I' Ol' t~llli.0i'O GRA~TI)1:
~i
C1i1:1:I~ R1:SOiJlIt;1's 1'll0'1'1:C'1'IO\T S'!'IJl)1'
X007
-courtesy of South County Historical Society
R.R. Holmes and wife trout fishing in the Arroyo Grande Creek early 1900's
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title & No. GPA 07-001: DCA 07-003
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: the environmental factors checked
below would be potentially affected. by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACr' or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED".
as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
o Aesthetics D Geology and Soils- . D Recreation
o Agricultural Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials DTransp6rtation/Circulation.
o Air Quality D Noise D Wastewater
o Biological Resources D Population/Housing D Water
o Cultural Resources D Public Services/Utilities D Land Use
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation, the Environmental Coordinator finds that:
[8] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be
a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
o Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Teresa McClish, Associate Planner - " \rV'- ~m r '1
Prepared by (Print) a
Rob Stron ,Communit 5: 30
Reviewed by (Print) ate
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA07-001; DCA07-003
Page 1
Proiect Environmental Analvsis
The City's environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements for completing the
Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines. The Initial Study includes staff's on-site inspection of the project site and surroundings
and a detailed review of the information in the file for the project. In addition, available background
information is reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding soil types and
characteristics, geologic information, significant vegetation and/or wildlife resources, water
availability, wastewater disposal services, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories
and other information relevant to the environmental review process are evaluated for each project.
The Community Development Department uses the checklist to summarize the results of the
research accomplished during the initial environmental review of the project.
Persons, agencies or organizations interested in obtaining more information regarding the
environmental review process for a project should contact the City of Arroyo Grande Community
Development Department at 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 or call (805) 473-
5420.
A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: The project consists of an amendment to the Conservation Element of the
City's General Plan for policies related to creek protection, and an ordinance to amend the City's
Development Code (Chapters 16.04 and 16.44 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code) to establish and
implement creek setback standards. The City currently has a requirement for an offer of dedication or
easement for the area including 25 ft. from the top of the creek bank or areas designated as
environmentally sensitive for discretionary actions. This proposal would establish development
setbacks as follows: Meadow Creek and the East Fork of Meadow Creek, 50 feet; Arroyo Grande
Creek and Tally Ho Creek 35 feet; all other creeks in the City, 25 feet. In the Village Core land use
designation, averaging of the required minimum 35 ft. setback is allowed (but under no circumstance
may any portion be less than 20 feet) by consideration of a conditional use permit and findings based
upon consideration of a phase I archeological study, a biology report and a hydrogeomorphologist
report. Any other requests in for exceptions are allowed through the variance permit process and
must also include findings based upon consideration of a phase I archeological study, a biology report
and a hydrogeomorphologist report. Development is defined as "The division or an adjustment of
parcels of land; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or
enlargement of any structure; any use, change in use or extension of use of any buildings or land, any
mining, excavation, landfill or land disturbance including any clearing or grading, or other movement
of land. For stormwater management purposes, development includes any other activity that might
change the direction, height, volume or velocity of flood or surface water, including the drainage of
wetlands and removal of vegetation to the extent such that the wetland would no longer meet the
criteria of supporting hydrophytic vegetation except that which would be considered appropriate for
management purposes".
B. EXISTING SETTING
CREEKS
Creeks within the City of Arroyo Grande include Arroyo Grande Creek and
tributaries: Meadow Creek and the East Fork of Meadow Creek; Highway 101
Tributary Creek; Canyon Way Creek; Poorman Canyon Creek; Carpenter
Canyon Creek; Tally Ho Creek; Newsom Springs Creek; Los Berros Creek; and
two unnamed creeks - in the vicinity of Grace Lane and in the vicinity of
Orchard Avenue. (See attached map)
The City is comprised of steep hillsides, valleys and alluvial plain at the base of
the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed that drains approximately 150 square
miles of land.
TOPOGRAPHY:
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 2
VEGETATION:
Riparian tree vegetation generally consists of hills, sycamores, cotton woods,
and oaks.
PROJECT SIZE:
The City includes 5.45 miles near the base of the Arroyo Grande Creek
Watershed.
c. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
During the Initial Study process, no issues were identified as having potentially significant
environmental effects (see following Initial Study).
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 3
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS - Will the project: Significant Impact can Insignificant Not
& will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Create an aesthetically incompatible D D D [8J
site open to public view?
b) Introduce a use within a scenic view D D D [8J
open to public view?
c) Change the visual character of an D D D [8J
area?
d) Create glare or night lighting that D D D [8J
may affect surrounding areas?
e) Impact unique geological or D D [8J D
physical features?
f) Other D D D D
Setting. The project includes all creeks within the City of Arroyo Grande
Impact. Policy C/OS1-1 of the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General
Plan encourages protection of visually accessible scenic resources. A 'scenic resource' is further
defined as "agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees,
woodlands, wetlands, streambeds and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment that are of a
historic nature, unique to the City, or contribute to the rural, small town character of the City."
Establishing creek setbacks may be viewed as having a beneficial impact for aesthetic resources.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Significant
- Will the project:
Impact can Insignificant Not
& will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
D [8J D
D [8J D
D [8J D
D D D
a) Convert prime agricultural land to D
non-agricultural use?
b) Impair agricultural use of other D
property or result in conversion to
other uses?
c) Conflict with existing zoning or 0
Williamson Act program?
d) Other 0
Setting. Agricultural properties abut the Arroyo Grande Creek within the City limits. Predominantly
dirt perimeter roads separate the creek from agricultural operations.
Impact. Existing agricultural operations are exempted from the development setback provisions and
therefore it is not expected that the project will promote the conversion of agricultural land or impair
agricultural uses.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 4
3. AIR QUALITY - Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Violate any state or federal ambient 0 0 0 lZl
air quality standard, or exceed air
quality emission thresholds as
established by County Air Pollution
Control District (APCD)?
b) Expose any sensitive receptor to 0 0 0 lZl
substantial air pollutant
concentrations?
c) Create or subject individuals to 0 0 0 lZl
objectionable odors?
d) Be inconsistent with the District's 0 0 0 lZl
Clean Air Plan?
e) Other 0 0 0 0
Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - mitigated
Will the project:
a) Result in a loss of unique or special 0 0 0 lZl
status species or their habitats?
b) Reduce the extent, diversity or 0 0 0 lZl
quality of native or other important
vegetation?
c) Impact wetland or riparian habitat? 0 0 0 lZl
d) Introduce barriers to movement of 0 0 0 lZl
resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species, or factors that could hinder
the normal activities of wildlife?
e) Other 0 0 0 0
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES- Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Disturb pre-historic resources? 0 0 0 lZl
b) Disturb historic resources? D D D lZl
c) Disturb paleontological resources? D D D lZl
d) Other D D D D
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 5
6. GEOLOGY AND SOilS - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Result in exposure to or production D D D rgJ
of unstable earth conditions, such
as landslides, earthquakes,
liquefaction, ground failure, land
subsidence or other similar
hazards?
b) Be within a CA Dept. of Mines & D D D rgJ
Geology Earthquake Fault Zone?
c) Result in soil erosion, topographic D D D rgJ
changes, and loss of topsoil or
unstable soil conditions from
project-related improvements, such
as vegetation removal, grading,
excavation, or fill?
d) Change rates of soil absorption, or D D D rgJ
amount or direction of surface
runoff?
e) Include structures located on D D D rgJ
expansive soils?
f) Change the drainage patterns where D D D rgJ
substantial on- or off-site
sedimentation/ erosion or flooding
may occur?
g) Involve activities within the 100-year D D D rgJ
flood zone?
h) Be inconsistent with the goals and D D D rgJ
policies of the County's Safety
Element relating to Geologic and
Seismic Hazards?
i) Preclude the future extraction of D D D rgJ
valuable mineral resources?
j) Other D D D D
7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
MATERIALS - Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Result in a risk of explosion or D D D rgJ
release of hazardous substances
(e.g. oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation) or exposure of people to
City of A"oyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 6
7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
MATERIALS - Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
hazardous substances?
b) Interfere with an emergency D D D ~
response or evacuation plan?
c) Expose people to safety risk D D D ~
associated with airport night
pattern ?
d) Increase fire hazard risk or expose D D D ~
people or structures to high fire
hazard conditions?
e) Create any other health hazard or D D D ~
potential hazard?
f) Other D D D D
8. NOISE - Will the project: Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Expose people to noise levels that D D D ~
exceed the City's Noise Element
thresholds?
b) Generate increases in the ambient D D D ~
noise levels for adjoining areas?
c) Expose people to severe noise or D D D ~
vibration?
d) Other D D D D
9. POPULATION/HOUSING - Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Induce substantial growth in an area D D D ~
either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major
infrastructure) ?
b) Displace existing housing or people, D D rgJ D
requiring construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Create the need for substantial new D D D rgJ
housing in the area?
d) Use substantial amount of fuel or D D D rgJ
energy?
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 7
8.
NOISE - Will the project:
e)
Other
Potentially
Significant
D
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
D
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
D
D
Setting. The project includes implementation of creek setbacks for development. The City is
considered approximately 80% built out with few vacant creekside parcels. Approximately 77 parcels
meet lot size requirements for second residential units.
Impact. The proposal may require redesign for development near creeks in order to prevent
development impacts on the riparian habitat, prevent erosion and sedimentation and minimize
flooding of structures. A variance application may be considered for properties with unique
characteristics that must be considered to allow reasonable use. It is not expected that the proposal
will result in a need for a significant amount of new housing, and will not displace existing housing.
10. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES -
Will the project have an effect upon,
or result in the need for new or
altered public services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Roads?
e) Solid Wastes?
g) Other
11. RECREATION - Will the project:
a) Increase the use or demand for parks
or other recreation opportunities?
b) Affect the access to trails, parks or
other recreation opportunities?
c) Other
12. TRANSPORTATION/
CIRCULATION - Will the project:
a) Increase vehicle trips to local or
areawide circulation system?
b) Reduce existing "Levels of Service"
on public roadway(s)?
Potentially
Significant
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
D
D
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
D
D
D
D
D
D
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
D
D
D
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
D
D
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
~
~
~
~
D
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
D
D
D
~
~
D
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
D
D
~
~
Page 8
Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
Significant & will be Impact Applicable
11. RECREATION - Will the project: mitigated
c) Create unsafe conditions on public D D D ~
roadways (e.g., limited access,
design features, sight distance)?
d) Provide for adequate emergency D D D ~
access?
e) Result in inadequate parking D D D ~
capacity?
f) Result in inadequate internal traffic D D D ~
circulation?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, D D D ~
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian
access, bus turnouts, bicycle racks,
etc.)?
h) Result in a change in air traffic D D D ~
patterns that may result in
substantial safety risks?
i) Other D D D D
13. WASTEWATER- Will the Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Violate waste discharge requirements D D D ~
for wastewater systems?
b) Change the quality of surface or D D D ~
ground water (e.g., nitrogen-loading,
daylighting)?
c) Adversely affect community D D D ~
wastewater service provider?
d) Other D D D D
14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
QUALITY - Will the project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
a) Violate any water quality standards? D D D ~
b) Discharge into surface waters or D D D ~
otherwise alter surface water quality
(e.g., turbidity, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, etc.)?
c) Change the quality of groundwater D D D ~
,- - __'....._4__ :_.1._.._:__ _:4_____
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004 Page 9
13. WASTEWATER- Will the Potentially Impact can Insignificant Not
project: Significant & will be Impact Applicable
mitigated
(e.g., saltwater intrusion, nitrogen-
loading, etc.)?
d) Change the quantity or movement of D D D ~
available surface or ground water?
e) Adversely affect water supply? D D D ~
f) Other D D D D
15. LAND USE - Will the project:
a) Be potentially inconsistent with land
use, policy/regulation (e.g., General
Plan, Development Code), adopted
to avoid or mitigate for
environmental effects?
b) Be potentially inconsistent with any
habitat or community conservation
plan?
c) Be potentially inconsistent with
adopted agency environmental
plans or policies with jurisdiction
over the project?
d) Be potentially incompatible with
surrounding land uses?
e) Other
Inconsistent Potentially Consistent Not
Inconsistent Applicable
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
Settingllmpact. The proposed project was reviewed for consistency with policy and/or regulatory
documents relating to the environment and appropriate land use (e.g., City's Land Use Element,
Development Code, Zoning Map, etc.). Creeks lie within residential, mixed-use, and public/quasi-
public zoning districts within the City. The General Plan includes a provision for a creek setback of 25
ft which is proposed to be amended to 25-50 ft. by this project in order to provide adequate creek
protection measures for the City and the watershed. Creek setbacks are allowed to be averaged
based upon consideration and findings based on a phase I archeological resource study, a biology
study and a hydrogeomorphology study. Similarly, conflicts with the creek setback may be addressed
through the variance process for properties with unique characteristics (e.g. small or shallow lots).
Existing agricultural operations are proposed to be exempted.
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 10
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE - Will the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact can
& will be
mitigated
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
D
D
D
~
b)
Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
D D
D
~
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
D
D
D
~
d) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? D D D ~
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA06-001; DCA06-001; TPM 06-004
Page 11
Exhibit A - Initial Study References
The following reference materials have been used in the environmental review for the proposed
project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The following information is
available at the City Community Development Department.
SOURCE LIST:
1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan (October 2001)
2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map (October 2001)
3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Program EIR (October 2001)
7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. Ordinance No. 521 (Amending Title 10, Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code regarding the
Community Tree Program)
10. Ordinance No. 550 (Amending Title 16 of the Municipal Code to incorporate regulations and
amending the Zoning Map to create an Agricultural Preservation Overlay District)
11. San Diego Council of Governments - Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates
12. City of Arroyo Grande 2003 Report on Agricultural Resources
13. Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment 89-2; Planned Development Rezone
89-215 (Vista Del Mar) December 1990.
14. Creek Resources Protection Study, May 2007.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Map of Creeks in the City of Arroyo Grande
City of Arroyo Grande, Initial Study for GPA 07-001; DCA 07-003
Page 12
ATTACHMENT3
S, ven Puglisi
ARCHITECTURE
June 4, 2007
Teresa McClish, Associate Planner
City of Arroyo Grande
IZEGEIV
JUN U 5 c0U7
COf'e~ii'~3Uili~'( '~c'iL-.+_(:iP7ib?ENT
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE FOR CREEK SETBACK ORDINANCE
Dear Teresa,
Thank you for meeting with me last week to discuss the Preliminary Alternative for
Creek Setback ordinance. I understand that this item is scheduled for consideration at
the June 5 Planning Commission meeting. Prior commitments prevent me from
attending in person.
I have read the document and, As Architect for the J. J.'s market site, I am greatly
concerned. As the ordinance is written, we will be required to provide a creek setback
of 35 feet from the edge of the riparian habitat. At the extreme, the riparian habitat on
this site encroaches 80 feet from the top of bank. Adding a 35 foot setback to that
measurement would result in an environmental /recreation setback requirement of up
to 115 feet in width.
The loss of this amount of developable area would adversely affect our site planning
efforts for this property. We have planned fora 15 foot setback as appropriate for
pedestrian access and, in our judgement, anything more is unnecessary, arbitrary and a
taking of private property.
I am also including comments from North Coast Engineering for your consideration.
Respectfully, ~)
Cif-,
Steven Puglisi
Steven Puglisi ARCHITECTURE
cc Loughead, NCE
583 Dana Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone 805.595.1964 fax 805.595.1980 mobile 805.886-8795 spuglisi~charter.net
~ NORTH COAST
Civil Engineering
Surveying • Project Development
May 29,.2007
Mr. Steve Puglisi
Steven Puglisi Architecture
583 Dana Street.
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Subject: Review of City of,Arroyo Grande Creek Setback Ordinance
Loughead/Scolari Project
Dear Steve:
As requested, I have reviewed the City's proposed "Preliminary Alternative for
Creek Setback Ordinance" dated May 15,.2007 with respect to its impacts on the
Richard Loughead/Scolari project. The following-are our comments enumerated
consistent with the preliminary document under Section 16.44.050:
B.S. This section refers to regulating "incremental floodway constriction".
Several portions of the document refer to "floodway" in a manner not
consistent with the regulatory floodway as defined by FEMA and as
further defined in the City's Flood Insurance Study. Generally, there.
is no encroachment allowed into the regulatory floodway. This is
better explained and described by referring to pages 11 and 15 of the
City's 1984 Flood Insurance Study, which I have enclosed for
reference.
C.1.a. The section requires development to be setback:from the top of bank
of the creek or edge of riparian habitat. The language states that "top
of bank shall mean the highest elevation of land which confines the
flow of water to the channel (i,e., floodway)". As referenced above,
and per Page 15 of the Flood Insurance Study, the floodway and the
top of bank are not the same. The floodway extends beyond the top
of bank into the 100-year flood plain, and'is not defined by the.
physical characteristic of the stream channel. The word "floodway"
should be removed from this section.
R:\PRO)\06130\Document\I'uglisi.Itr.6.25:07.docx
725 Creston Road, Suite B Paso Robles CA 93446 (805) 239-3127 FAX (805) 239-0758
Mr. Steve Puglisi
May 29, .2007
Page Two
C.1.a.i. Thesetback requirementfor Tally Ho Creek is specified as a
minimum of 35 feet which "may be averaged but under no
circumstance shall any portion be less than 20 feet."
Strict application of this requirement may be.problematic for.your
property and others. On your property, for instance, there are-areas
where the riparian vegetation extends up to 80 feet outside the top of
bank of the creek. Applying an additional 35 foot setback to this
would yield a creek setback of approximately'115leet. I would
suggest that the City consider revising this section that where the
existing riparian vegetation exceeds 35 feet from the top of bank, that
the minimum setback is reduced to 20 feetsuch that the overall
setback is not so extreme..
Based omour topographic mapping for your project,l have measured
the setback to the existing riparian vegetation based on the
preliminary site plan. The creek setback ordinance does not specify
how the average setback is determined, which would be helpful, but t
have approximated average setbacks for each individual building.
Based on these initial measurements, the average setback to the
existing riparian. vegetation is 39 feet. The minimum 20 foot setback
requirement is met in all circumstances,with the exception of the
elevated walkway at the east end of the commercial building, where
the setback is only 16 feet. I am enclosing a copy of'these initial
measurements for your review.
E.1 This section prohibits fill within the 100-year flood plain unless
appropriate mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with
CEQUA and the City's CEQUA guidelines. I am presuming that,this is
simply a statement of normal environmental review for fill of this
nature, given that the City's .flood insurance study allows
..encroachment (fill] within the 100-year flood plain up to the limits of
the floodway. Subsection A of this section requires an allowance for a
five foot "border area which shall have a size slip of 4'to 1 or flatter
when known nati"ve riparian landscaping orerosion control can be.
provided". It would 6e helpful Yo have a graphic of this requirement;
as it is not clear what is intended,
R:NROJ\06130\Document\Puglisi 1tr.5.25:07.docz
Mr. Steve Puglisi
May 29, 2007
Page Three
This concludes our review of the draft ordinance. Please feel firee to contact me
after you've had a chance to reviewthis information.
Sincerely,.
Steven ylves er, P.E.
President
S)S/jms
cc:. Richard Loughead
.Enclosures
R:\PROp06130\Documen[V'ugl isiJB.5.25:07.docz
FCZ-c~M G.:tiTy `S l G: c8 ~" ~t..vUD .l/~I.SU ~~S.NG~r~'1"t~ C?Y
gain from flood plain development against the .resulting increase
in .flood hazard. For purposes. of the National Flood Insurance
.Program, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities
in this aspect of flood plain management. Under this concept;
'the area of the 100-year flood plain -is divided into a floodway
and a fioodway fringe.. The floodway is the channel of a stream,
substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum Federal standards
limit such increases to 1:0 foot, provided. that hazardous velocities
are not produced. The floodways in this study are presented to
local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly
or that can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies.
The floodways presented in this study were computed on the basis
of equal-conveyance reduction from each side of the. flood plain.
The results of these computations are tabulated at selected cross
sections for each stream segment for which a floodway is computed
As shown oh the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map {Exhibit 2), the
floodway:boundaries were computed at cross sections. Between
cross sections; the boundaries were interpolated. In cases where
the floodway and 100-year flood plain boundaries are either close
together or collinear, only the floodway boundary has been shown.
For Los Berros Creek and North Fork Los Berros Creek, a floodway
determination is not appropriate. Therefore, no floodway has.
been computed for these:stieams.
the
between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their
to flood plain development are. shown in. Figure 2,
11
iC0•Y EAR FLOOD PLAIN
F LOODWAY
FLOODWAY FLOODWAY
FRINGE _ FRINGE
STREAM
CHANNEL
M
(t1
FLOOD ELEVATION WHEN LL
CONFINED WITHIN,FL000WAY Q
ENCROACHMENT ~ ~ ENCROACHMENT
'
v
v
v
~ • '
:
i
::fv n'Li.J•
"l.
.'. +'+
"q.4+}•
~~ ~ ~ ~
`
~
~~
~~ SUrCHARDE
~ ~ i~b •.:'
,~y B
A
'yii
r
~i'i~i
•'
AREA OF FLOOD PLAIN THAT COULO ~~ fLOOD ELEVATION
OE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT BY OEFORE ENCROACHMENT
RAISING GROUND ON FL000 PLAIN
~LINE.AB IS THE FL000 ELEVATION BEFORE ENCROACHMENT.
LINE CD IS THE FL000 ELEVATION AFTER ENCROACHMENT.
•SURCHARGEiS NOT TOEXCEED 1,0F00T IFEMA REQUIREMENT) OR LESSER AMOUNT IF SPECIFIED BY STATE.
Figure 2
5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION
Floodway Schematic
Ta establish actuarial insurance rates, data from the engineering .study
must be transformed into flood Insurance criteria. This process inclddes
the determination of reaches, Flood Hazard Factors, and flood insurance
.zone designations foreachflooding source studied in detail affecting
the City of ArroyoGrande.
5.1 Reach Determinations
Reaches are defined as sections of flood plain that have relatively
the same flood hazard, based on the ave;age. weighted difference
in water-surface elevations between the 10- and 100-year floods.
This differehce may not have a variation greater 'than that indicated
in the following table for more than 20 percent. of the reach:
Average Difference Between
10- and 100-Year Floods
Legs than 2 feet
2 to 7 feet
7.1 to 12 feet
` More than 12 feet
-Variation
0.5 foot
1.0 .foot
2.0 feet
3.0 feet
15
w(iNp rSSVri _. - _- 1 ti I ~+ r r ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ !
Ir`~ "` `v -` ' / LE POINT STREET
IV ~~,vvJI[1 T8Y' 9Y 0 I 5 .5 L ~ ( ~ ~f5.
w(n. As.lA..1v'v 0sv 1! :~/ ara.. t° 4WC '.. w-,g .5., r1_7gNE ~'R4' very AL \yy~
I{ na r v '` ._ '- ~ -_ s _ ,-4.13.'
I ( _ I 4 I ~ i r~ ~ IFne. A.fl. IlI r.;lr / , ', ;(
,/ rr I 1
,1 6 F
1 ~~ ~ ~ 1 - J/f l% S~Il T I / ~ / l__
I LI ~ I `~y'i, I Y f ,y/ I I 111, ( lau- j
I I~ ~i ate.->Y~~~ I iic ..>< }.I )~ ~/ _. Ilr i
I ~1'~:p~~- '~s'r'P.u'~'S1; 1~`~~`'k S~Q.~i ~~}s~~~zA i~ I tltll~l't` iv I
~II +w _ 1 Yi f. ~ _ er. r
~§ :, ~~ I 41 l~tA `f ~~~ ~l7 i if i
ire j ~a~raw ~I%,ux ~~ `"a. 4~*" Ilf ~' ,,j L Iv' ^~y~,~r~y i II/¢t rl
~ ~/~C
I II . / !' IXI^ 0 FHN .I g 'Y .551C P G { ~p W[µl'P~-•1 ••
D , --~..~ ,~..,.~ ~ 1 ,: ,.,~,TC .:-,n -, ~ 1 r, L ,. ; U•FlICA(MNS~
i
Ar' I ~/ I f.P / IC [UGIMNS I' I rt ~ ^3 A!' / I I ~ r%1!{riNG IIV4Mtt1
O ; PNI-1rAR DEt~ 5T aAxeoe rc r rl , r i f r.¢ `a"Y ~1 ~ . ~ ~, i t .; i _
i /
~Z gl Mr G l16 ~/ /!~ ~~{"P ~~~ ~ ~l ` Fi
C
I ~ T ~ vi~~ /~ ~ t Y /~1 ~ ~~ r \sDPRObNAtt i
'~'I ~~~I»-y,. e axc ::_ J( 1 i ~~ b~ / 1 ~ v~ ; ~ nvaeµx i
I ~Y fs
'.~ .4 C `' J. Y f R gel:: ! /~ r .(!i f
1 ~ F a u~~u~y~y ,ir ~v ~ - gx5~- /~ ~U
~ II. > V/ lL~ rSr`n~'~~ttMi~l•(^'b i r 1 xT ~ i I V ~I Q~ I
~ ~ i I V I
_. ~ ar+ ~ ~r ~~ ~, , 1~ ~~ . ~f1, . ~ . i
~~ ~I~O'~(rl XYLt.,~?xs~Y~,~,~y~.9ff"`'Sd~t ,... / _r.y 1 ~ /I .i 1 / ~
11„ 1 F~ i ktiy'SFY ~'I'iN,~#tt+[h~"r'I y4i L dal ( i ~ j O' 1
} '~~~ t~ ~ ~ ~{•1 I 2 ~ I
4 r r ar s N >, 112' _ 'p I
I~ ~i 1~ Ikl'~zd~-~v~~'~~~~tt~,~t~~ti~ I L J.a~k a~~ I~1 I O
Ep ~ u ~ e` 71` rR ~'I ~ ' r 4 we nnusNVxf A D
I ~+ .el q r~s~ 4 I auv ~r carma i pl
i I ~~ 3 gi 4 r~. ti rl~ 111s; z ~ I 1 lwnnNr. -i i D
I ~ti h f t 1a ... s- X4A3-1-,,C„ m- 1 I a J
-~t L A• r ~~' .4Sv` uY ~~m£. C r l t X5 ~ 3 I 1 O J
I AA JY~-` (5,y,{ ~ A ~ I
I ~ tX4 1 ~~.{ YI / ~ I \Tt Yr }}cl iv`l \! 1 1 O ~ 'I O. W M`J~Y
I I ~ ~.. ..~ $ AgLk .v Lf s ~ ~1 ~I j 1. ~ I wut: f-wi -2o'
r s A J+ i ~`
I , ~ ~" ~" ~A ~~+::+r S~i;r.a~E ~ ~ rr ~F7~ ~ 1 'CONCEPT 2.
I rya .(yJAa.,~,XJ '~.ii 'J ~ ~I.
I A ~ ~
` ~ ~ ~ I 4/16!07
.. I
SY11 RN 111.'
~rviv >[Y ;11 ~t '/ ~ I' ~ x ~/ .,I ~ •, '1F ; i i eMSmt OUIIMY; I.
--
iM'(M1r Bfl f. 1~
(qV )S 1)' S - IN I
____ // /~ /!/ i ~~ / Jl lf~` _________
Nprnt h%[ ~R - _
j -;
la.% I--i.~„p -1. rY v -oil.°,}~ ~~` fi ~uL ^.w .. -~t.~.. .. ~•sA~2't Sy V. ` •r~9. .. -s 'ar .._ .^ :~ M(ra. .np.~jVw
CY I1 ` GNAT Plkf ~ CAPi " I `MIG I 2N ~' pVIC 2t
SGNA( JLr 4 V I)M .BI'
~:
•4 xWIPL II<.f$ ` r-A/:T ri'a A~~r~~ ~r
-Jun O5 07 03:24p RWQCH Central Coast 805 543 0397
-~~ ~ California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Coast Re~iolu
Lintla 5. Adams
Secretary Por
Environmental
vrotecnan
June 5, 2007
p.l
m~cwa nuu`css: uup.invww.wawnroarus.ca.gvv~cenua~wusl Arnold SChwarzenC,gge
8')5 Aermista 1'Incc Sulk IUI, Snn Luis Obispo, CA 9340!-7906 Gove+nor
Phnne (805) 549-3147 • FAX (803} 543.0397
Post-it° Fax Note 7671 ~~ ~ r3~ Pa7ee - ^4
Tu~.P- tSa (,(.~ From e.,r.-..,
Co./D6pt. Go-
ahone tt Phone N 7 ~2 -W ~' ~i p
7
Fex C Fax H
Ms. Caren Ray
-Chair, City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
clo Community Development Department
P.O: Box 550
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
SUBJECT: CENTRAL COAST WATER BOARD COMMENTS ON DRAFT CREEK
" °' PROTECTION STUDY AND PROPOSED CREEK SETBACK REQUIREMI_NTS
Ms. Ray:
Cents! Coast Water Board staff has completed an initial review of the C~ of Arrovo
Grande Creek Resource ion Studv. Draft- Public Review May, 2007. We wish
to acknowledge City of Arroyo Grande staffs impressive effo(t in prepar,~,q,th~.report
~~.-.-' ' and to express our support for the City's adoption of recommendations in the report.
With this study, City staff have provided a strong basis far developing more specific
policies,and regulations to maintain healthy functioning watersheds in Arro~lo Grande.
The Study recommends that the City implement the following:
1. Amend General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element to manage the natural
flow of creeks, provide protection of the riparian ecosystem, public healt ~, and
structures.
2. Amend the Development Code (Municipal Code, Title 16) to establish craek setback
standards. It is recommended that Alternative A-1 (minimum development setbacks)
be implemented prior to expiration of the City's creekside development moratorium.
Subsequent consideration may include revisions and/or Alternative A-2, Creek
Overlay District.
3. Establish a work program for the implementation of Conservation/Open Space
Zoning consistent with the General Plan and development of a landscape
"^ •-t`:: conservation ordinance. ~...
4. Approve Riparian Landscape Guidelines as an information source for property
owners and as guidance to City staff and the Architectural Review Committee for
review of discretionary projects near creeks.
Calffurnla Envlrrrrtmer:tall'rotertion Agency
Xuc7rled Paper
;Jiin~ OS 07 03:24p °- RWQCBara~l--.coast 805 543 0397
:>wH,.
........sr,,,,,.
:r~s' j
Caren Ray - 2 - June 5, 2007
5. Develop Citywide site design guidelines including considerations for both stormwater
and`water conservation.
6. Amend the Drainage Master Plan in Accordance with Section 5.3.2 abova.
7. Pursue implementation of the MOU that provides for a watershed steering committee
comprised of regulators and stakeholders to communicate issues in the `Natershed,
prioritize and coordinate projects, and pursue grant funding.
8. Fund and implement the Priority Projects identified in Chapter 2.
With regards to recommendation 2, Water Board staff supports the adopticn of
Alternative A-2, the Creek Overlay District, which extends greater protection to aquatic
environments than Alternative A-1.
Alternative A-2, in summary, includes:
A management buffer area of 100 ft. from top of bank (overlay district)
Minimum Development Setback of 25 ft for minor creeks; 35 ft. for cracks with
steep slopes or wider floodplains; 50 ft. for Meadow Creek.
Development Setback of 2X depth of creek bank plus 20 ff. if over, 7. i.ft. bank
depth.
Allowed uses and permit requirements specified for riparian corridor/>etback area
and areas outside setback
P•? _..
in contrast, ARemative A-1 provides:
Minimum Development Setback range' 50 ft. for Meadow Creek; 35 for Tally HO
and Arroyo Grande Creeks; and 25 far other creeks
Buffers can be averaged in the Village districts to a minimum of 20 f:et.
( ) str:ams is riot
Research indicates that a fixed setback buffer distance for ally . ~ ~„~~~~~~
appropriate. 'The buffer distance needed to protect water quality and Habitat varies
considerably with field conditions. For example, slope, stream width, flow regime,
vegetation type, etc., all play a role in the determination of the correct buffer width. This
condition is addressed in part by Alternative A-2, which bases the develop Went setback
on slopes, floodplain width, and depth of bank. However, if a fixed buffer iistance is to
be used, research indicates that a 10-20 meter (32-65 feet) buffer on each side of the
water course be used to protect stream temperature, with wildlife needing considerably
wider buffers: Therefore, Water Board staff does not support the Alternative A-1 20- _
foot setback averaged in the Village districts, but would support the 25 foot buffer fore ~~~~"
these water bodies. Any setback less than 35 feet needs to be supported by site
characterization to demonstrate its adequacy.
Water Board staff recommends incorporating a map in the proposed Ordinance that
-°° `ciearly.defines ali watercourses to: which„the ordinance applies. Providincl such a map
initially would provide clarity for all stakeholders and facilitate staff review for
compliance with setback requirements. The current map appears to include only blue-
California Environmental PratactBOn Agency
.. . ,.... .__ ~ p.~RerycledPaper
Jurl~II5,..07 03:24p RWQCB Central Coast 805 543 0397 p,~
Caren Ray - 3 - June 5, 2007
line streams, which, as noted in the Study, do not include all ecologically or
hydrologically important waterbodies.
Water Board staff also encourages the City to provide adequate Protection for
watercourses currently in culverts And irndPrground drains. The Study recognizes the
" need for setback requirements in culverted watercourses, due to safety hazard and
access for emergencies and maintenance. Another important advantage cf maintaining
setbacks at culverts is that setbacks preserve options for potential fuluie restoration
and "daylighting" of creeks. Yet another potential advantage is that propel ty values are
typically enhanced by the amenity of stream environments.
Water Board staff commend the City for developing a sound basis for continued
""' " - development of policies for creek protection. We encourage the City Council to direct
City staff to continue developing the recommendations in the Study and we look
forward to working with staff toward that end. We do recognize thf: urgency of
establishing an interim creek protection ordinance and understand City staffs'
recommendation of Alternative A-1. However, should Altemative A-1 be selected, the
Water Board' could only support it as an interim measure. We support A ternativP A-2
as the most appropriate strategy to protect aquatic resources in the City of Arroyo
Grande.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Dominic Rociues at~8051
54211780 or send email to drogues(a~waterboards.ra.gov.
Sincerely,
.....
-~'oger W. Briggs ,
Executive Officer
ce: Teresa McClish, Associate Planner, City of Arroyo Grande
Tony M. Ferrar, Mayor, City of Arroyo Grande
Ed Arnold, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Arroyo Grande
Joe Costello, Council/Board Member, City of Arroyo Grande
Jiro Guthrie, Council/ Board Member, City of Arroyo Grande
Chuck Fellows, CouncillBoard Member, City of Arroyo Grande
S:1Section 401 CertificationW01 Programloutreach-Policy\AG Creek Ordinance Ltr.doc
California Environrxental Protection Agency
Reryeled Parxr ~ ~ ,. ,"
Comments by Bill Kapp, 617 Woodland Drive
Planning Commission Meeting, Jwte 5, 2007
General Plan Amendment Number 7-001 and Development Code Amendment Case Nmnber 07-003
Having read the staff review, I am overwhelmed by the depth and magnitude of the material this study
encompasses.
The goals are wide reaching and in many cases conflicting.
We want to assure the creek is capable of conveying runoff, minimize erosion, decrease silting, provide for
recreational activities such as nature trails and bike paths, remove non native growth, restore native
vegetation, acquire riparian corcidor, anticipate the effects of global climate change and maintain this with
volunteer labor or require homeowners to dedicate easements that they will restore and/or maintain.
Concurcently we wan[ to preserve [he property rights of [he owners.
As Woodland Drive has a high percentage of older homes, it is anticipated that many of them will need
improvements that will require permits which in [urn will bring this ordinance into play.
It is also intended to come into play if any granny units are applied for.
I noted in the paper last night thata 450 sq ft granny unit in SLO that is not in a creek area will cost the
owner about $100,000 plus $20,000 fees, and still be required to meet 37 development conditions. The
total cos[ for this "'affordable housing" on "free land" will be $250 a sq R. One could only wonder what a
similar improvement would cost if it would even be permitted on Woodland Drive here in Arcoyo Grande.
I see references to engineers. hvdroloeists, cultural resource surveys, permits from Corp of Engineers and
fish and game.
I note the staff report is sensitive to backyard lighting that might disturb the natural habitat. On last nights
news I heard about the mountain lions in [he creek bed above James Way. Several pets on Woodland Drive
have been killed or maimed by coyotes or other carnivores hunting in the creek. We do have a tendency to
light up the backyard when letting the pets out at night.
fhe nature trail might also come into conflict with the natural habitat.
I note that the city anticipates volunteer labor to remove non native vegetation as there might not be
adeyuate revenue to accomplish this goal . I would remind you that most of the homeowners are in the same
position. In the 80's the city had attempted to exact creek easements as a condition to construct such
structures as the one that houses McLintocks. At that time the council abandoned their effort to avoid
incun-ing liability for not only creek maintenance but public safety.
1 have lived on Woodland Dr for over 30 years. Prior to that, Non native Ivy was firmly established. It
would appear that it does sense the purpose of preventing bank erosion. Its removal might result in
unintended consequences. 'fhe only bank erosion I am aware of occurred when the city's drain outfall
failed and took rnrt about I ~ feet of my neighburs property. The city contractor repairing [he ou[fall funded
by F EMA tied it into an existing wall on my property. Since then, the creek bed has dropped about 5-6 feet
. but there is no indication my property is in danger. l'Ite creek has a pretty straight run upstream of my
property line and is wide enough to allow com~eyance of the harshest storms. Only an obstruction divenim~
the channel would be of concern, and of course in that case, no one can anticipate what the new stream beds
location would ultimately be.
I note ;oo a concern with "riparian tree coverage" to cool the water I have probably the largest section of
creek on Woodland Dr downstream of Fred Grieb bridge. Both sides of the creek are clear of trees and are
snowed on a regular basis. This same desired tree coverage is a potential threat to stream diversion when
they fall as a result of high winds ,saturated soils and erosion by the creek..
The 1984 map shown in figure 4 would indicate that my entire lot is in the flood zone that would require
FEMA National Flood Insurance Act criteria. This is not the case ,current records indicate otherwise and I
am not so required.
The danger that 1 perceive in the Woodland Dr area is the result that "gullying' is having on the stream
bed.
I note that the Fred Grieb Bridge plans indicate a total of Eft 9 inches between the tap concrete lip and the
bottom of the support pilings driven into the creek below the slope protection. The scouring effect of the
water action has by my measurement already cut between 4 to 6 feet of soil at the toe of concrete slope
protecting the westerly bridge abutment. The concrete protecting the bank supporting the easterly abutment
is also eroded, but not as severe. A failure of the support for the concrete slope protection may not result in
immediate bridge failure, but a slippage of a concrete mass of this size would absolutely result in flow
diversion.
We have conflicts with:
• Water conservation vs. irrigation
• Bank stabalization vs. ivy
• Setbacks and bike trails vs. private property and privacy rights
• Maintenance and management vs. pennit requirements
• Tree coveraee vs. flow diversions
• Costs vs. funding availability (f'or public as well as private improvements and maintenance)
• Urban sprawl vs. land for infill (and development of granny units)
• Lighting issues vs. safety of residents and their pets
The incentive program offered seems inadequate to encourage participation. It would seem more likely to
discourage owners front making improvements (degrading of existing housing stock), or promote
unpennitted construction resulting in confrontations between City government and residents.
In conclusion, though 1 admire the scope, depth and tremendous effort expended to bring this study
I'onvard, I think we are biting off too big a chunk.
I believe the community would be better served and these conflicts resolved if the work would be broken
down into its various elements.
The City should focus on three separate work groups to
• address flood control, erosion ,silting and bank stabilization;
• acquiring con~idor for recreation ,nature hails and bike paths; and
• revision to specifications for cranny units, and creek side development.
11.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ANGELA KRAETSCH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FY 2007-08/ FY 2008-09 BI-ANNUAL BUDGET
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council: 1) adopt the attached resolution approving the FY
2007-08/ FY 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget; and 2) approve the proposed changes to the
City's Fiscal Policies.
FUNDING:
All City funds, as proposed, are balanced. The Citywide total recommended budget for
FY 2007-08 is $24,632,260 and $25,255,158 for FY 2008-09. The total proposed
'General Fund budget (without transfers) is $14,295,218 for FY 2007-08 and
$14,728,090 for FY 2008-09.
DISCUSSION:
At the May 29, 2007 Public Workshop, staff presented the Preliminary Bi-Annual City
Budget for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09. No changes were requested at that time.
Staff was directed to determine if sufficient funding was budgeted for City Council
participation in the League of California Cities activities. As a result, $5,000 was added.
The City Council also expressed concerns regarding the proposed General Fund
~Reseroe Fiscal Policy change from 20% to 15%. In response to the discussion, staff
has modified the proposed policy to be a goal of 20%, but minimum of 15%. The Long-
Range Financial Plan will also be modified to indicate a line item for minimum reserves
and a line item referring to the reserve goal.
Budgets for all funds are incorporated into the document. The proposed budget is
balanced, will continue to fund the high quality of services provided to the community,
and will invest in the future through capital improvements and maintenance activities.
-The budget recommendations incorporate a balanced and responsible approach to
meeting the City's short and long-term needs in a cost effective manner. The Bi-Annual
City Budget is an important document because it serves as staffs recommendation, and
CITY COUNCIL
FY 2007-08/ FY 2008-09 BI-ANNUAL BUDGET
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 2
ultimately Council's direction, for the work program for the upcoming two-year period. It
also represents the collective recommendation of the executive team.
The Bi-Annual Budget was developed by incorporating budget goals and priorities
recommended by staff and approved by City Council prior to the beginning of the
budget process. These priorities were used as the basis for evaluating requests and
developing recommendations. All budget priorities established have been addressed in
the budget recommendations.
The most significant change in this year's budget results from the approval of Measure
0-06, which established ahalf-cent local sales tax. As a result, the Bi-Annual Budget is
not only balanced, but is the first to include long-range financial projections that fully
fund critical forecasted needs. Revenue from the local sales tax measure will now
enable the City to dedicate funding to address four categories of important needs
identified through the City's long-range financial planning process. The local sales tax
measure was designed primarily to invest in a long list of capital needs that have
_accumulated due to financial challenges faced by the City over the past several years.
Staff is committed to utilizing the new sales tax revenues for the purposes that were
outlined in the advisory measures also on the November 2006 ballot. The results of
these measures were used in prioritizing the proposed expenditures.
As a result, the recommended budget includes a substantial investment in
transportation, street, drainage, creek, street tree, and public safety facility and
equipment improvements. Highlights include design of the Brisco-Halcyon Interchange
project; resurfacing of Brisco Road, Farroll Avenue, E. Grand Avenue, and EI Camino
..Real; Newsom Springs and Valley Road drainage improvements; an increase in street,
sidewalk and street tree maintenance; creek preservation projects; upgrade of Fire
Department staffing; fire engine purchase; and expansion of the Police Station.
The Budget also includes an update to the City's Long-Range Financial Plan, which
represents the City's continued commitment to planning long-term to meet future needs.
The purpose of the Long-Range Financial Plan is to serve as a financial planning tool to
address funding needs over a 10-year period rather than only on an annual or bi-annual
basis. This better enables the City Council and staff to view the long-range financial
-implications of decisions before they are made, to identify future needs and how to
address them through long-term strategies, and to better adjust to fluctuations in the
economy. The long-range financial plan forecasts that revenues will be sufficient to
meet important needs over the next 10-year period, although sluggish sales tax growth,
rising personnel costs due to the high cost of housing and medical benefits, and
reduced building permit revenue from slowing construction activity are all identified as
concerns important to monitor.
CITY COUNCIL
FY 2007-08/ FY 2008-09 BI-ANNUAL BUDGET
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 3
The following corrections and/or adjustments are made to the Bi-Annual Budget
"recommended for final approval:
• In the Capital Improvement Program, the E. Grand Avenue Utility Pole
Relocation (Applebee's Restaurant) project was listed twice. One has been
eliminated, which will result in an additional $75,000 to the Redevelopment Fund
Balance.
• The projected Sewer Fund revenue in the Preliminary Bi-Annual Budget did not
include a 6% rate increase for FY 07-08 or 3% penalty revenue for FY 2008-09.
This adjustment has increased revenue by $46,000 in FY 07-08 and $39,900 in
FY 08-09.
• The preliminary budget did not include the 3rd quarter budget adjustments in the
amended budget line or the estimated expenditures. Therefore, the beginning
fund balance number for FY 2007-08 has changed for the final budget.
• The part-time salary number was increased in both the Sewer and Water Funds
- by $4,000 each year due to not including all part-time employees in the
preliminary budget calculation.
• The City received a revised estimate from Zone 3 for the Lopez charge for FY
2008-09, which was overstated in the Preliminary Budget by $29,000.
• The Preliminary Budget included the $25,000 revenue estimated in each of the
two years from the proposed PG&E lease of the 5-acre City parcel on W. Branch
Street for temporary parking. At City Council direction, staff is meeting with
PG&E to develop an alternative proposal. However, overall revenue has been
decreased by $50,000 until an agreement can be reached.
• Funding for consultant services was not included in the Redevelopment Housing
Set-Aside Fund. This has been increased by $25,000.
• The City Council Travel account was increased by $5,000.
„The following changes and additions are proposed to the City's Fiscal Policies:
• Maintain a minimum Fund Balance reserve of 15% of expenditures in the
General Fund and an ongoing goal of 20%.
• Pre-fund employee retirement medical benefit costs.
CITY COUNCIL
FY 2007-08/ FY 2008-09 BI-ANNUAL BUDGET
JUNE 12, 2007
PAGE 4
As the Budget Workshop, there was also Council discussion regarding timing of
sidewalk improvements at Tally Ho Road, potential financial assistance for the South
County Historical Society, and how the Vehicle Replacement Fund will be structured. It
was agreed that staff would provide evaluation criteria and an analysis of alternative
•sidewalk improvement projects when ready to begin implementation. With regard to the
Historical Society, it was agreed that they would be approached to suggest forming
alternate membership levels. This would enable the City to increase the membership
payment without setting a precedent as a "contribution" to a community organization.
Lastly, it was agreed to present recommendations regarding the structure of the Vehicle
Replacement Fund to the City Council for consideration.
Primary public input involved recommended funding for lights at Don Roberts Field at
the Soto Sports Complex. Staff has met with neighbors and are working on ways to
"address their concerns in designing the lighting improvements, which will be presented
to City Council for consideration when the project is ready to proceed.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Adopt resolution approving FY 2007-08/FY 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget and
approve the proposed new Financial Policies;
- - Modify and approve FY 2007-08/ FY 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget;
- Do not approve FY 2007-08/ FY 2008-09 Bi-Annual Budget;
- Provide direction to staff.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING FISCAL YEARS 2007-08 &
2008-09 BI-ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AMOUNT BUDGETED
WHEREAS, a proposed Bi-Annual Budget for the City of Arroyo Grande for the Fiscal
Years commencing July 1, 2007 and ending June 30, 2008 and commencing July 1, 2008
and ending June 30, 2009 was submitted to the City Council and is on file with the Director
of Administrative Services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also serves as the Redevelopment Agency Board of
Directors; and
WHEREAS, by adopting this budget the Agency finds that the planning and administrative
expenses charged to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund are necessary for the
production, improvement, or preservation of low- and moderate-income housing. H&S
Code 33334.3(d); and
WHEREAS, proceedings for adoption of said Budget have been duly taken; and
WHEREAS, staff made certain revisions, corrections, and modifications as reflected in the
June 12, 2007 staff report; and
WHEREAS, the total budget for FY 2007-08 is $24,632,260 and $25,255,158 for FY 2008-
09.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Budget, as amended, is adopted as the Bi-Annual Budget for the City of
Arroyo Grande for the Fiscal Years commencing July 1, 2007 and ending June 30, 2008
and commencing July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009.
SECTION 2. At the close of each Fiscal Year, unexpended appropriations in the Operating
Budget will be carried forward to the next fiscal year as necessary to underwrite the
expense of outstanding purchase commitments. Unexpended appropriations for
authorized, but uncompleted projects as approved by the City Council, may be carried
forward to the next succeeding Budget upon recommendation by the Financial Services
Director and approval of the City Manager.
On motion of Council Member ,seconded by Council Member ,and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
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